18Septemberсентября · 18-е сентября
Сущность жизни не в теле, а в сознании.
The essence of life is not in the body, but in consciousness.
1. Несомненно справедливо, что если бы у меня не было костей и мускулов и других подобных вещей, то я не мог бы делать того, что я считаю справедливым; но было бы совершенно неверно утверждать, что причина того, что я делаю, есть кости и мускулы, а не любовь к благу. Говорить так значит не уметь различать причину от того, что неразрывно связано с причиной. Большинство же людей, идущих ощупью, как в потемках, делают это и называют причиной то, что только сопутствует причине.
1. It is undoubtedly true that if I had no bones and muscles and other such things, I could not do what I consider right; but it would be quite wrong to assert that the cause of what I do is bones and muscles, and not the love of the good. To speak so is not to know how to distinguish the cause from what is inseparably bound up with the cause. Yet most people, groping as if in the dark, do just this, and give the name of cause to what only accompanies the cause.
From Plato, Phaedo · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changed“The choice of the best” becomes “the love of the good,” and doing what I resolve (Jowett: “execute my purposes”) becomes doing “what I consider right”; “a very careless and idle mode of speaking” becomes “quite wrong to assert,” and the condition becomes “what is inseparably bound up with the cause.”
Original · Ancient Greek… εἰ δέ τις λέγοι ὅτι ἄνευ τοῦ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχειν καὶ ὀστᾶ καὶ νεῦρα καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἔχω οὐκ ἂν οἷός τ’ ἦ ποιεῖν τὰ δόξαντά μοι, ἀληθῆ ἂν λέγοι·
… ὡς μέντοι διὰ ταῦτα ποιῶ ἃ ποιῶ, καὶ ταῦτα νῷ πράττων, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῇ τοῦ βελτίστου αἱρέσει, πολλὴ ἂν καὶ μακρὰ ῥᾳθυμία εἴη τοῦ λόγου.
… τὸ γὰρ μὴ διελέσθαι οἷόν τ’ εἶναι ὅτι ἄλλο μέν τί ἐστι τὸ αἴτιον τῷ ὄντι, ἄλλο δὲ ἐκεῖνο ἄνευ οὗ τὸ αἴτιον οὐκ ἄν ποτ’ εἴη αἴτιον· ὃ δή μοι φαίνονται ψηλαφῶντες οἱ πολλοὶ ὥσπερ ἐν σκότει, ἀλλοτρίῳ ὀνόματι προσχρώμενοι, ὡς αἴτιον αὐτὸ προσαγορεύειν.
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · Benjamin Jowett, 1871… be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking. I wonder that they cannot distinguish the cause from the condition, which the many, feeling about in the dark, are always mistaking and misnaming.
Source text: gutenberg.orgAnother translation · Платон, «Федон. Разговор», пер. Д. ЛебедеваЕсли бы кто-нибудь сказал, что не имея этого — костей и нерв и всего вообще, что я имею, я не был бы в состоянии делать того, что,нахожу нужным, тот сказал бы истину.
Это значит не быть в состоянии различать, что иное дело — причина, а иное то, без чего причина не была бы причиной.
Ее то, представляется мне, большая часть людей исследует ощупью как бы в темноте, и называя ее чуждым ей именем, выдает за причину совершенно другое.
Source text: ru.wikisource.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Plato, Phaedo, 99a–b.
Socrates in prison, on the causes of his sitting there: "If anyone said that without having such things, bones and sinews and whatever else I have, I could not do what I resolved, he would speak the truth; but to say that I do what I do because of them, ... and not by the choice of the best, would be a great and long carelessness of speech. For it is not to be able to distinguish that the real cause is one thing, and another that without which the cause could never be a cause; which the many, feeling about as in the dark, call by a name not its own, as though it were the cause" (99a–b). Tolstoy keeps the argument and its order and changes its terms: «то, что я считаю справедливым» (what I consider just) for τὰ δόξαντά μοι (what I resolved); «любовь к благу» (love of the good) for τῇ τοῦ βελτίστου αἱρέσει (the choice of the best); «было бы совершенно неверно утверждать» (it would be quite wrong to assert) for πολλὴ ἂν καὶ μακρὰ ῥᾳθυμία εἴη τοῦ λόγου (it would be great carelessness of speech); «то, что неразрывно связано с причиной» (what is inseparably bound to the cause) for "that without which the cause could never be a cause"; and «то, что только сопутствует причине» (what only accompanies the cause) for "a name not its own". He leaves out "acting with mind" (νῷ πράττων). «Мускулов» (muscles) is Jowett's word ("bones and muscles"); Plato has νεῦρα (sinews), Lebedev «нерв» (nerves). «Идущих ощупью, как в потемках» (groping as in the dark) is in both Plato (ψηλαφῶντες ... ὥσπερ ἐν σκότει) and Lebedev («исследует ощупью как бы в темноте»). Lebedev's Russian (Posrednik, 1896) is the book in which Tolstoy marked the passages for «Смерть Сократа», the weekly reading after September 22 (Jubilee vol. 42 commentary: «Отметки были сделаны Толстым в книге: Платон «Федон. Разговор», перевод ... Дмитрия Лебедева»); this thought shares its sentence order and its groping in the dark, Jowett its muscles, so which text Tolstoy had before him for it was not established. Lebedev's text as saved reads «что,нахожу нужным».
2. Объяснять жизнь человеческую не силою духа, а материальною силою или хотя совместным действием обеих этих сил только потому, что духовная жизнь не может проявляться без материальной поддержки тела (посредством пищи, питья и воздуха), столь же неправильно, сколь неправильно было бы объяснять движение паровоза не напором пара, а движением золотника, заведующего своевременным впусканием пара в цилиндр.
Действительно, пар не мог бы своевременно попадать из котла в цилиндр, если бы этим не заведывал золотник. Но ведь и золотник, в свою очередь, не мог бы двигаться, если бы это движение ему не передавалось от той самой ведущей оси, которая вращается вследствие напора того же пара.
Таков же мнимо заколдованный круг, в который часто попадают люди, поверхностно обсуждающие отношение души к телу. Выхода из этого мнимо заколдованного круга очень часто или совсем не видят и впадают в дуализм, или же находят его в признании материи за единую основу жизни.
2. To explain human life not by the force of the spirit but by material force, or even by the joint action of both these forces, only because spiritual life cannot show itself without the material support of the body (by means of food, drink, and air), is just as mistaken as it would be to explain the motion of a locomotive not by the pressure of the steam but by the motion of the slide valve, which governs the timely admission of steam into the cylinder.
It is true that the steam could not pass at the right time from the boiler into the cylinder if the slide valve did not govern this. But the slide valve too, in its turn, could not move if this motion were not passed to it from the very driving axle that turns because of the pressure of that same steam.
Such too is the seemingly vicious circle into which people who consider the relation of the soul to the body superficially often fall. Very often they either see no way out of this seemingly vicious circle at all and fall into dualism, or else find it in recognizing matter as the sole foundation of life.
Source not found yet .
Not found yet.
Not found. The thought (explaining human life by matter, or by matter and spirit together, because the life of the spirit needs the body's support of food, drink, and air, is as wrong as explaining a locomotive's motion by the slide valve that admits the steam rather than by the pressure of the steam; the valve itself is moved from the driving axle that the steam turns, and in this seemingly enchanted circle shallow thinkers fall into dualism or make matter the one basis of life) is in no online text of F. A. Strakhov (1861–1923), as with his other Circle thoughts from October to August. The Jubilee commentary (vol. 42) says Tolstoy corrected and much shortened Strakhov's reflections; this one is not in «На каждый день» or «Путь жизни».
Searched: Strakhov's «Вопросы жизни» (1903; saved) for золотник, паровоз, заколдованн-, дуализм; the Jubilee vols. 40, 43, and 45 for золотник and Strakhov's name; earlier months' searches of archive.org and the web for his other books, none online.
Translation note. «Заколдованный круг», literally “a bewitched circle,” is the Russian idiom for a vicious circle.
3. Божественное живет в нас и не переставая стремится к своему началу.
3. The divine lives in us and unceasingly strives toward its origin.
Probably from Epistulae morales ad Lucilium · joined by Tolstoy from several places .
Original · Latin… prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est.
Ita dico, Lucili: sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos; …
… sic animus magnus ac sacer et in hoc demissus, ut propius [quidem] divina nossemus, conversatur quidem nobiscum sed haeret origini suae; illinc pendet, illuc spectat ac nititur, …
Source text: thelatinlibrary.comIn English · Richard M. Gummere (Loeb), 1917God is near you, he is with you, he is within you.
This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian.
… even so the great and hallowed soul, which has come down in order that we may have a nearer knowledge of divinity, does indeed associate with us, but still cleaves to its origin; on that source it depends, thither it turns its gaze and strives to go, …
Source text: en.wikisource.orgRelated · Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, 92.30… hic deos aequat, illo tendit originis suae memor.
Quid est autem cur non existimes in eo divini aliquid existere qui dei pars est?
Source text: thelatinlibrary.comDetails
A likely source, not certain. Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, 41.1–2 and 41.5.
Probably a two-clause summary of Letter 41. Its first half, «Божественное живет в нас» (the divine lives in us), is the letter's opening: "God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. ... a holy spirit indwells within us" (sacer intra nos spiritus sedet). Its second, «и не переставая стремится к своему началу» (and ceaselessly strives toward its origin), is the soul of 41.5, which "does indeed associate with us, but still cleaves to its origin; on that source it depends, thither it turns its gaze and strives to go" (haeret origini suae; illinc pendet, illuc spectat ac nititur). Seneca's subject in 41.5 is the great soul of the good man; Tolstoy makes it the divine in all of us. Letter 92.30 says nearly the same of the man with virtue, "illo tendit originis suae memor" (mindful of his origin, he strains thither), and asks why one should not believe "something divine exists in him who is a part of God"; either letter could lie behind the thought, and no anthology giving it in Tolstoy's form was found (searched: Ramage's Latin Authors; Southgate's Many Thoughts, under Seneca). Hence candidate.
4. Истинная разумная жизнь состоит в том, чтобы признавать причиной своих поступков духовное, не имеющее причины начало и этим началом руководиться в жизни.
Люди же, не признающие духовного начала, берут в руководство поступков причинную связь физическую, ту самую, которая так сложна, что мы никогда не можем знать ее, так как каждое следствие есть следствие следствия.
И потому такие люди никогда не могут иметь твердых оснований для своих поступков.
4. True rational life consists in recognizing as the cause of our actions the spiritual principle, which has no cause, and in being guided in life by this principle.
But people who do not recognize the spiritual principle take as the guide of their actions physical causation, the very causation that is so complex that we can never know it, since every effect is the effect of an effect.
And therefore such people can never have firm grounds for their actions.
5. Я называю духом в человеке то начало, которое имеет самостоятелъную жизнь в самом себе и возбуждает человека к сознательной жизни.
5. I call spirit in man that principle which has an independent life in itself and rouses man to conscious life.
Probably from Meditations · reworded by Tolstoy .
Not in Leo Tolstoy as EditorMarcus Aurelius is only a candidate: the nearest definition of the ruling part, VI.8, has neither “I call” nor the rousing of man “to conscious life,” and Urusov’s Russian, the source of the 1903 text the Circle repeats, was not compared, so the passage it renders is not certain.
Original · Ancient GreekΤὸ ἡγεμονικόν ἐστι τὸ ἑαυτὸ ἐγεῖρον καὶ τρέπον καὶ ποιοῦν μὲν ἑαυτὸ οἷον ἂν καὶ θέλῃ, ποιοῦν δὲ ἑαυτῷ φαίνεσθαι πᾶν τὸ συμβαῖνον οἷον αὐτὸ θέλει.
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · George Long, 1862The ruling principle is that which rouses and turns itself, and while it makes itself such as it is and such as it wills to be, it also makes everything which happens appear to itself to be such as it wills.
Source text: gutenberg.orgTolstoy’s own version · Мысли мудрых людей на каждый деньЯ называю духом, или властью в человеке то начало, которое имеет самостоятельную жизнь в самом себе и возбуждает человека к сознательной жизни.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
A likely source, not certain. Meditations, VI.8.
From Thoughts of Wise Men (1903), 29 December, with «или властью» (or the ruling power) dropped after «духом» (spirit). The 1903 «власть в человеке» (the ruling power in man) is Marcus's ἡγεμονικόν (the ruling part), and the nearest definition of it in the Meditations is VI.8: "The ruling principle is that which rouses and turns itself, and while it makes itself such as it is and such as it wills to be, it also makes everything which happens appear to itself to be such as it wills." The Russian has «Я называю» (I call), which VI.8 lacks; makes "rouses itself" (ἑαυτὸ ἐγεῖρον) «возбуждает человека к сознательной жизни» (rouses man to conscious life); gives "makes itself such as it wills" as «имеет самостоятельную жизнь в самом себе» (has an independent life in itself); and leaves out how the ruling part makes whatever happens appear as it wills. The Circle then calls the ruling part «дух» (spirit) alone. The 1903 Marcus Aurelius came from the Posrednik edition of the Meditations, L. D. Urusov's translation (Jubilee vol. 40 commentary); the saved scan of Urusov (sources/marcus-urusov-1882) has no text layer and was not compared, so the passage Urusov rendered here is not certain. Hence candidate.
6. Поняв разрушимость сотворенного, ты узришь вечно неизменное.
6. Having understood that what is created can be destroyed, you will behold the eternally unchanging.
From Dhammapada · shortened by Tolstoy .
What Tolstoy read · Путь к истине… отринь оть себя веВ вожделешя, о брахмана!
Понявъ разрушаемоеть сотвореннаго, ты узришь вЪчно’ неизиЪнное.
Source text: archive.orgOriginal · PaliChinda sotaṁ parakkamma, …
… kāme panuda brāhmaṇa; …
Saṅkhārānaṁ khayaṁ ñatvā, …
… akataññūsi brāhmaṇa.
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · F. Max Müller, 1881383. Stop the stream valiantly, drive away the desires, O Brahmana! When you have understood the destruction of all that was made, you will understand that which was not made.
Source text: gutenberg.orgTolstoy’s own version · Мысли мудрых людей на каждый деньПоняв разрушимость сотворенного, ты узришь вечно неизменное.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Dhammapada, v. 383 (Brāhmaṇavagga), its second half.
The second half of Dhammapada 383 in Gerasimov's Russian (1898), which Thoughts of Wise Men (1903), 29 December, gives alone, with «разрушимость» (destructibility) for Gerasimov's «разрушаемость» (being destroyed); the Circle repeats the 1903 text, and with it the next 1903 thought (the Talmud, 9-18.7). Left out is the first half, the call to the brahmin (Müller: 'Stop the stream valiantly, drive away the desires, O Brahmana!'). What is kept is close to the Pali, saṅkhārānaṁ khayaṁ ñatvā, akataññū 'si ('knowing the destruction of the formations, you know the unmade'; Müller 'When you have understood the destruction of all that was made, you will understand that which was not made'); the unmade (akata, nibbāna) is Gerasimov's «вечно неизменное» (the eternally unchanging).
7. Душа невидима, но она, только она, видит.
7. The soul is invisible, but it, it alone, sees.
From Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedThe likeness that gives the saying its point, “just as the Holy One, praised be He! seeth, but cannot be seen, so does the soul,” kept in Tolstoy’s 1903 version, drops out, and Tolstoy adds a restriction: “The soul is invisible, but it, it alone, sees.”
In English · S. H. Glick, En Jacob (Ein Yaakov), 1916 (via Sefaria), 1916… just as the Holy One, praised be He! seeth, but cannot be seen, so does the soul see, but cannot be seen; …
Source text: sefaria.orgTolstoy’s own version · Мысли мудрых людей на каждый деньКак бог всё видит, но невидим, так и душа — сущность невидимая, хотя всё видящая.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot, 10a.
Berakhot 10a, where the five times David says 'Bless the Lord, O my soul' are read as likening the soul to God: 'just as the Holy One, blessed be He, sees and is not seen, so the soul sees and is not seen' (Glick: 'seeth, but cannot be seen'). Thoughts of Wise Men (1903), 29 December, keeps the likeness: «Как бог всё видит, но невидим, так и душа — сущность невидимая, хотя всё видящая» (as God sees everything but is invisible, so the soul is an invisible being, though all-seeing). The Circle drops God and adds a restriction: «Душа невидима, но она, только она, видит» (the soul is invisible, but it, it alone, sees); «только она» (it alone) is Tolstoy's. In 1903, as in the Circle, the thought follows the Dhammapada verse of 9-18.6. Tolstoy's Talmud came through two Russian anthologies (O. Ya. Gurvich, 1901; «Мировоззрение талмудистов», 1874-76; Jubilee vol. 40 commentary), not online, so the Russian he read is not shown.
8. Разумением жив человек. Никогда не приписывай свойства жизни телу — сосуду, заключающему в себе эту внутреннюю силу. Вся оболочка человека жива лишь этой силой разумения; без нее она — как челнок без ткача, перо без писца.
8. Man lives by understanding. Never ascribe the properties of life to the body — the vessel that holds this inner power. The whole outer shell of man is alive only through this power of understanding; without it, the shell is like a shuttle without a weaver, a pen without a scribe.
From Meditations · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedWhat Marcus calls only “the thing which is hidden within,” which “pulls the strings,” is named: “Man lives by understanding”; “the power of persuasion” drops out, “never include the vessel” becomes “Never ascribe the properties of life to the body,” and the comparison is turned round: without understanding the body’s shell “is like a shuttle without a weaver.” †
† An intermediate translation may have made this change.
Original · Ancient GreekΜέμνησο ὅτι τὸ νευροσπαστοῦν ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἔνδον ἐγκεκρυμμένον· ἐκεῖνο ῥητορεία, ἐκεῖνο ζωή, ἐκεῖνο, εἰ δεῖ εἰπεῖν, ἄνθρωπος.
… μηδέποτε συμπεριφαντάζου τὸ περικείμενον ἀγγειῶδες καὶ τὰ ὀργάνια ταῦτα τὰ περιπεπλασμένα·
… ἐπεί τοι οὐ μᾶλλόν τι τούτων ὄφελός ἐστι τῶν μορίων χωρὶς τῆς κινούσης καὶ ἰσχούσης αὐτὰ αἰτίας, ἢ τῆς κερκίδος τῇ ὑφαντρίᾳ καὶ τοῦ καλάμου τῷ γράφοντι καὶ τοῦ μαστιγίου τῷ ἡνιόχῳ.
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · George Long, 1862Remember that this which pulls the strings is the thing which is hidden within: this is the power of persuasion, this is life, this, if one may so say, is man.
In contemplating thyself never include the vessel which surrounds thee and these instruments which are attached about it.
For indeed there is no more use in these parts without the cause which moves and checks them than in the weaver's shuttle, and the writer's pen, and the driver's whip.
Source text: gutenberg.orgTolstoy’s own version · Мысли мудрых людей на каждый деньРазумением жив человек. Никогда не приписывай свойства жизни телу — сосуду, заключающему в себе эту внутреннюю силу. Вся оболочка человека жива лишь этой силой разумения, без нее она, как челнок без ткача, перо без писца.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Meditations, X.38.
Thoughts of Wise Men (1903), 29 December, word for word but for the punctuation of the last clause («; без нее она — как челнок» for «, без нее она, как челнок»). Marcus: "Remember that this which pulls the strings is the thing which is hidden within: this is the power of persuasion, this is life, this, if one may so say, is man. In contemplating thyself never include the vessel which surrounds thee and these instruments which are attached about it. For they are like to an axe ... there is no more use in these parts without the cause which moves and checks them than in the weaver's shuttle, and the writer's pen, and the driver's whip." The Russian opens with «Разумением жив человек» (man lives by reason) for "this is life, this ... is man", naming as reason (разумение) what Marcus calls only the hidden thing that pulls the strings, and drops "the power of persuasion" (ῥητορεία). "Never include the vessel" becomes «Никогда не приписывай свойства жизни телу — сосуду» (never ascribe the properties of life to the body, the vessel); the axe and the driver's whip are left out; and the comparison is turned round: Marcus says the bodily parts are of no more use without their mover than the shuttle without the weaver, the Russian that the body without reason is «как челнок без ткача, перо без писца» (like a shuttle without a weaver, a pen without a writer). The 1903 Marcus Aurelius came from Urusov's translation (Posrednik), not compared (the saved scan has no text layer).
Духовное руководит телесным, а не наоборот. И потому, чтобы изменить свое состояние, человек должен работать над собой в области духовной, а не плотской.
The spiritual governs the bodily, and not the other way around. And therefore, to change our condition, we must work on ourselves in the spiritual realm, and not the fleshly.
Tolstoy TodayТолстой сегодня · tolstoytoday.org/september/18