24Septemberсентября · 24-е сентября
Извинительно бы было не оставлять мясоедения, если бы оно было необходимо и оправдывалось какими бы то ни было соображениями. Но этого нет. Это просто дурное дело, не имеющее в наше время никакого оправдания.
It would be excusable not to give up meat-eating if it were necessary and were justified by any considerations whatever. But that is not the case. It is simply a bad act, which in our time has no justification at all.
1. Какая борьба за существование или какое неудержимое безумие понудило вас обагрить ваши руки кровью, чтобы питаться мясом животных? Зачем вы, пользующиеся всем необходимым и всеми удобствами существования, делаете это? Зачем клевещете вы на землю, как будто она не в состоянии без мяса животных питать вас?
1. What struggle for existence or what ungovernable madness drove you to stain your hands with blood in order to feed on the flesh of animals? Why do you, who enjoy all the necessities and all the comforts of existence, do this? Why do you slander the earth, as though it could not feed you without the flesh of animals?
From De esu carnium · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedWilliams’s English, which Tolstoy follows, already has “struggle for existence” where Plutarch has madness and frenzy (Goodwin: “a certain ravenousness and frenzy”); Tolstoy spells out the bloodshed, adding “in order to feed on the flesh of animals” and “without the flesh of animals,” and gives in Plutarch’s own voice what Plutarch has the first men say. †
† An intermediate translation may have made this change.
What Tolstoy read · Howard Williams, The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice…But what struggle for existence, or what goading madness has incited you to imbrue your hands in blood — you who have, we repeat, a superabundance of all the necessaries and comforts of existence ?
Why do you belie the Earth …
… as though it were unable to feed and nourish you ?
Source text: archive.orgOriginal · Ancient Greek… ὑμᾶς δὲ τοὺς νῦν τίς λύσσα καὶ τίς οἶστρος ἄγει πρὸς μιαιφονίαν, οἷς τοσαῦτα περίεστι τῶν ἀναγκαίων; τί καταψεύδεσθε τῆς γῆς ὡς· τρέφειν μὴ δυναμένης;
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · William Baxter, revised by William W. Goodwin (Plutarch’s Morals, vol. V), 1874But whence is it that a certain ravenousness and frenzy drives you in these happy days to pollute yourselves with blood, since you have such an abundance of things necessary for your subsistence? Why do you belie the earth as unable to maintain you?
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. De esu carnium (On the Eating of Flesh) I, ch. 2 (994a).
From Howard Williams's English of Plutarch in The Ethics of Diet (1883), whose Russian translation, «Этика пищи» (Posrednik, 1893), is on the Jubilee list of Tolstoy's sources: "But what struggle for existence, or what goading madness has incited you to imbrue your hands in blood — you who have, we repeat, a superabundance of all the necessaries and comforts of existence? Why do you belie the Earth as though it were unable to feed and nourish you?" «Какая борьба за существование или какое неудержимое безумие понудило вас обагрить ваши руки кровью» renders Williams word for word, and "struggle for existence" is Williams's: Plutarch asks "what madness and what frenzy" (τίς λύσσα καὶ τίς οἶστρος) drives the men of now to bloodshed, as Goodwin's "a certain ravenousness and frenzy" shows. Tolstoy adds «чтобы питаться мясом животных» (to feed on the flesh of animals) and «без мяса животных» (without the flesh of animals), makes "you who have a superabundance" a question of its own, «Зачем вы, пользующиеся всем необходимым и всеми удобствами существования, делаете это?» (why do you, who enjoy every necessity and comfort of existence, do this?), and leaves out "we repeat". In Plutarch these are the words of the first men, who ate flesh from want, addressed to the men of his day; the Circle gives them in Plutarch's own voice. Williams prints the Greek of "belie the Earth" in brackets, unreadable in the scan, so the excerpt is cut around it. The Russian «Этика пищи» was not consulted.
2. Если бы мы не были так слепо подчинены поработившему нас обычаю, то никто из сколько-нибудь чутких людей не мог бы помириться с мыслью, что для нашего прокормления приходится ежедневно убивать такое множество животных, несмотря на то, что благодетельная земля наделяет нас самыми разнообразными растительными сокровищами.
2. If we were not so blindly subject to the custom that has enslaved us, no one with any sensitivity at all could reconcile himself to the thought that, to feed us, such a multitude of animals must be killed every day, although the beneficent earth endows us with the most varied treasures of the vegetable kingdom.
From The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Public Benefits · close to the original .
Bernard de Mandeville’s own wordsI have often thought, if it was not for this tyranny which custom usurps over us, that men of any tolerable good-nature could never be reconciled to the killing of so many animals, for their daily food, as long as the bountiful earth so plentifully provides them with varieties of vegetable dainties.
Source text: gutenberg.orgRelated · Joseph Ritson, An Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food, as a Moral Duty… many animals for their dayly food, as long as the bountyful earth fo plentyfully provides them with varietys of vegetable daintys.
Source text: archive.orgTolstoy’s own version · На каждый деньЕсли бы мы не были так слепо подчинены поработившему нас обычаю, то никто из сколько-нибудь чутких людей не мог бы помириться с мыслью, что для нашего прокормления приходится ежедневно убивать такое множество животных, несмотря на то, что благодетельная земля наделяет нас самыми разнообразными растительными сокровищами.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Public Benefits (1714), Remark (P), the remark on 'The very poor / Lived better than the rich before' (headed 'Line 201' in the London printing of 1806).
Close to Mandeville's sentence, with 'I have often thought' left out and 'them' made 'us'. 'If it was not for this tyranny which custom usurps over us' becomes 'If we were not so blindly subject to the custom that has enslaved us'; 'men of any tolerable good-nature' becomes 'people at all sensitive' (сколько-нибудь чутких людей); 'the killing of so many animals for their daily food' becomes 'that for our feeding so many animals must be killed daily'; 'varieties of vegetable dainties' becomes 'the most various vegetable treasures'. Ritson quotes the passage in ch. X of his Essay (Related), and his footnote to its next sentence is Tolstoy's 9-24.6 on the same day; Howard Williams quotes it too (The Ethics of Diet, ch. XVII, saved), and the Jubilee list names Williams's Russian (1893). Tolstoy printed the same Russian in For Every Day. No printable, for the dropped 'I have often thought'.
3. Вы спрашиваете меня, на каком основании Пифагор воздерживался от употребления мяса животных? Я, с своей стороны, не понимаю, какого рода чувство, мысль или причина руководила тем человеком, который впервые решился осквернить свой рот кровью и позволил своим губам прикоснуться к мясу убитого существа. Я удивляюсь тому, кто допустил на своем столе искаженные формы мертвых тел и потребовал для своего ежедневного питания то, что еще так недавно представляло собою существа, одаренные движением, пониманием и голосом.
3. You ask me on what grounds Pythagoras abstained from eating the flesh of animals? For my part, I do not understand what kind of feeling, thought, or reason guided the man who first ventured to defile his mouth with blood and allowed his lips to touch the flesh of a slain creature. I wonder at him who allowed the disfigured forms of dead bodies on his table and demanded for his daily food what so short a time before had been creatures endowed with movement, understanding, and voice.
From De esu carnium · close to the original .
What Tolstoy read · Howard Williams, The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice…You ask me upon what grounds Pythagoras abstained from feeding on the flesh of …
I, for my part, marvel of what sort of feeling, mind, or reason, that man was possessed who was the first to pollute his mouth with gore, and to allow his lips to touch the flesh of a murdered being : who spread his table with the mangled forms of dead bodies, aud claimed as his daily food what were but now beings endowed with movement, with perception, aud with voice.
Source text: archive.orgOriginal · Ancient Greek… ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν ἐρωτᾷς; τίνι λόγῳ Πυθαγόρας ἀπείχετο σαρκοφαγίας, ἐγὼ δὲ θαυμάζω καὶ τίνι πάθει καὶ ποίᾳ ψυχῇ ἢ λόγῳ ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἥψατο φόνου στόματι καὶ τεθνηκότος ζῴου χείλεσι προσήψατο σαρκός· καὶ νεκρῶν σωμάτων καὶ ἑώλων προθέμενος τραπέζας ὄψα καὶ τρυφὰς καὶ προσέτι εἰπεῖν τὰ μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν βρυχώμενα μέρη καὶ φθεγγόμενα καὶ κινούμενα καὶ βλέποντα·
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · William Baxter, revised by William W. Goodwin (Plutarch’s Morals, vol. V), 1874You ask of me then for what reason it was that Pythagoras abstained from eating of flesh. I for my part do much admire in what humor, with what soul or reason, the first man with his mouth touched slaughter, and reached to his lips the flesh of a dead animal, and having set before people courses of ghastly corpses and ghosts, could give those parts the names of meat and victuals, that but a little before lowed, cried, moved, and saw; …
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. De esu carnium (On the Eating of Flesh) I, ch. 1 (993a–b).
The opening of the essay, in Williams's English, translated closely: "You ask me upon what grounds Pythagoras abstained from feeding on the flesh of animals. I, for my part, marvel of what sort of feeling, mind, or reason, that man was possessed who was the first to pollute his mouth with gore, and to allow his lips to touch the flesh of a murdered being: who spread his table with the mangled forms of dead bodies, and claimed as his daily food what were but now beings endowed with movement, with perception, and with voice." «Какого рода чувство, мысль или причина» is "what sort of feeling, mind, or reason" (τίνι πάθει καὶ ποίᾳ ψυχῇ ἢ λόγῳ), «осквернить свой рот кровью» "to pollute his mouth with gore", and «существа, одаренные движением, пониманием и голосом» "beings endowed with movement, with perception, and with voice"; «я, с своей стороны, не понимаю» (I for my part do not understand) stands for "I ... marvel", and «искаженные формы мертвых тел» (the distorted forms of dead bodies) for "the mangled forms of dead bodies". Plutarch's Greek is less abstract: the parts set out as food had "but a little before bellowed, cried, moved, and seen" (βρυχώμενα ... φθεγγόμενα καὶ κινούμενα καὶ βλέποντα). Williams's scan has a stray "=" after "the flesh of" and "aud" for "and".
4. Извинением для тех жалких существ, которые первые прибегли к мясоедению, может служить полное отсутствие и недостаток средств для жизни, так как они (первобытные народы) приобрели кровожадные привычки не из потворства своим прихотям и не для того, чтобы предаться ненормальному сластолюбию среди избытка всего необходимого, а из нужды. Но какое может быть оправдание нам в наше время?
4. The complete absence and lack of the means of life may serve as an excuse for those wretched beings who first resorted to meat-eating, since they (primitive peoples) acquired their bloodthirsty habits not from indulging their whims, and not in order to give themselves up to unnatural voluptuousness amid an abundance of all necessities, but from need. But what justification can there be for us in our time?
From De esu carnium · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedAdds a closing question of Tolstoy’s own, “But what justification can there be for us in our time?”, the point Plutarch goes on to make, and “but from need”; the first meat-eaters’ “lawless desires,” as Williams, whom Tolstoy follows, renders Plutarch (Goodwin: “lawless and extravagant lusts”), become “indulging their whims.” †
† An intermediate translation may have made this change.
What Tolstoy read · Howard Williams, The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice…For the wretches who first applied to flesh-eating may justly be alleged in excuse their utter resourcelessness and destitution, inasmuch as it was not to indulge in lawless desires, or amidst the superfluities of necessaries, …
… indulgence in unnatural luxuries that they [the primeval peoples] betook themselves to carnivorous habits.
Source text: archive.orgOriginal · Ancient Greek… ἢ τοῖς μὲν πρώτοις ἐκείνοις ἐπιχειρήσασι σαρκοφαγεῖν τὴν αἰτίαν ἂν εἴποι τις πᾶσαν εἶναι τὴν ἀπορίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαις ἀνόμοις συνδιάγοντες οὐδʼ ἐν περιουσίᾳ τινὶ ἀναγκαίων ὑβρίσαντες εἰς ἡδονὰς παρὰ φύσιν ἀσυμφύλους ἐπὶ ταῦτʼ ἦλθον·
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · William Baxter, revised by William W. Goodwin (Plutarch’s Morals, vol. V), 1874And truly, as for those people who first ventured upon eating of flesh, it is very probable that the whole reason of their so doing was scarcity and want of other food; for it is not likely that their living together in lawless and extravagant lusts, or their growing wanton and capricious through the excessive variety of provisions then among them, brought them to such unsociable pleasures as these, against Nature.
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. De esu carnium (On the Eating of Flesh) I, ch. 2 (993c–d).
Signed «По Плутарху» (after Plutarch): Williams's sentence translated, and a question of Tolstoy's own added. Williams: "For the wretches who first applied to flesh-eating may justly be alleged in excuse their utter resourcelessness and destitution, inasmuch as it was not to indulge in lawless desires, or amidst the superfluities of necessaries, for the pleasure of wanton indulgence in unnatural luxuries that they [the primeval peoples] betook themselves to carnivorous habits." «Те жалкие существа» (those wretched beings) is "the wretches", «полное отсутствие и недостаток средств для жизни» (complete want and lack of the means of life) "utter resourcelessness and destitution", «среди избытка всего необходимого» "amidst the superfluities of necessaries", and «(первобытные народы)» Williams's bracket "[the primeval peoples]". Changed: "lawless desires" (ἐπιθυμίαις ἀνόμοις) becomes «потворства своим прихотям» (indulging their whims), "unnatural luxuries" «ненормальному сластолюбию» (abnormal voluptuousness), and «из нужды» (out of need) is added. Added at the end: «Но какое может быть оправдание нам в наше время?» (but what justification can there be for us in our time?), the point Plutarch goes on to make in the speech he gives the first men. Williams's scan reads "for^the".
5. Как на одно из доказательств того, что мясная пища не свойственна человеку, можно указать на равнодушие к ней детей и на предпочтение, которое они всегда оказывают овощам, молочным блюдам, печеньям, фруктам и т. п.
5. As one of the proofs that meat is not a food natural to man, one may point to the indifference of children to it and to the preference they always show for vegetables, dairy dishes, pastries, fruit, and the like.
From Émile, ou De l'éducation · close to the original .
Original · FrenchUne des preuves que le goût de la viande n’est pas naturel à l’homme, est l’indifférence que les enfans ont pour ce mets là, & la préférence qu’ils donnent tous à des nourritures végétales, telles que le laitage, la pâtisserie, les fruits, &c.
Source text: fr.wikisource.orgIn English · Barbara Foxley, 1911The indifference of children towards meat is one proof that the taste for meat is unnatural; their preference is for vegetable foods, such as milk, pastry, fruit, etc.
Source text: gutenberg.orgRelated · Howard Williams, The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice…One of the proofs that the taste of flesh is not natuial to man is the indifference which children exhibit for that sort of meat, and the preference they all give to vegetable foods …
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Émile, ou De l'éducation (1762), Book II, Book II, on children's food (Geneva edition of 1782, Wikisource); Foxley's translation, Book II; quoted in Howard Williams, The Ethics of Diet (1883), p. 162.
One sentence of Émile, Book II, translated closely. 'Nourritures végétales, telles que le laitage, la pâtisserie, les fruits' (plant foods such as milk dishes, pastry, fruit) becomes «овощам, молочным блюдам, печеньям, фруктам» (vegetables, milk dishes, pastries, fruit): the general term becomes the first item of the list; and 'qu’ils donnent tous' (which they all give) becomes «которое они всегда оказывают» (which they always show). Howard Williams quotes the sentence and the rest of Rousseau's paragraph in The Ethics of Diet (p. 162; the scan reads 'natuial'), which the Jubilee list of the Circle's sources names in its Russian translation («Этика пищи», Посредник, 1893), beside T. Tolstaya's «250 мыслей философов, поэтов и ученых о вегетарианстве и воздержании» (1903); either may have been Tolstoy's way to it. The Russian has nothing that decides between Rousseau's French and Williams's English.
6. Баран гораздо менее предназначен для человека, чем человек для тигра, так как тигр — животное плотоядное, а человек не создан таковым.
6. The sheep is far less meant for man than man is for the tiger, since the tiger is a carnivorous animal, and man was not created one.
From An Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food, as a Moral Duty · close to the original .
Ritson’s own words… the ufe they were defign’d for ;+
… is not fo much “ defign’d” for the man, as the man is for the ¢yger; this animal being naturally carnivorous, which man is not: …
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. An Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food, as a Moral Duty (London: Richard Phillips, 1802), ch. X 'Humanity', p. 218, footnote † to Ritson's quotation of Mandeville (The Fable of the Bees, Remark P), on the words 'the use they were design'd for'.
Close to Ritson's footnote as far as Tolstoy takes it: 'The sheep is not so much "design'd" for the man, as the man is for the tyger; this animal being naturally carnivorous, which man is not' (the scan reads the long s as f and garbles 'sheep' and 'tyger'). 'Not so much ... as' becomes 'much less ... than' (гораздо менее), and 'which man is not' becomes 'and man is not made so' (не создан таковым). Tolstoy stops before Ritson's 'but nature and justice, or humanity, are not, allways, one and the same thing'. The note glosses Mandeville's 'there can be no cruelty in puting creatures to the use they were design'd for', in the passage of The Fable of the Bees whose first sentence is Tolstoy's 9-24.2, on the same day: Tolstoy probably took both from Ritson's page, or from a compilation that had it (the Jubilee list names T. Tolstaya's «250 мыслей ... о вегетарианстве», 1903, not found online). Howard Williams's Ethics of Diet, which Tolstoy prefaced, has a chapter on Ritson without this note. Ritson's reformed spelling ('design'd', 'allways') and the scan's errors leave no clean text to print: no printable.
Большая разница между человеком, не имеющим другой пищи, кроме мяса, или таким, который ничего не слыхал о грехе мясоедения и наивно верит в Библию, разрешающую поедание животных, и всяким грамотным человеком нашего времени, живущим в стране, где есть овощи и молоко, который знает всё то, что высказано учителями человечества против мясоедения. Такой человек совершает великий грех, продолжая делать то, что уже не может не признавать дурным.
There is a great difference between people who have no food but meat, or those who have never heard of the sin of meat-eating and naively believe in the Bible, which permits the eating of animals, and all the literate people of our time who live in a country where there are vegetables and milk and who know all that the teachers of humanity have said against meat-eating. Such people commit a great sin by continuing to do what they can no longer help acknowledging to be bad.
Tolstoy TodayТолстой сегодня · tolstoytoday.org/september/24