How To Become A Interpreter And Translator A

Beginners Guide Stefany Dodd download

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-interpreter-and-
translator-a-beginners-guide-stefany-dodd-4688966

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

How To Become A Worldclass Manager Skills And Insights For Unleashing

Your Leadership Potential 1st Edition Wayne Clarke

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-worldclass-manager-
skills-and-insights-for-unleashing-your-leadership-potential-1st-
edition-wayne-clarke-50029094

How To Become A Business Angel Practical Advice For Aspiring Investors

In Unquoted Companies Richard Hargreaves

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-business-angel-
practical-advice-for-aspiring-investors-in-unquoted-companies-richard-
hargreaves-51386436

How To Become A Data Analyst My Lowcost No Code Roadmap For Breaking

Into Tech 1st Edition Nelson

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-data-analyst-my-lowcost-
no-code-roadmap-for-breaking-into-tech-1st-edition-nelson-53850064

How To Become A Straighta Student Cal Newport

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-straighta-student-cal-
newport-56961528
How To Become A Us Citizen 5th Edition Petersons

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-us-citizen-5th-edition-
petersons-2003990

How To Become A Power Agent In Real Estate A Top Industry Trainer

Explains How To Double Your Income In 12 Months 1st Edition Darryl
Davis

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-power-agent-in-real-
estate-a-top-industry-trainer-explains-how-to-double-your-income-
in-12-months-1st-edition-darryl-davis-2108396

How To Become A Stressfree Trader The Accidental Discoveries Of An

Applied Behavioral Science Student Jason Starzec

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-stressfree-trader-the-
accidental-discoveries-of-an-applied-behavioral-science-student-jason-
starzec-2328080

How To Become A Video Game Artist Sam R Kennedy Kennedy Sam R

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-video-game-artist-sam-r-
kennedy-kennedy-sam-r-23532038

How To Become A Football Agent The Guide Second Edition Erkut St Jack
Pentollevy Charlie Pentollevy

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-become-a-football-agent-the-
guide-second-edition-erkut-st-jack-pentollevy-charlie-
pentollevy-32759892
First Edition, 2012

ISBN 978-81-323-4660-9

© All rights reserved.

Published by:
The English Press
4735/22 Prakashdeep Bldg,
Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
Delhi - 110002
Email: [email protected]
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Language Interpretation

Chapter 2 - How to Train Effectively as an Interpreter

Chapter 3 - How to Become a Translator

Chapter 4 - How to Learn German

Chapter 5 - How to Pronounce German Words

Chapter 6 - How to Learn Japanese

Chapter 7 - How to Improve Speaking Japanese

Chapter 8 - How to Learn French

Chapter 9 - How to Speak Basic French

Chapter 10 - How to Speak in a British Accent

Chapter 11 - Machine Translation

Chapter 12 - Telephone Interpreting

Chapter 13 - Lingua Franca

Chapter- 1

Language Interpretation

Language interpretation is the facilitating of oral or sign-language communication,

either simultaneously or consecutively, between users of different languages. The process
is described by both the words interpreting and interpretation.

In professional parlance, interpreting denotes the facilitating of communication from one

language form into its equivalent, or approximate equivalent, in another language form;
while interpretation denotes the actual product of this work, that is, the message thus
rendered into speech, sign language, writing, non-manual signals, or other language form.
This important distinction is observed in order to avoid confusion.

An interpreter is a person who converts a thought or expression in a source language into

an expression with a comparable meaning in a target language in "real time". The
interpreter's function is to convey every semantic element (tone and register) and every
intention and feeling of the message that the source-language speaker is directing to
target-language recipients.

Comparison to translation

Despite being used incorrectly as interchangeable, interpretation and translation are not
synonymous. Interpreting takes a message from a source language and renders that
message into a different target language(ex: English into French); In interpreting, the
interpreter will take in a complex concept from one language, choose the most
appropriate vocabulary in the target language to faithfully render the message in a
linguistically, emotionally, tonally, and culturally equivalent message. Translation is the
transference of meaning from text to text (written or recorded), with the translator having
time and access to resources (dictionaries, glossaries, etc.) to produce an accurate
document or verbal artifact. Lesser known is "transliteration," used within sign language
interpreting, takes one form of a language and transfer those same words into another
form (ex: spoken English into a signed form of English, Signed Exact English, not ASL).

A very common misconception of interpretation is that it is rendered verbatim, as a word-

for-word syntactic translation of an utterance. A literal, verbatim interpretation of a
source-language message would be unintelligible to the target-language recipient because
of grammar differences, cultural and syntactical context. For example, the Spanish
phrase: Está de viaje, rendered verbatim to English translates as: Is of voyage (senseless
in English). The intended meaning of the message is: "you are traversing" or "you are out
of town". That is the overall meaning, tone, and style in the target language rather than a
senseless word-for-word translation (note: the example's interpretation can also be
singular, past or present tense, depending on context: another responsibility of an
interpreter).

In court interpretation, it is not acceptable to omit anything from the source, no matter
how fast the source speaks, since not only is accuracy a principal canon for interpreters,
but mandatory. The alteration of even a single word in a material can totally mislead the
triers of fact. The most important factor for this level of accuracy is the use of a team of
two or more interpreters during a lengthy process, with one actively interpreting and the
second monitoring for greater accuracy.

Translators have time to consider and revise each word and sentence before delivering
their product to the client. While live interpretation's goal is to achieve total accuracy at
all times, details of the original (source) speech can be missed and interpreters can ask for
clarification from the speaker. In any language, including signed languages, when a word
is used for which there is no exact match, expansion may be necessary in order to fully
interpret the intended meaning of the word (ex: the English word "hospitable" may
require several words or phrases to encompass its complex meaning). Another unique
situation is when an interpreted message appears much shorter or longer than the original
message. The message may appear shorter at times because of unique efficiencies within
a certain language. English to Spanish is a prime example: Spanish uses gender specific
nouns, not used in English, which convey information in a more condensed package thus
requiring more words and time in an English interpretation to provide the same plethora
of information. Because of situations like these, interpreting often requires a "lag" or
"processing" time. This time allows the interpreter to take in subjects and verbs in order
to rearrange grammar appropriately while picking accurate vocabulary before starting the
message. While working with interpreters, it is important to remember lag time in order
to avoid accidentally interrupting one another and to receive the entire message.
Modes
Simultaneous

Interpreter place at the European Court of Justice

In (extempore) simultaneous interpretation (SI), the interpreter renders the message in the
target-language as quickly as he or she can formulate it from the source language, while
the source-language speaker continuously speaks; a spoken language SI interpreter,
sitting in a sound-proof booth, speaks into a microphone, while clearly seeing and
hearing the source-language speaker via earphones. The simultaneous interpretation is
rendered to the target-language listeners via their earphones. Moreover, SI is the common
mode used by sign language interpreters, although the person using the source language,
the interpreter and the target language recipient (since either the hearing person or the
deaf person may be delivering the message) must necessarily be in close proximity.
NOTE: Laymen often incorrectly describe SI and the SI interpreter as 'simultaneous
translation' and as the 'simultaneous translator', ignoring the definite distinction between
interpretation and translation.

The first introduction and employment of extempore simultaneous interpretation was the
Nuremberg Trials, with four official working languages.
Consecutive

In consecutive interpreting (CI), the interpreter speaks after the source-language speaker
has finished speaking. The speech is divided into segments, and the interpreter sits or
stands beside the source-language speaker, listening and taking notes as the speaker
progresses through the message. When the speaker pauses or finishes speaking, the
interpreter then renders a portion of the message or the entire message in the target
language.

Consecutive interpretation is rendered as "short CI" or "long CI". In short CI, the
interpreter relies on memory, each message segment being brief enough to memorize. In
long CI, the interpreter takes notes of the message to aid rendering long passages. These
informal divisions are established with the client before the interpretation is effected,
depending upon the subject, its complexity, and the purpose of the interpretation.

On occasion, document sight translation is required of the interpreter during consecutive

interpretation work. Sight translation combines interpretation and translation; the
interpreter must render the source-language document to the target-language as if it were
written in the target language. Sight translation occurs usually, but not exclusively, in
judicial and medical work.

The CI interpreter Patricia Stöcklin renders Klaus Bednarz's speech to Garry Kasparov
 The CI interpreter Patricia Stöcklin takes notes Garry Kasparov's speech

The CI interpreter Patricia Stöcklin renders Garry Kasparov's speech to the audience

Consecutively-interpreted speeches, or segments of them, tend to be short. Fifty years

ago, the CI interpreter would render speeches of 20 or 30 minutes; today, 10 or 15
minutes is considered too long, particularly since audiences usually prefer not to sit
through 20 minutes of speech they cannot understand.
Often, if not previously advised, the source-language speaker is unaware that he or she
may speak more than a single sentence before the CI interpretation is rendered and might
stop after each sentence to await its target-language rendering. Sometimes, however,
depending upon the setting or subject matter, and upon the interpreter's capacity to
memorize, the interpreter may ask the speaker to pause after each sentence or after each
clause. Sentence-by-sentence interpreting requires less memorization and therefore lower
likelihood for omissions, yet its disadvantage is in the interpreter's not having heard the
entire speech or its gist, and the overall message is sometimes harder to render both
because of lack of context and because of interrupted delivery (for example, imagine a
joke told in bits and pieces, with breaks for translation in between). This method is often
used in rendering speeches, depositions, recorded statements, court witness testimony,
and medical and job interviews, but it is usually best to complete a whole idea before it is
interpreted.

Full (i.e., unbroken) consecutive interpreting of whole thoughts allows for the full
meaning of the source-language message to be understood before the interpreter renders
it in the target language. This affords a truer, more accurate, and more accessible
interpretation than does simultaneous interpretation.

Whispered

In whispered interpreting (chuchotage, in French), the interpreter sits or stands next to

the small target-language audience whilst whispering a simultaneous interpretation of the
matter to hand; this method requires no equipment, but may be done via a microphone
and headphones if the participants prefer. Chuchotage is used in circumstances where the
majority of a group speaks the source language, and a minority (ideally no more than
three people) do not speak it.

Relay

Relay interpreting is usually used when there are several target languages. A source-
language interpreter interprets the text to a language common to every interpreter, who
then render the message to their respective target languages. For example, a Japanese
source message first is rendered to English to a group of interpreters, who listen to the
English and render the message into Arabic, French, and Russian, the other target
languages. In heavily multilingual meetings, there may be more than one "intermediate"
language, i.e. a Greek source language could be interpreted into English and then from
English to other languages, and, at the same time, it may also be directly interpreted into
French, and from French into yet more languages. This solution is most often used in the
multilingual meetings of the EU institutions.

Liaison

Liaison interpreting involves relaying what is spoken to one, between two, or among
many people. This can be done after a short speech, or consecutively, sentence-by-
sentence, or as chuchotage (whispering); aside from notes taken at the time, no
equipment is used.

Types
Conference

Conference interpreting is the interpretation of a conference, either simultaneously or

consecutively, although the advent of multi-lingual meetings has consequently reduced
the consecutive interpretation in the last 20 years.

Conference interpretation is divided between two markets: the institutional and private.
International institutions (EU, UN, EPO, et cetera), holding multi-lingual meetings, often
favour interpreting several foreign languages to the interpreters' mother tongues. Local
private markets tend to bi-lingual meetings (the local language plus another) and the
interpreters work both into and out of their mother tongues; the markets are not mutually
exclusive. The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) is the only
worldwide association of conference interpreters. Founded in 1953, it assembles more
than 2,800 professional conference interpreters in more than 90 countries.

Judicial

Judicial, Legal, or Court Interpreting, occurs in courts of justice, administrative tribunals,

and wherever a legal proceeding is held (i.e. a police station for an interrogation, a
conference room for a deposition or the locale for taking a sworn statement). Legal
interpreting can be the consecutive interpretation of witnesses' testimony for example, or
the simultaneous interpretation of entire proceedings, by electronic means, for one
person, or all of the people attending.

The right to a competent interpreter for anyone who does not understand the language of
the court (especially for the accused in a criminal trial) is usually considered a
fundamental rule of justice. Therefore, this right is often guaranteed in national
constitutions, declarations of rights, fundamental laws establishing the justice system or
by precedents set by the highest courts. However, this is not a constitutionally required
procedure (in the United States) that a certified interpreter be present at police
Interrogation.

Depending upon the regulations and standards adhered to per state and venue, court
interpreters usually work alone when interpreting consecutively, or as a team, when
interpreting simultaneously. In addition to practical mastery of the source and target
languages, thorough knowledge of law and legal and court procedures is required of court
interpreters. They often are required to have formal authorisation from the State to work
in the Courts — and then are called certified court interpreters. In many jurisdictions, the
interpretation is considered an essential part of the evidence. Incompetent interpretation,
or simply failure to swear in the interpreter, can lead to a mistrial.
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
American merchants will catch seals, recognize as enemies the men
of a neighbouring nation, with whom I have heretofore lived at
peace and wish to live in love and concord, and why should I hire
soldiers or myself go and kill and destroy them, and myself be
subjected to their attack? And why, above all else, should I
coöperate personally or by the hiring of a military force in the
enslavement and murder of my own brothers and fathers? Why
should I flog myself? All this I do not need, and all this is harmful for
me, and all this on all sides of me is immoral, abominable. So why
should I do it all? If you tell me that without it I shall fare ill at
somebody's hands, I, in the first place, do not foresee anything so
bad as that which you cause me if I listen to you; in the second
place, it is quite clear to me that, if you do not flog yourself, nobody
is going to flog us. The government is the kings, the ministers, the
officials with their pens, who cannot compel me to do anything like
what the rural judge compelled the peasants to do: those who will
take me forcibly to court, to prison, to the execution are not the
kings and the officials with their pens, but those very people who
are in the same condition in which I am. It is just as useless and
harmful and disagreeable for them to be flogged as it is for me, and
so in all probability, if I open their eyes, they not only must do me
no violence, but must even do as I do.
"In the third place, even if it should happen that I must suffer for it,
it still is more advantageous for me to be exiled or shut up in a
prison, while defending common sense and the good, which shall
triumph, if not to-day, certainly to-morrow, or in a very short time,
than to suffer for a foolish thing and an evil, which sooner or later
must come to an end. And so it is even in this case more
advantageous for me to risk being deported, locked up in a prison,
or even executed, than through my own fault to pass my whole life
as a slave to other bad men, than to be ruined by an enemy making
an incursion and stupidly to be maimed or killed by him, while
defending a cannon, or a useless piece of land, or a stupid rag which
they call a flag.
"I do not want to flog myself, and I won't. There is no reason why I
should. Do it yourselves, if you are so minded, but I won't."
It would seem that not only the religious or moral feeling, but the
simplest reflection and calculation would make a man of our time
answer and act in this manner. But no: the men of the social life-
conception find that it is not right to act in this manner, and that it is
even harmful to act thus if we wish to obtain the end of the
liberation of men from slavery, and that it is necessary for us, as in
the case of the rural judge and the peasants, to continue to flog one
another, consoling ourselves with the thought that the fact that we
prattle in Chambers and assemblies, form labour-unions, parade the
streets on the first of May, form plots, and secretly tease the
government which flogs us,—that all this will have the effect of
freeing us very soon, though we are enslaving ourselves more and
more.
Nothing so much impedes the liberation of men as this remarkable
delusion. Instead of directing all his forces to the liberation of
himself, to the change of his world-conception, every man seeks for
an external aggregate means for freeing himself, and thus fetters
himself more and more.
It is as though men should affirm that, in order to fan a fire, it is not
necessary to make every coal catch fire, but to place the coals in a
certain order.
In the meantime it has been getting more and more obvious of late
that the liberation of all men will take place only through the
liberation of the individual men. The liberation of individual persons
in the name of the Christian life-conception from the enslavement of
the state, which used to be an exclusive and imperceptible
phenomenon, has of late received a significance which is menacing
to the power of state.
If formerly, in the days of Rome, in the Middle Ages, it happened
that a Christian, professing his teaching, refused to take part in
sacrifices, to worship the emperors and gods, or in the Middle Ages
refused to worship the images, to recognize the papal power, these
refusals were, in the first place, accidental; a man might have been
put to the necessity of professing his faith, and he might have lived
a life without being placed in this necessity. But now all men without
exception are subject to these trials. Every man of our time is put to
the necessity of recognizing his participation in the cruelties of the
pagan life, or rejecting it. And, in the second place, in those days the
refusals to worship the gods, the images, the Pope, did not present
any essential phenomena for the state: no matter how many men
worshipped the gods, the images, or the Pope, the state remained
as strong as ever. But now the refusal to comply with the non-
Christian demands of governments undermines the power of state to
the root, because all the power of the state is based on these non-
Christian demands.
The worldly powers were led by the course of life to the proposition
that for their own preservation they had to demand from all men
such acts as could not be performed by those who professed true
Christianity.
And so in our time every profession of true Christianity by a separate
individual most materially undermines the power of the government
and inevitably leads to the emancipation of all men.
What importance can there be in such phenomena as the refusals of
a few dozens of madmen, as they are called, who do not wish to
swear to the government, or pay taxes, or take part in courts and
military service? These men are punished and removed, and life
continues as of old. It would seem that there is nothing important in
these phenomena, and yet it is these very phenomena that more
than anything else undermine the power of the state and prepare
the emancipation of men. They are those individual bees which
begin to separate from the swarm and fly about, awaiting what
cannot be delayed,—the rising of the whole swarm after them. The
governments know this, and are afraid of these phenomena more
than of all socialists, communists, anarchists, and their plots with
their dynamite bombs.
A new reign begins: according to the general rule and customary
order all the subjects are ordered to swear allegiance to the new
government. A general order is sent out, and everybody is called to
the cathedral to swear. Suddenly one man in Perm, another in Túla,
a third in Moscow, a fourth in Kalúga declare that they will not
swear, and they base their refusal, every one of them, without
having plotted together, on one and the same reason, which is, that
the oath is prohibited by the Christian law, and that, even if it were
not prohibited, they could not, according to the spirit of the Christian
law, promise to commit the evil acts which are demanded of them in
the oath, such as denouncing all those who will violate the interests
of the government, defending their government with weapons in
their hands, or attacking its enemies. They are summoned before
the rural judges or chiefs, priests, or governors, are admonished,
implored, threatened, and punished, but they stick to their
determination and do not swear. Among millions of those who swear,
there are a few dozens who do not. And they are asked:
"So you have not sworn?"
"We have not."
"Well, nothing happened?"
"Nothing."
All the subjects of a state are obliged to pay taxes. And all pay; but
one man in Khárkov, another in Tver, a third in Samára, refuse to pay
their taxes, all of them repeating, as though by agreement, one and
the same thing. One says that he will pay only when he is told what
the money taken from him will be used for: if for good things, he
says, he will himself give more than is asked of him; but if for bad
things, he will not give anything voluntarily, because, according to
Christ's teaching, which he follows, he cannot contribute to evil
deeds. The same, though with different words, is said by the others,
who do not voluntarily pay their taxes. From those who possess
anything, the property is taken by force, but those who have nothing
to give are left alone.
"Well, you did not pay the taxes?"
"I did not."
"Well, and nothing happened to you?"
"Nothing."
Passports are established. All who remove themselves from their
place of abode are obliged to take them and pay a revenue for
them. Suddenly on all sides appear men who say that it is not
necessary to take passports and that it is not right to recognize one's
dependence on a government which lives by violence, and they take
no passports and pay no revenue. Again it is impossible to make
these people carry out what is demanded of them. They are locked
up in prisons and let out again, and they continue to live without
passports.
All the peasants are obliged to serve as hundred-men, ten-men, and
so forth. Suddenly a peasant refuses in Khárkov to perform this
office, explaining his refusal by this, that, according to the Christian
law which he professes, he cannot bind, lock up, and lead a man
from one place to another. The same is asserted by a peasant in
Tver, in Támbov. The peasants are cursed, beaten, locked up, but
they stick to their determination and do not do what is contrary to
their faith. And they are no longer chosen as hundred-men, and that
is the end of it.
All the citizens must take part in court proceedings in the capacity of
jurymen. Suddenly the greatest variety of men, wheelwrights,
professors, merchants, peasants, gentlemen, as though by
agreement, all refuse to serve, not for causes which are recognized
by the law, but because the court itself, according to their conviction,
is an illegal, non-Christian thing, which ought not to exist. These
men are fined, without being allowed publicly to express the motives
of their refusal, and others are put in their places. The same is done
to those who on the same grounds refuse to be witnesses at court.
And nothing more happens.
All men of twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots.
Suddenly one young man in Moscow, another in Tver, a third in
Khárkov, a fourth in Kiev, appear, as though by previous agreement,
in court, and declare that they will neither swear nor serve, because
they are Christians. Here are the details of one of the first cases
(since then these refusals have become more and more frequent),
with which I am acquainted.[15] In all the other cases approximately
the same was done. A young man of medium culture refuses in the
Moscow Council to serve. No attention is paid to his words, and he is
ordered to pronounce the words of the oath, just like the rest. He
refuses, pointing out the definite place in the Gospel where taking
an oath is prohibited. No attention is paid to his arguments, and
they demand that he fulfil their command, but he does not do so.
Then it is assumed that he is a sectarian and so understands
Christianity incorrectly, that is, not in the way the clergy in the
government pay understand it, and so the young man is sent under
convoy to the priests, to be admonished. The priests begin to
admonish the young man, but their admonitions in the name of
Christ to renounce Christ have apparently no effect upon the young
man, and he is sent back to the army, having been declared
incorrigible. The young man still refuses to take the oath and openly
declines to fulfil his military duties. This case is not provided for in
the laws. It is impossible to admit a refusal to do the will of the
authorities, and it is equally impossible to rate this as a case of
simple disobedience. In a consultation the military authorities
determine to get rid of the troublesome young man by declaring him
to be a revolutionist, and send him under guard into the office of the
secret police. The police and the gendarmes examine the young
man, but nothing of what he says fits in with the crimes dealt with in
their departments, and there is absolutely no way of accusing him of
revolutionary acts, or of plotting, since he declares that he does not
wish to destroy anything, but, on the contrary, rejects all violence,
and conceals nothing, but seeks an opportunity for saying and doing
in a most open manner what he says and does. And the gendarmes,
though no laws are binding on them, like the clergy, find no cause
for an accusation and return the young man to the army. Again the
chiefs confer and decide to enlist the young man in the army, though
he refuses to take the oath. He is dressed up, entered on the lists,
and sent under guard to the place where the troops are distributed.
Here the chief of the section into which he enters again demands of
the young man the fulfilment of military duties, and he again refuses
to obey, and in the presence of other soldiers gives the cause for his
refusal, saying that, as a Christian, he cannot voluntarily prepare
himself to commit murder, which was prohibited even by the laws of
Moses.
The case takes place in a provincial city. It evokes interest and even
sympathy, not only among outsiders, but also among officers, and so
the superiors do not dare to apply the usual disciplinary measures
for a refusal to serve. However, for decency's sake the young man is
locked up in prison, and an inquiry is sent to the higher military
authority, requesting it to say what is to be done. From the official
point of view a refusal to take part in military service, in which the
Tsar himself serves and which is blessed by the church, presents
itself as madness, and so they write from St. Petersburg that, since
the young man is, no doubt, out of his mind, no severe measures
are to be used against him, but he is to be sent to an insane asylum,
where his mental health is to be investigated and he is to be cured.
He is sent there in the hope that he will stay there, just as happened
ten years before with another young man, who in Tver refused to do
military service and who was tortured in an insane asylum until he
gave in. But even this measure does not save the military authorities
from the inconvenient young man. The doctors examine him, are
very much interested in him, and, finding in him no symptoms
whatever of any mental trouble, naturally return him to the army. He
is received, and, pretending that his refusal and motives are
forgotten, they again propose to him that he go to the exercises; but
he again, in the presence of other soldiers, refuses, and gives the
cause for his refusal. This case more and more attracts the attention
of the soldiers and the inhabitants of the town. Again they write to
St. Petersburg, and from there comes the decision that the young
man be transferred to the army at the frontier, where it is in a state
of siege, and where he may be shot for refusing to serve, and where
the matter may pass unnoticed, since in that distant country there
are few Russians and Christians, and mostly natives and
Mohammedans. And so they do. The young man is attached to the
troops located in the Transcaspian Territory, and with criminals he is
despatched to a chief who is known for his determination and
severity.
During all this time, with all these transportations from one place to
another, the young man is treated rudely: he is kept cold, hungry,
and dirty, and his life in general is made a burden for him. But all
these tortures do not make him change his determination. In the
Transcaspian Territory, when told to stand sentry with his gun, he
again refuses to obey. He does not refuse to go and stand near
some haystacks, whither he is sent, but he refuses to take his gun,
declaring that under no condition would he use violence against any
one. All this takes place in the presence of other soldiers. It is
impossible to let such a case go unpunished, and the young man is
tried for violation of discipline. The trial takes place, and the young
man is sentenced to incarceration in a military prison for two years.
He is again sent by étapes with other criminals to the Caucasus and
is shut up in a prison, where he falls a prey to the uncontrolled
power of the jailer. There he is tormented for one year and six
months, but he still refuses to change his decision about taking up
arms, and he explains to all those with whom he comes in contact
why he does not do so, and at the end of his second year he is
discharged before the expiration of his term, by counting, contrary
to the law, his time in prison as part of his service, only to get rid of
him as quickly as possible.
Just like this man, as though having plotted together, act other men
in various parts of Russia, and in all those cases the mode of the
government's action is as timid, indefinite, and secretive. Some of
these men are sent to insane asylums, others are enlisted as scribes
and are transferred to service in Siberia, others are made to serve in
the forestry department, others are locked up in prisons, and others
are fined. Even now a few such men who have refused are sitting in
prisons, not for the essential point in the case, the rejection of the
legality of the government's action, but for the non-fulfilment of the
private demands of the government. Thus an officer of the reserve,
who did not keep the authorities informed of his residence and who
declared that he would not again serve as a military man, was lately,
for not fulfilling the commands of the authorities, fined thirty
roubles, which, too, he refused to pay voluntarily. Thus several
peasants and soldiers, who lately refused to take part in military
exercises and take up arms, were locked up for disobedience and
contempt.
And such cases of refusing to comply with the government demands
which are contrary to Christianity, especially refusals to do military
service, have of late occurred not in Russia alone, but even
elsewhere. Thus, I know that in Servia men of the so-called sect of
Nazarenes constantly refuse to do military service, and the Austrian
government has for several years been vainly struggling with them,
subjecting them to imprisonment. In the year 1885 there were 130
such refusals. In Switzerland, I know men were incarcerated in the
Chillon Fortress in the year 1890 for refusing to do military service,
and they did not change their determination in consequence of their
imprisonment. Such refusals have also happened in Prussia. I know
of an under-officer of the Guard, who in 1891 declared to the
authorities in Berlin that as a Christian he would not continue to
serve, and, in spite of all admonitions, threats, and punishments, he
stuck to his decision. In France there has of late arisen in the south
a community of men, who bear the name of Hinschists (this
information is received from the Peace Herald, July, 1891), the
members of which on the basis of the Christian profession refuse to
do military service, and at first were inscribed in hospitals, but now,
having increased in numbers, are subjected to punishments for
disobedience, but still refuse to take up arms.
The socialists, communists, anarchists, with their bombs, riots, and
revolutions, are by no means so terrible to the governments as these
scattered people, who from various sides refuse to do military
service,—all of them on the basis of the same well-known teaching.
Every government knows how and why to defend itself against
revolutionists, and they have means for it, and so are not afraid of
these external enemies. But what are the governments to do against
those men who point out the uselessness, superfluity, and
harmfulness of all governments, and do not struggle with them, but
only have no use for them, get along without them, and do not wish
to take part in them?
The revolutionists say, "The governmental structure is bad for this
and that reason,—it is necessary to put this or that in its place." But
a Christian says, "I know nothing of the governmental structure,
about its being good or bad, and do not wish to destroy it for the
very reason that I do not know whether it is good or bad, but for the
same reason I do not wish to sustain it. I not only do not wish to,
but even cannot do so, because what is demanded of me is contrary
to my conscience."
What is contrary to a Christian's conscience is all obligations of state,
—the oath, the taxes, the courts, the army. But on all these
obligations the state is founded.
The revolutionary enemies struggle with the state from without; but
Christianity does not struggle at all,—it inwardly destroys all the
foundations of government.
Among the Russian people, where, especially since the time of Peter
I., the protest of Christianity against the government has never
ceased, where the structure of life is such that men have gone away
by whole communities to Turkey, to China, to uninhabitable lands,
and not only are in no need of the government, but always look
upon it as an unnecessary burden, and only bear it as a calamity, be
it Turkish, Russian, or Chinese,—among the Russian people there
have of late been occurring more and more frequently cases of the
Christian conscious emancipation of separate individuals from
submission to the government. And now especially these
manifestations are very terrible to the government, because those
who refuse frequently do not belong to the so-called lower
uncultured classes, but to the people with a medium or higher
education, and because these men no longer base their refusals on
some mystical exclusive beliefs, as was the case formerly, nor
connect them with some superstition or savage practices, as is the
case with the Self-Consumers and Runners, but put forth the
simplest and clearest truths, which are accessible to all men and
recognized by them all.
Thus they refuse to pay their taxes voluntarily, because the taxes are
used for acts of violence, for salaries to violators and military men,
for the construction of prisons, fortresses, cannon, while they, as
Christians, consider it sinful and immoral to take part in these things.
Those who refuse to take the common oath do so because to
promise to obey the authorities, that is, men who are given to acts
of violence, is contrary to the Christian teaching; they refuse to take
their oath in courts, because the oath is directly forbidden in the
Gospel. They decline to serve in the police, because in connection
with these duties they have to use force against their own brothers
and torment them, whereas a Christian may not do so. They decline
to take part in court proceedings, because they consider every court
proceeding a fulfilment of the law of revenge, which is incompatible
with the Christian law of forgiveness and love. They decline to take
part in all military preparations and in the army, because they do not
wish to be and cannot be executioners, and do not want to prepare
themselves for the office of executioner.
All the motives of these refusals are such that, no matter how
despotic a government may be, it cannot punish them openly. To
punish them for such refusals, a government must itself irretrievably
renounce reason and the good; whereas it assures men that it
serves only in the name of reason and of the good.
What are the governments to do against these men?
Indeed, the governments can kill off, for ever shut up in prisons and
at hard labour their enemies, who wish by the exercise of violence to
overthrow them; they can bury in gold half of the men, such as they
may need, and bribe them; they can subject to themselves millions
of armed men, who will be ready to destroy all the enemies of the
governments. But what can they do with men who, not wishing to
destroy anything, nor to establish anything, wish only for their own
sakes, for the sake of their lives, to do nothing which is contrary to
the Christian law, and so refuse to fulfil the most common
obligations, which are most indispensable to the governments?
If they were revolutionists, who preach violence and murder, and
who practise all these things, it would be easy to oppose them: part
of them would be bribed, part deceived, part frightened into
subjection; and those who could not be bribed, or deceived, or
frightened, would be declared malefactors and enemies of society,
would be executed or locked up, and the crowd would applaud the
action of the government. If they were some horrible sectarians who
preached a peculiar faith, it would be possible, thanks to those
superstitions of falsehood, which by them are mixed in with their
doctrine, to overthrow whatever truth there is in their faith. But what
is to be done with men who preach neither revolution, nor any
special religious dogmas, but only, because they do not wish to harm
any one, refuse to take the oath of allegiance, to pay taxes, to take
part in court proceedings, in military service, and in duties on which
the whole structure of the government is based? What is to be done
with such men? It is impossible to bribe them: the very risk which
they take shows their unselfishness. Nor can they be deceived by
claiming that God wants it so, because their refusal is based on the
explicit, undoubted law of God, which is professed by the very men
who wish to make them act contrary to it. Still less is it possible to
intimidate them with threats, because the privations and sufferings
to which they are subjected for their faith only strengthen their
desire, and because it says distinctly in their law that God must be
obeyed more than men, and that they should not fear those who
may ruin their bodies, but that which may ruin both their bodies and
their souls. Nor can they be executed or locked up for ever. These
men have a past, and friends, and their manner of thinking and
acting is known; all know them as meek, good, peaceful men, and it
is impossible to declare them to be malefactors who ought to be
removed for the safety of society. The execution of men who by all
men are recognized to be good will only call forth defenders of the
refusal and commentators on it; and the causes of the refusal need
but be made clear, in order that it may become clear to all men that
the causes which make these Christians refuse to comply with the
demands of the state are the same for all other men, and that all
men ought to have done so long ago.
In the presence of the refusals of the Christians the governments are
in a desperate plight. They see that the prophecy of Christianity is
being fulfilled,—it tears asunder the fetters of the fettered and sets
free the men who lived in slavery, and they see that this liberation
will inevitably destroy those who keep others in slavery. The
governments see this; they know that their hours are numbered,
and are unable to do anything. All they can do for their salvation is
to defer the hour of their ruin. This they do, but their situation is
none the less desperate.
The situation of the governments is like the situation of a conqueror
who wants to save the city that is fired by its own inhabitants. He no
sooner puts out the fire in one place than it begins to burn in two
other places; he no sooner gives way to the fire and breaks off what
is burning in a large building, than even this building begins to burn
from two sides. These individual fires are still rare, but having
started with a spark, they will not stop until everything is consumed.
And just as the governments find themselves in such unprotected
straits in the presence of men who profess Christianity, and when
but very little is wanting for this force, which seems so powerful and
which was reared through so many centuries, to fall to pieces, the
public leaders preach that it is not only unnecessary, but even
harmful and immoral, for every individual to try and free himself
from slavery. It is as though some people, to free a dammed up
river, should have all but cut through a ditch, when nothing but an
opening is necessary for the water to flow into this ditch and do the
rest, and there should appear some people who would persuade
them that, rather than let off the water, they should construct above
the river a machine with buckets, which, drawing the water up on
one side, would drop it into the same river from the other side.
But the matter has gone too far: the governments feel their
indefensibleness and weakness, and the men of the Christian
consciousness are awakening from their lethargy and are beginning
to feel their strength.
"I brought the fire upon earth," said Christ, "and how I long for it to
burn up!"
And this fire is beginning to burn up.

X.
Christianity in its true meaning destroys the state. Thus it was
understood from the very beginning, and Christ was crucified for this
very reason, and thus it has always been understood by men who
are not fettered by the necessity of proving the justification of the
Christian state. Only when the heads of the states accepted the
external nominal Christianity did they begin to invent all those
impossible finely spun theories, according to which Christianity was
compatible with the state. But for every sincere and serious man of
our time it is quite obvious that true Christianity—the teaching of
humility, of forgiveness of offences, of love—is incompatible with the
state, with its magnificence, its violence, its executions, and its wars.
The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility of
recognizing the state, but even destroys its very foundations.
But if this is so, and it is true that Christianity is incompatible with
the state, there naturally arises the question: "What is more
necessary for the good of humanity, what more permanently secures
the good of men, the political form of life, or its destruction and the
substitution of Christianity in its place?"
Some men say that the state is most necessary for humanity, that
the destruction of the political form would lead to the destruction of
everything worked out by humanity, that the state has been and
continues to be the only form of the development of humanity, and
that all that evil which we see among the nations who live in the
political form is not due to this form, but to the abuses, which can
be mended without destruction, and that humanity, without
impairing the political form, can develop and reach a high degree of
well-being. And the men who think so adduce in confirmation of
their opinion philosophic, historic, and even religious arguments,
which to them seem incontrovertible. But there are men who
assume the opposite, namely, that, as there was a time when
humanity lived without a political form, this form is only temporary,
and the time must arrive when men shall need a new form, and that
this time has arrived even now. And the men who think so also
adduce in confirmation of their opinion philosophic, and historic, and
religious arguments, which also seem incontrovertible to them.
It is possible to write volumes in the defence of the first opinion
(they have been written long ago, and there is still no end to them),
and there can be written much against it (though but lately begun,
many a brilliant thing has been written against it).
It is impossible to prove, as the defenders of the state claim, that
the destruction of the state will lead to a social chaos, mutual rapine,
murder, and the destruction of all public institutions, and the return
of humanity to barbarism; nor can it be proved, as the opponents of
the state claim, that men have already become so wise and good
that they do not rob or kill one another, that they prefer peace to
hostility, that they will themselves without the aid of the state
arrange everything they need, and that therefore the state not only
does not contribute to all this, but, on the contrary, under the guise
of defending men, exerts a harmful and bestializing influence upon
them. It is impossible to prove either the one or the other by means
of abstract reflections. Still less can it be proved by experience, since
the question consists in this, whether the experiment is to be made
or not. The question as to whether the time has come for abolishing
the state, or not, would be insoluble, if there did not exist another
vital method for an incontestable solution of the same.
Quite independently of anybody's reflections as to whether the
chicks are sufficiently matured for him to drive the hen away from
the nest and let the chicks out of their eggs, or whether they are not
yet sufficiently matured, the incontestable judges of the case will be
the chicks themselves, when, unable to find enough room in their
eggs, they will begin to pick them with their bills, and will
themselves come out of them.
The same is true of the question whether the time for destroying the
political form and for substituting another form has come, or not. If
a man, in consequence of the higher consciousness matured in him,
is no longer able to comply with the demands of the state, no longer
finds room in it, and at the same time no longer is in need of the
preservation of the political form, the question as to whether men
have matured for the change of the political form, or not, is decided
from an entirely different side, and just as incontestably as for the
chick that has picked its shell, into which no power in the world can
again return it, by the men themselves who have outgrown the state
and who cannot be returned to it by any power in the world.
"It is very likely that the state was necessary and even now is
necessary for all those purposes which you ascribe to it," says the
man who has made the Christian life-conception his own, "but all I
know is that, on the one hand, I no longer need the state, and, on
the other, I can no longer perform those acts which are necessary
for the existence of the state. Arrange for yourselves what you need
for your lives: I cannot prove either the common necessity, or the
common harm of the state; all I know is what I need and what not,
what I may do and what not. I know for myself that I do not need
any separation from the other nations, and so I cannot recognize my
exclusive belonging to some one nation or state, and my subjection
to any government; I know in my own case that I do not need all
those government offices and courts, which are the product of
violence, and so I cannot take part in any of them; I know in my
own case that I do not need to attack other nations and kill them,
nor defend myself by taking up arms, and so I cannot take part in
wars and in preparations for them. It is very likely that there are
some people who cannot regard all that as necessary and
indispensable. I cannot dispute with them,—all I know concerning
myself, but that I know incontestably, is that I do not need it all and
am not able to do it. I do not need it, and I cannot do it, not
because I, my personality, do not want it, but because He who has
sent me into life, and has given me the incontestable law for
guidance in my life, does not want it."
No matter what arguments men may adduce in proof of the danger
of abolishing the power of the state and that this abolition may
beget calamities, the men who have outgrown the political form can
no longer find their place in it. And, no matter what arguments may
be adduced to a man who has outgrown the political form, about its
indispensableness, he cannot return to it, cannot take part in the
affairs which are denied by his consciousness, just as the full-grown
chicks can no longer return into the shell which they have outgrown.
"But even if this is so," say the defenders of the existing order, "the
abolition of the violence of state would be possible and desirable
only if all men became Christians. So long as this is not the case, so
long as among men who only call themselves Christians there are
men who are no Christians, evil men, who for the sake of their
personal lust are prepared to do harm to others, the abolition of the
power of state would not only fail to be a good for all the rest, but
would even increase their wretchedness. The abolition of the political
form of life is undesirable, not only when there is a small proportion
of true Christians, but even when all shall be Christians, while in
their midst or all about them, among other nations, there shall
remain non-Christians, because the non-Christians will with impunity
rob, violate, kill the Christians and make their life miserable. What
will happen will be that the evil men will with impunity rule the good
and do violence to them. And so the power of state must not be
abolished until all the bad, rapacious men in the world are
destroyed. And as this will not happen for a long time to come, if at
all, this power, in spite of the attempts of individual Christians at
emancipating themselves from the power of state, must be
maintained for the sake of the majority of men." Thus speak the
defenders of the state. "Without the state the evil men do violence
to the good and rule over them, but the power of state makes it
possible for the good to keep the evil in check," they say.
But, in asserting this, the defenders of the existing order of things
decide in advance the justice of the position which it is for them to
prove. In saying that without the power of state the evil men would
rule over the good, they take it for granted that the good are
precisely those who at the present time have power, and the bad the
same who are now subjugated. But it is precisely this that has to be
proved. This would be true only if in our world took place what really
does not take place, but is supposed to take place, in China, namely,
that the good are always in power, and that, as soon as at the helm
of the government stand men who are not better than those over
whom they rule, the citizens are obliged to depose them. Thus it is
supposed to be in China, but in reality this is not so, and cannot be
so, because, in order to overthrow the power of the violating
government, it is not enough to have the right to do so,—one must
also have the force. Consequently this is only assumed to be so even
in China; but in our Christian world this has never even been
assumed. In our world there is not even any foundation for
assuming that better men or the best should rule, and not those
who have seized the power and retain it for themselves and for their
descendants. Better men are absolutely unable to seize the power
and to retain it.
In order to get the power and retain it, it is necessary to love power;
but love of power is not connected with goodness, but with qualities
which are the opposite of goodness, such as pride, cunning, cruelty.
Without self-aggrandizement and debasement of others, without
hypocrisy, deceit, prisons, fortresses, executions, murders, a power
can neither arise nor maintain itself.
"If the power of state be abolished, the more evil men will rule over
the less evil ones," say the defenders of the state. But if the
Egyptians subjugated the Jews, the Persians the Egyptians, the
Macedonians the Persians, the Romans the Greeks, the barbarians
the Romans, is it possible that all those who have subjugated were
better than those whom they subjugated?
And similarly, in the transference of the power in one state from one
set of persons to another, has the power always passed into the
hands of those who were better? When Louis XVI. was deposed, and
Robespierre and later Napoleon ruled, who did rule? Better or worse
men? And when did better men rule, when men from Versailles or
from the Commune were in power? or when Charles I. or Cromwell
was at the head of the government? or when Peter III. was Tsar or
when he was killed, and the sovereign was Catherine for one part of
Russia and Pugachév for the other? Who was then evil and who
good?
All men in power assert that their power is necessary in order that
the evil men may not do violence to the good, meaning by this that
they are those same good men, who protect others against the evil
men.
But to rule means to do violence, and to do violence means to do
what the other man, on whom the violence is exerted, does not wish
to have done to him, and what, no doubt, he who exerts the
violence would not wish to have done to himself; consequently, to
rule means to do to another what we do not wish to have done to
ourselves, that is, to do evil.
To submit means to prefer suffering to violence. But to prefer
suffering to violence means to be good, or at least less evil than
those who do to another what they do not wish to have done to
themselves.
And so all the probabilities are in favour of the fact that not those
who are better than those over whom they rule, but, on the
contrary, those who are worse, have always been and even now are
in power. There may also be worse men among those who submit to
the power, but it cannot be that better men should rule over worse
men.
This was impossible to assume in case of the pagan inexact
definition of goodness; but with the Christian lucid and exact
definition of goodness and evil, it is impossible to think so. If more
or less good men, more or less bad men, cannot be distinguished in
the pagan world, the Christian conception of good and evil has so
clearly defined the symptoms of the good and the evil, that they can
no longer be mistaken. According to Christ's teaching the good are
those who humble themselves, suffer, do not resist evil with force,
forgive offences, love their enemies; the evil are those who exalt
themselves, rule, struggle, and do violence to people, and so,
according to Christ's teaching, there is no doubt as to where the
good are among the ruling and the subjugated. It even sounds
ridiculous to speak of ruling Christians.
The non-Christians, that is, those who base their lives on the worldly
good, must always rule over Christians, over those who assume that
their lives consist in the renunciation of this good.
Thus it has always been and it has become more and more definite,
in proportion as the Christian teaching has been disseminated and
elucidated.
The more the true Christianity spread and entered into the
consciousness of men, the less it was possible for Christians to be
among the rulers, and the easier it grew for non-Christians to rule
over Christians.
"The abolition of the violence of state at a time when not all men in
society have become true Christians would have this effect, that the
bad would rule over the good and would with impunity do violence
to them," say the defenders of the existing order of life.
"The bad will rule over the good and will do violence to them."
But it has never been different, and it never can be. Thus it has
always been since the beginning of the world, and thus it is now.
The bad always rule over the good and always do violence to them.
Cain did violence to Abel, cunning Jacob to trustful Esau, deceitful
Laban to Jacob; Caiaphas and Pilate ruled over Christ, the Roman
emperors ruled over a Seneca, an Epictetus, and good Romans who
lived in their time. John IV. with his opríchniks, the drunken syphilitic
Peter with his fools, the harlot Catherine with her lovers, ruled over
the industrious religious Russians of their time and did violence to
them. William rules over the Germans, Stambulov over the
Bulgarians, Russian officials over the Russian people. The Germans
ruled over the Italians, now they rule over Hungarians and Slavs; the
Turks have ruled over Greeks and Slavs; the English rule over
Hindoos; the Mongolians rule over the Chinese.
Thus, whether the political violence be abolished or not, the
condition of the good men who are violated by the bad will not be
changed thereby.
It is absolutely impossible to frighten men with this, that the bad will
rule over the good, because what they are frightened with is
precisely what has always been and cannot be otherwise.
The whole pagan history of humanity consists of only those cases
when the worse seized the power over the less bad, and, having
seized it, maintained it by cruelties and cunning, and, proclaiming
themselves as guardians of justice and defenders of the good
against the bad, ruled over the good. As to the rulers' saying that, if
it were not for their power, the worse would do violence to the good,
it means only this, that the violators in power do not wish to cede
this power to other violators, who may wish to take it from them.
But, in saying this, the rulers only give themselves away. They say
that their power, that is, violence, is necessary for the defence of
men against some other violators, or such as may still appear.[16]
The exercise of violence is dangerous for the very reason that, as
soon as it is exercised, all the arguments adduced by the violators
can, not only with the same, but even with greater force, be applied
against them. They speak of the past, and more frequently of the
imaginary future of violence, but themselves without cessation
commit acts of violence. "You say that men used to rob and kill
others, and you are afraid that men will rob and kill one another, if
your power does not exist. That may be so or not, but your ruining
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com