Men are cruel, but Man is kind.

-- Stray Birds (219) by Rabindranath Tagore

What is the meaning of men and man in that sentence?

5 Answers 5


Opinions about this quote vary (here's one thread, for example), but the gist of the interpretations follow a common theme.

NOAD offers a hint:

man (n.)
1 an adult human male.
2 a human being of either sex; a person
• (also Man) [in sing.] human beings in general; the human race

I'd paraphrase it like this:

People are cruel, but the human race is still compassionate.

Whether that's a correct interpretation is off-topic (we don't do literary critiques of poetry here). However, the fact that the words man and men can be used to describe:

  • males, or
  • people, or
  • the human race

is indeed a matter for the English learner.

I believe the first word is capitalized because it's at the beginning of the sentence; the second capitalized word is being used as shown in NOAD, where Man = the human race.

As for your original question, I don't believe the word "Men" refers to "two men", but to an unspecified number of men.

  • 1
    @ J.R. : Here, the OP is not asking the reason for the first letter to be capital. He's asking why it is written : "Man is Kind" and "Men are Cruel". Intsead why we cannot write "Man is kind" but "Man is cruel" OR "Men are cruel" but "Men are Kind". Why in one sentence, singular form is used and in the other plural form even Man means the same thing either a particular person or complete mankind.
    – Sweet72
    Commented Sep 20, 2013 at 12:10
  • 1
    @Sweet72- I don't think the OP is asking about plural or singular nature of the word. I guess the question is how can man (or men) be kind and cruel at the same time.
    – aarbee
    Commented Sep 20, 2013 at 12:30
  • @J.R.- I believe people and human race are synonyms. If you think they are separate, can you please elaborate?
    – aarbee
    Commented Sep 20, 2013 at 12:31
  • 1
    @Ramit There are certainly different counts implied between “people” and “(the) human race” such that almost all references to the former are understood to indicate a subset (albeit often a vague subset) of those covered by the latter. I want to point out that there's also a difference in the temporality implied by each. “People” seems to me to be much more specific in time, whereas “(the) human race” seems to indicate our species' entire history (and perhaps even make implicit reference to all our possible futures as well). (cf: “all's well that ends well” and “the truth will out”) Commented Sep 20, 2013 at 20:51
  • 1
    @TylerJamesYoung - The O.P.'s question reads: "How to understand the two Men and Man". That's where I got confused; I parsed "two Men and Man" as (two Men) and (Man). Oops! After reading your comment, though, I see how I should have parsed it as "(How to understand the two): (Men and Man)" Punctuation is a wonderful thing - Let's eat, Grandma!
    – J.R.
    Commented Sep 20, 2013 at 21:10

What is the meaning of men and man in that sentence?

This is a fascinating question on many levels.

  1. The author did not write in English so we're reading a translation.
  2. The two words are in some sense synonyms.
  3. It appears like most of the interpretations on the internet depend on someone's point-of-view. For example:

I believe it means, individuals can be arrogant and ruthless, while the general nature of humans is much more compassionate in nature. A good example of this is the way strangers pull together in time of crisis or disaster.

The author is gone so I believe that precisely what constitutes each group can't be decided from this single verse, and that everyone needs to read the entire poem and discern the author's intent. When I read the poem the author seems to have a great respect for people as individuals.

My guess is that the verse is referring to the fact that man has a dual nature. Neither all good nor all bad.

  • that's a very interesting take! +1
    – aarbee
    Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 5:38
  • It's also possible to interpret it exactly opposite to the quote you give: individuals are kind (Man), but when you put a bunch of people together (Men), you get cruelty instead.
    – user230
    Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 15:46
  • 1
    @snailboat 100% agreed.
    – dcaswell
    Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 15:52
  • @snailboat Yes, I found many Chinese understood of Men on the net are Mankind, Many people are cruel. However, many English understood of Men are single people. Commented Sep 22, 2013 at 13:21
  • 1
    @HyperGroups For what it's worth, I'm a native speaker of English, and my personal feeling is that Men doesn't mean single people. But I agree with this answer that it's open to interpretation.
    – user230
    Commented Sep 22, 2013 at 14:04

Men = individuals

Man = mankind/humankind

So, humans as a species/group are generally kind, though there are individuals who are cruel.

It's making the same distinction as in Neil Armstrong's famous quote: "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind"

The "maleness" is not relevant. It used to be common to refer to people as "men", and all people as "mankind", but today we prefer to use gender-neutral language, eg, "people" and "humans/humankind".

It is possible that the author meant it the other way around though:

"Men" = all people

"Man" = an individual

although this is less likely, if the translator can be trusted. One would have to look at the original-language text to be sure.


Individual people are cruel, but humankind as a whole is kind.


Frankly, I interpret this differently than the other answers.

"Men" is a collective noun - a group. A class. Men, as a class, are cruel. We see this in sociological discussions on mob mentality. People act differently in mobs than they would feel free to act as individuals - it is something to do with abdication of responsibility.

"Man" is an architype - the ideal man. The typical man. It is generally more difficult to be cruel one-on-one, when one is looking his victim in the eyes. When there is a personal connection, individual humans tend to be kind. Even very cruel men, like Adolph Hitler, were reputed to be kind on an individual level. I remember viewing a documentary featuring an interview with an elderly woman who became part of Hitler's personal household staff when she was quite young (she was a chambermaid or some such at Kehlsteinhaus) and she spoke of Hitler's kindness and generosity toward her and other household staff.

So, I read the above as: Men (as a class) are cruel, but the typical Man is kind.




What is the meaning of "two young men who are riffs on gangsters-films archetypes"

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .