第六回テキスト

---はじめ---

Or a more general division into two parts may be adopted; the
first (Books I - IV) containing the description of a State
framed generally in accordance with Hellenic notions of
religion and morality, while in the second (Books V - X) the
Hellenic State is transformed into an ideal kingdom of
philosophy, of which all other governments are the
perversions. These two points of view are really opposed, and
the opposition is only veiled by the genius of Plato. The
Republic, like the Phaedrus, is an imperfect whole; the
higher light of philosophy breaks through the regularity of
the Hellenic temple, which at last fades away into the
heavens. Whether this imperfection of structure arises from
an enlargement of the plan; or from the imperfect
reconcilement in the writer's own mind of the struggling
elements of thought which are now first brought together by
him; or, perhaps, from the composition of the work at
different times --are questions, like the similar question
about the Iliad and the Odyssey, which are worth asking, but
which cannot have a distinct answer. In the age of Plato
there was no regular mode of publication, and an author would
have the less scruple in altering or adding to a work which
was known only to a few of his friends. There is no absurdity
in supposing that he may have laid his labors aside for a
time, or turned from one work to another; and such
interruptions would be more likely to occur in the case of a
long than of a short writing. In all attempts to determine
the chronological he order of the Platonic writings on
internal evidence, this uncertainty about any single Dialogue
being composed at one time is a disturbing element, which
must be admitted to affect longer works, such as the Republic
and the Laws, more than shorter ones. But, on the other hand,
the seeming discrepancies of the Republic may only arise out
of the discordant elements which the philosopher has
attempted to unite in a single whole, perhaps without being
himself able to recognize the inconsistency which is obvious
to us. For there is a judgment of after ages which few great
writers have ever been able to anticipate for themselves.
They do not perceive the want of connection in their own
writings, or the gaps in their systems which are visible
enough to those who come after them. In the beginnings of
literature and philosophy, amid the first efforts of thought
and language, more inconsistencies occur than now, when the
paths of speculation are well worn and the meaning of words
precisely defined. For consistency, too, is the growth of
time; and some of the greatest creations of the human mind
have been wanting in unity. Tried by this test, several of
the Platonic Dialogues, according to our modern ideas, appear
to be defective, but the deficiency is no proof that they
were composed at different times or by different hands. And
the supposition that the Republic was written uninterruptedly
and by a continuous effort is in some degree confirmed by the
numerous references from one part of the work to another.

---終わり---

> 第六回テキスト
>
> ---はじめ---
>
> Or a more general division into two parts may be adopted; the
> first (Books I - IV) containing the description of a State
> framed generally in accordance with Hellenic notions of
> religion and morality, while in the second (Books V - X) the
> Hellenic State is transformed into an ideal kingdom of
> philosophy, of which all other governments are the
> perversions.

　また、二つに分けるというより一般的な分割も採用されるかもしれない。
初めの部分(Books I - IV)は、一般に、ギリシアの宗教と道徳の概念に応じ
て枠組みの与えられた国家の描写を含んでいる。一方、第二部(Books V - X)
は、ギリシアの国家が理想の哲学の王国に変えられており、その他のすべての
政府はその堕落したものである。

> These two points of view are really opposed, and
> the opposition is only veiled by the genius of Plato.

　これら二つの観点は、本当は対立するものである。そして、その対立は、
プラトンの天才によってヴェールが被せられているだけである。

> The
> Republic, like the Phaedrus, is an imperfect whole; the
> higher light of philosophy breaks through the regularity of
> the Hellenic temple, which at last fades away into the
> heavens.

　「国家」は、パエドロスのように、完全なものではなく不完全なものである。
哲学のより高い光がギリシアの神殿の調和を通して差し込み、それは、最後に
は天上へと消えていく。

> Whether this imperfection of structure arises from
> an enlargement of the plan; or from the imperfect
> reconcilement in the writer's own mind of the struggling
> elements of thought which are now first brought together by
> him; or, perhaps, from the composition of the work at
> different times --are questions, like the similar question
> about the Iliad and the Odyssey, which are worth asking, but
> which cannot have a distinct answer.

　この構想の不完全さが、計画の拡大によるものかどうか、あるいは、彼によ
って今初めてもたらされた思想の相戦う要素が、著者自身のこころの中で完全
に調和させることができなかったからか、あるいは、恐らく、異なる時期に著
作を書いたからか、疑問である。イーリアスやオデュッセイアについての同様
の問のように、それは問う価値はあるが、明確な答えは得られないだろう。

> In the age of Plato
> there was no regular mode of publication, and an author would
> have the less scruple in altering or adding to a work which
> was known only to a few of his friends.

　プラトンの時代には、決まった出版の方法はなかった。そして、著者は、
数人の友人にしか知られていない著作を書き換えたり書き加えたりすることに、
それほどのためらいはなかったであろう。

> There is no absurdity
> in supposing that he may have laid his labors aside for a
> time, or turned from one work to another; and such
> interruptions would be more likely to occur in the case of a
> long than of a short writing.

　しばらくの間、彼が自らの労作を脇において、他の著作に移ったと考えても、
決してばかげた話ではない。そうした中断は、短い著作よりも長い著作におい
て起こる可能性が高いだろう。

> In all attempts to determine
> the chronological he order of the Platonic writings on
> internal evidence, this uncertainty about any single Dialogue
> being composed at one time is a disturbing element, which
> must be admitted to affect longer works, such as the Republic
> and the Laws, more than shorter ones.

　内部の証拠から、プラトンの著作の年代順を決定する試みの中で、どの対話
編も一時期に書かれたのではないのではないかという不確かさが、妨げの要素
であり、それは、短いものより、「国家」や「法律」のような長い著作のほう
に影響を及ぼしたと認められなければならない。

> But, on the other hand,
> the seeming discrepancies of the Republic may only arise out
> of the discordant elements which the philosopher has
> attempted to unite in a single whole, perhaps without being
> himself able to recognize the inconsistency which is obvious
> to us.

　しかし、一方で、「国家」の矛盾と思えるものは、哲学者が、恐らく、私た
ちには明らかである矛盾を彼自身が認識できないで、一つの全体として結びつ
けようとした矛盾した要素から生じただけであろう。

> For there is a judgment of after ages which few great
> writers have ever been able to anticipate for themselves.

　というのは、偉大な著述家のほとんどは、これまで自分ではそれを予期でき
なかったという後の時代の判断があるからである。

> They do not perceive the want of connection in their own
> writings, or the gaps in their systems which are visible
> enough to those who come after them.

　彼らは、自らの著作の関係性の欠如に、あるいは、後の時代の人達には見え
る彼らの体系の裂け目に気づいていない。

> In the beginnings of
> literature and philosophy, amid the first efforts of thought
> and language, more inconsistencies occur than now, when the
> paths of speculation are well worn and the meaning of words
> precisely defined.

　文学と哲学の始まりにおいては、思想と言語との最初の努力の中で、今日よ
りも多くの矛盾が生じ、その時に、思索の道が十分に整えられ、言葉の意味が
正確に定義される。

> For consistency, too, is the growth of
> time; and some of the greatest creations of the human mind
> have been wanting in unity.

　というのは、首尾一貫性も、時代と共に成長するから。そして、人間精神の
最も偉大な創造のいくつかは、統一が望まれていたから。

> Tried by this test, several of
> the Platonic Dialogues, according to our modern ideas, appear
> to be defective, but the deficiency is no proof that they
> were composed at different times or by different hands.

　こうした検証が試見られると、プラトンの対話編のいくつかは、私たち現代
の思想に従えば、欠点があるように思われる。しかし、その不十分さは、それ
らが異なる時代、異なる人の手によって書かれたという証拠では決してない。

> And
> the supposition that the Republic was written uninterruptedly
> and by a continuous effort is in some degree confirmed by the
> numerous references from one part of the work to another.

　また、「国家」は中断されることなく、また絶えざる努力によって書かれた
という推測は、ある程度、著作の一部が他の部分を数多く参照していることに
よっても確認されている。

> ---終わり---