第10回テキスト

---はじめ---

It is not necessary to discuss at length a minor question
which has been raised by Boeckh, respecting the imaginary
date at which the conversation was held (the year 411 B. C.
which is proposed by him will do as well as any other); for a
writer of fiction, and especially a writer who, like Plato,
is notoriously careless of chronology, only aims at general
probability. Whether all the persons mentioned in the
Republic could ever have met at any one time is not a
difficulty which would have occurred to an Athenian reading
the work forty years later, or to Plato himself at the time
of writing (any more than to Shakespeare respecting one of
his own dramas); and need not greatly trouble us now. Yet
this may be a question having no answer "which is still worth
asking," because the investigation shows that we can not
argue historically from the dates in Plato; it would be
useless therefore to waste time in inventing far-fetched
reconcilements of them in order avoid chronological
difficulties, such, for example, as the conjecture of C. F.
Hermann, that Glaucon and Adeimantus are not the brothers but
the uncles of Plato, or the fancy of Stallbaum that Plato
intentionally left anachronisms indicating the dates at which
some of his Dialogues were written.

---終わり---

> 第10回テキスト
>
> ---はじめ---
>
> It is not necessary to discuss at length a minor question
> which has been raised by Boeckh, respecting the imaginary
> date at which the conversation was held (the year 411 B. C.
> which is proposed by him will do as well as any other); for a
> writer of fiction, and especially a writer who, like Plato,
> is notoriously careless of chronology, only aims at general
> probability.

　会話が行われた想像上の年代（彼によって提案された B.C.411年でも、他の
どの年代でもよいだろう）に関する、ベックによって提出された些細な問題に
ついては、結局のところ議論する必要はない。というのは、フィクションの作
家は、特にプラトンのようなよく知られた年代に無関心な作家は、ただ、全般
的な可能性を目指していたに過ぎないから。

> Whether all the persons mentioned in the
> Republic could ever have met at any one time is not a
> difficulty which would have occurred to an Athenian reading
> the work forty years later, or to Plato himself at the time
> of writing (any more than to Shakespeare respecting one of
> his own dramas); and need not greatly trouble us now.

　「国家」の中に述べられているすべての人々がある同じ時に出会うことがで
きたかどうかは、４０年後にその著作を読むアテネの人々に、あるいは、著作
している時にプラトン自身に（シェークスピアに、彼自身の演劇の作品の一つ
に関してと同様）生じた困難ではない。また、今日、私たちは、それほど悩む
必要もない。

> Yet
> this may be a question having no answer "which is still worth
> asking," because the investigation shows that we can not
> argue historically from the dates in Plato; it would be
> useless therefore to waste time in inventing far-fetched
> reconcilements of them in order avoid chronological
> difficulties, such,

　しかし、これは、「まだ問う価値のある」答えのない問題であるかも知れな
い。なぜなら、その研究は、私たちがプラトンの年代から歴史的に議論できな
いことを示しているから。

> it would be
> useless therefore to waste time in inventing far-fetched
> reconcilements of them in order avoid chronological
> difficulties,

　それ故、年代的な困難を避けるために、それらを何とか辻褄をあわせようと
することは、時間を浪費する無駄なことであろう。

> such, for example, as the conjecture of C. F.
> Hermann, that Glaucon and Adeimantus are not the brothers but
> the uncles of Plato, or the fancy of Stallbaum that Plato
> intentionally left anachronisms indicating the dates at which
> some of his Dialogues were written.

　例えば、グラウコンとアデイマントゥスは、プラトンの兄弟ではなく叔父で
あるという C.F.ヘルマンの推測や、プラトンは意図的に彼の対話編のいくつ
かが書かれた年代を示している年代を錯綜させておいたというシュタルバウムの幻想のような。

> ---終わり---