protagoras- 第4部分

the　summer　heat；　so　that　they　might　have　a　natural　bed　of　their　own



when　they　wanted　to　rest；　also　he　furnished　them　with　hoofs　and　hair



and　hard　and　callous　skins　under　their　feet。　Then　he　gave　them



varieties　of　food…herb　of　the　soil　to　some；　to　others　fruits　of　trees；



and　to　others　roots；　and　to　some　again　he　gave　other　animals　as



food。　And　some　he　made　to　have　few　young　ones；　while　those　who　were



their　prey　were　very　prolific；　and　in　this　manner　the　race　was



preserved。　Thus　did　Epimetheus；　who；　not　being　very　wise；　forgot



that　he　had　distributed　among　the　brute　animals　all　the　qualities



which　he　had　to　give…and　when　he　came　to　man；　who　was　still



unprovided；　he　was　terribly　perplexed。　Now　while　he　was　in　this



perplexity；　Prometheus　came　to　inspect　the　distribution；　and　he



found　that　the　other　animals　were　suitably　furnished；　but　that　man



alone　was　naked　and　shoeless；　and　had　neither　bed　nor　arms　of　defence。



The　appointed　hour　was　approaching　when　man　in　his　turn　was　to　go



forth　into　the　light　of　day；　and　Prometheus；　not　knowing　how　he



could　devise　his　salvation；　stole　the　mechanical　arts　of　Hephaestus



and　Athene；　and　fire　with　them　（they　could　neither　have　been



acquired　nor　used　without　fire）；　and　gave　them　to　man。　Thus　man　had



the　wisdom　necessary　to　the　support　of　life；　but　political　wisdom　he



had　not；　for　that　was　in　the　keeping　of　Zeus；　and　the　power　of



Prometheus　did　not　extend　to　entering　into　the　citadel　of　heaven；



where　Zeus　dwelt；　who　moreover　had　terrible　sentinels；　but　he　did



enter　by　stealth　into　the　common　workshop　of　Athene　and　Hephaestus；　in



which　they　used　to　practise　their　favourite　arts；　and　carried　off



Hephaestus'　art　of　working　by　fire；　and　also　the　art　of　Athene；　and



gave　them　to　man。　And　in　this　way　man　was　supplied　with　the　means　of



life。　But　Prometheus　is　said　to　have　been　afterwards　prosecuted　for



theft；　owing　to　the　blunder　of　Epimetheus。



　　Now　man；　having　a　share　of　the　divine　attributes；　was　at　first　the



only　one　of　the　animals　who　had　any　gods；　because　he　alone　was　of



their　kindred；　and　he　would　raise　altars　and　images　of　them。　He　was



not　long　in　inventing　articulate　speech　and　names；　and　he　also



constructed　houses　and　clothes　and　shoes　and　beds；　and　drew　sustenance



from　the　earth。　Thus　provided；　mankind　at　first　lived　dispersed；　and



there　were　no　cities。　But　the　consequence　was　that　they　were　destroyed



by　the　wild　beasts；　for　they　were　utterly　weak　in　comparison　of



them；　and　their　art　was　only　sufficient　to　provide　them　with　the　means



of　life；　and　did　not　enable　them　to　carry　on　war　against　the



animals：　food　they　had；　but　not　as　yet　the　art　of　government；　of　which



the　art　of　war　is　a　part。　After　a　while　the　desire　of



self…preservation　gathered　them　into　cities；　but　when　they　were



gathered　together；　having　no　art　of　government；　they　evil　intreated



one　another；　and　were　again　in　process　of　dispersion　and



destruction。　Zeus　feared　that　the　entire　race　would　be　exterminated；



and　so　he　sent　Hermes　to　them；　bearing　reverence　and　justice　to　be　the



ordering　principles　of　cities　and　the　bonds　of　friendship　and



conciliation。　Hermes　asked　Zeus　how　he　should　impart　justice　and



reverence　among　men：…Should　he　distribute　them　as　the　arts　are



distributed；　that　is　to　say；　to　a　favoured　few　only；　one　skilled



individual　having　enough　of　medicine　or　of　any　other　art　for　many



unskilled　ones？　〃Shall　this　be　the　manner　in　which　I　am　to



distribute　justice　and　reverence　among　men；　or　shall　I　give　them　to



all？〃　〃To　all；〃　said　Zeus；　〃I　should　like　them　all　to　have　a　share；



for　cities　cannot　exist；　if　a　few　only　share　in　the　virtues；　as　in　the



arts。　And　further；　make　a　law　by　my　order；　that　he　who　has　no　part



in　reverence　and　justice　shall　be　put　to　death；　for　he　is　a　plague



of　the　state。〃



　　And　this　is　the　reason；　Socrates；　why　the　Athenians　and　mankind　in



general；　when　the　question　relates　to　carpentering　or　any　other



mechanical　art；　allow　but　a　few　to　share　in　their　deliberations；　and



when　any　one　else　interferes；　then；　as　you　say；　they　object；　if　he



be　not　of　the　favoured　few；　which；　as　I　reply；　is　very　natural。　But



when　they　meet　to　deliberate　about　political　virtue；　which　proceeds



only　by　way　of　justice　and　wisdom；　they　are　patient　enough　of　any



man　who　speaks　of　them；　as　is　also　natural；　because　they　think　that



every　man　ought　to　share　in　this　sort　of　virtue；　and　that　states　could



not　exist　if　this　were　otherwise。　I　have　explained　to　you；　Socrates；



the　reason　of　this　phenomenon。



　　And　that　you　may　not　suppose　yourself　to　be　deceived　in　thinking



that　all　men　regard　every　man　as　having　a　share　of　justice　or



honesty　and　of　every　other　political　virtue；　let　me　give　you　a　further



proof；　which　is　this。　In　other　cases；　as　you　are　aware；　if　a　man



says　that　he　is　a　good　flute…player；　or　skilful　in　any　other　art　in



which　he　has　no　skill；　people　either　laugh　at　him　or　are　angry　with



him；　and　his　relations　think　that　he　is　mad　and　go　and　admonish　him；



but　when　honesty　is　in　question；　or　some　other　political　virtue；



even　if　they　know　that　he　is　dishonest；　yet；　if　the　man　comes　publicly



forward　and　tells　the　truth　about　his　dishonesty；　then；　what　in　the



other　case　was　held　by　them　to　be　good　sense；　they　now　deem　to　be



madness。　They　say　that　all　men　ought　to　profess　honesty　whether　they



are　honest　or　not；　and　that　a　man　is　out　of　his　mind　who　says　anything



else。　Their　notion　is；　that　a　man　must　have　some　degree　of　honesty；



and　that　if　he　has　none　at　all　he　ought　not　to　be　in　the　world。



　　I　have　been　showing　that　they　are　right　in　admitting　every　man　as



a　counsellor　about　this　sort　of　virtue；　as　they　are　of　opinion　that



every　man　is　a　partaker　of　it。　And　I　will　now　endeavour　to　show



further　that　they　do　not　conceive　this　virtue　to　be　given　by　nature；



or　to　grow　spontaneously；　but　to　be　a　thing　which　may　be　taught；　and



which　comes　to　a　man　by　taking　pains。　No　one　would　instruct；　no　one



would　rebuke；　or　be　angry　with　those　whose　calamities　they　suppose



to　be　due　to　nature　or　chance；　they　do　not　try　to　punish　or　to　prevent



them　from　being　what　they　are；　they　do　but　pity　them。　Who　is　so



foolish　as　to　chastise　or　instruct　the　ugly；　or　the　diminutive；　or　the



feeble？　And　for　this　reason。　Because　he　knows　that　good　and　evil　of



this　kind　is　the　work　of　nature　and　of　chance；　whereas　if　a　man　is



wanting　in　those　good　qualities　which　are　attained　by　study　and



exercise　and　teaching；　and　has　only　the　contrary　evil　qualities；　other



men　are　angry　with　him；　and　punish　and　reprove　him…of　these　evil



qualities　one　is　impiety；　another　injustice；　and　they　may　be　described



generally　as　the　very　opposite　of　political　virtue。　In　such　cases



any　man　will　be　angry　with　another；　and　reprimand　him；…clearly　because



he　thinks　that　by　study　and　learning；　the　virtue　in　which　the　other　is



deficient　may　be　acquired。　If　you　will　think；　Socrates；　of　the



nature　of　punishment；　you　will　see　at　once　that　in　the　opinion　of



mankind　virtue　may　be　acquired；　no　one　punishes　the　evil…doer　under



the　notion；　or　for　the　reason；　that　he　has　done　wrong；　only　the



unreasonable　fury　of　a　beast　acts　in　that　manner。　But　he　who　desires



to　inflict　rational　punishment　does　not　retaliate　for　a　past　wrong



which　cannot　be　undone；　he　has　regard　to　the　future；　and　is　desirous



that　the　man　who　is　punished；　and　he　who　sees　him　punished；　may　be



deterred　from　doing　wrong　again。　He　punishes　for　the　sake　of



prevention；　thereby　clearly　implying　that　virtue　is　capable　of　being



taught。　This　is　the　notion　of　all　who　retaliate　upon　others　either



privately　or　publicly。　And　the　Athenians；　too；　your　own　citizens；　like



other　men；　punish　and　take　vengeance　on　all　whom　they　regard　as　evil



doers；　and　hence；　we　may　infer　them　to　be　of　the　number　of　those　who



think　that　virtue　may　be　acquired　and　taught。　Thus　far；　Socrates；　I



have　shown　you　clearly　enough；　if　I　am　not　mistaken；　that　your



countrymen　are　right　in　admitting　the　tinker　and　the　cobbler　to　advise



about　politics；　and　also　that　they　deem　virtue　to　be　capable　of



being　taught　and　acquired。



　　There　yet　remains　one　difficulty　which　has　been　raised　by　you



about　the　sons　of　good　men。　What　is　the　reason　why　good　men　teach



their　sons　the　knowledge　which　is　gained　from　teachers；　and　make



them　wise　in　that；　but　do　nothing　towards　improving　them　in　the



virtues　which　distinguish　themselves？　And　here；　Socrates；　I　will　leave



the　apologue　and　resume　the　argument。　Please　to　consider：　Is　there



or　is　there　not　some　one　quality　of　which　all　the　citizens　must　be



partakers；　if　there　is　to　be　a　city　at　all？　In　the　answer　to　this



question　is　contained　the　only　solution　of　your　difficulty；　there　is



no　other。　For　if　there　be　any　such　quality；　and　this　quality　or



unity　is　not　the　art　of　the　carpenter；　or　the　smith；　or　the　potter；



but　justice　and　temperance　and　holiness　and；　in　a　word；　manly



virtue…if　this　is　the　quality　of　which　all　men　must　be　partakers；



and　which　is　the　very　condition　of　their　learning　or　doing　anything



else；　and　if　he　who　is　wanting　in　this；　whether　he　be　a　child　only



or　a　grown…up　man　or　woman；　must　be　taught　and　punished；　until　by



punishment　he　becomes　better；　and　he　who　rebels　against　instruction



and　punishment　is　either　exiled　or　condemned　to　death　under　the　idea



that　he　is　incurable…if　what　I　am　saying　be　true；　good　men　have



their　sons　taught　other　things　and　not　this；　do　consider　how



extraordinary　their　conduct　would　appear　to　be。　For　we　have　shown　that



they　think　virtue　capable　of　being　taught　and　cultivated　both　in



private　and　public；　and；　notwithstanding；　they　have　their　sons



taught　lesser　matters；　ignorance　of　which　does　not　involve　the



punishment　of