phaedo- 第6部分

result　which　happily　agrees　with　my　own　notion。　For　there　is　nothing



which　to　my　mind　is　so　evident　as　that　beauty；　goodness；　and　other



notions　of　which　you　were　just　now　speaking　have　a　most　real　and



absolute　existence；　and　I　am　satisfied　with　the　proof。



　　Well；　but　is　Cebes　equally　satisfied？　for　I　must　convince　him　too。



　　I　think；　said　Simmias；　that　Cebes　is　satisfied：　although　he　is　the



most　incredulous　of　mortals；　yet　I　believe　that　he　is　convinced　of　the



existence　of　the　soul　before　birth。　But　that　after　death　the　soul　will



continue　to　exist　is　not　yet　proven　even　to　my　own　satisfaction。　I



cannot　get　rid　of　the　feeling　of　the　many　to　which　Cebes　was



referring…the　feeling　that　when　the　man　dies　the　soul　may　be



scattered；　and　that　this　may　be　the　end　of　her。　For　admitting　that　she



may　be　generated　and　created　in　some　other　place；　and　may　have　existed



before　entering　the　human　body；　why　after　having　entered　in　and　gone



out　again　may　she　not　herself　be　destroyed　and　come　to　an　end？



　　Very　true；　Simmias；　said　Cebes；　that　our　soul　existed　before　we　were



born　was　the　first　half　of　the　argument；　and　this　appears　to　have　been



proven；　that　the　soul　will　exist　after　death　as　well　as　before　birth



is　the　other　half　of　which　the　proof　is　still　wanting；　and　has　to　be



supplied。



　　But　that　proof；　Simmias　and　Cebes；　has　been　already　given；　said



Socrates；　if　you　put　the　two　arguments　together…I　mean　this　and　the



former　one；　in　which　we　admitted　that　everything　living　is　born　of　the



dead。　For　if　the　soul　existed　before　birth；　and　in　coming　to　life



and　being　born　can　be　born　only　from　death　and　dying；　must　she　not



after　death　continue　to　exist；　since　she　has　to　be　born　again？



surely　the　proof　which　you　desire　has　been　already　furnished。　Still



I　suspect　that　you　and　Simmias　would　be　glad　to　probe　the　argument



further；　like　children；　you　are　haunted　with　a　fear　that　when　the　soul



leaves　the　body；　the　wind　may　really　blow　her　away　and　scatter　her；



especially　if　a　man　should　happen　to　die　in　stormy　weather　and　not



when　the　sky　is　calm。



　　Cebes　answered　with　a　smile：　Then；　Socrates；　you　must　argue　us　out



of　our　fears…and　yet；　strictly　speaking；　they　are　not　our　fears；　but



there　is　a　child　within　us　to　whom　death　is　a　sort　of　hobgoblin；　him



too　we　must　persuade　not　to　be　afraid　when　he　is　alone　with　him　in　the



dark。



　　Socrates　said：　Let　the　voice　of　the　charmer　be　applied　daily　until



you　have　charmed　him　away。



　　And　where　shall　we　find　a　good　charmer　of　our　fears；　Socrates；



when　you　are　gone？



　　Hellas；　he　replied；　is　a　large　place；　Cebes；　and　has　many　good



men；　and　there　are　barbarous　races　not　a　few：　seek　for　him　among



them　all；　far　and　wide；　sparing　neither　pains　nor　money；　for　there



is　no　better　way　of　using　your　money。　And　you　must　not　forget　to



seek　for　him　among　yourselves　too；　for　he　is　nowhere　more　likely　to　be



found。



　　The　search；　replied　Cebes；　shall　certainly　be　made。　And　now；　if



you　please；　let　us　return　to　the　point　of　the　argument　at　which　we



digressed。



　　By　all　means；　replied　Socrates；　what　else　should　I　please？



　　Very　good；　he　said。



　　Must　we　not；　said　Socrates；　ask　ourselves　some　question　of　this



sort？…What　is　that　which；　as　we　imagine；　is　liable　to　be　scattered



away；　and　about　which　we　fear？　and　what　again　is　that　about　which　we



have　no　fear？　And　then　we　may　proceed　to　inquire　whether　that　which



suffers　dispersion　is　or　is　not　of　the　nature　of　soul…our　hopes　and



fears　as　to　our　own　souls　will　turn　upon　that。



　　That　is　true；　he　said。



　　Now　the　compound　or　composite　may　be　supposed　to　be　naturally



capable　of　being　dissolved　in　like　manner　as　of　being　compounded；



but　that　which　is　uncompounded；　and　that　only；　must　be；　if　anything



is；　indissoluble。



　　Yes；　that　is　what　I　should　imagine；　said　Cebes。



　　And　the　uncompounded　may　be　assumed　to　be　the　same　and　unchanging；



where　the　compound　is　always　changing　and　never　the　same？



　　That　I　also　think；　he　said。



　　Then　now　let　us　return　to　the　previous　discussion。　Is　that　idea　or



essence；　which　in　the　dialectical　process　we　define　as　essence　of　true



existence…whether　essence　of　equality；　beauty；　or　anything　else：　are



these　essences；　I　say；　liable　at　times　to　some　degree　of　change？　or



are　they　each　of　them　always　what　they　are；　having　the　same　simple；



self…existent　and　unchanging　forms；　and　not　admitting　of　variation



at　all；　or　in　any　way；　or　at　any　time？



　　They　must　be　always　the　same；　Socrates；　replied　Cebes。



　　And　what　would　you　say　of　the　many　beautiful…whether　men　or　horses



or　garments　or　any　other　things　which　may　be　called　equal　or



beautiful…are　they　all　unchanging　and　the　same　always；　or　quite　the



reverse？　May　they　not　rather　be　described　as　almost　always　changing



and　hardly　ever　the　same　either　with　themselves　or　with　one　another？



　　The　latter；　replied　Cebes；　they　are　always　in　a　state　of　change。



　　And　these　you　can　touch　and　see　and　perceive　with　the　senses；　but



the　unchanging　things　you　can　only　perceive　with　the　mind…they　are



invisible　and　are　not　seen？



　　That　is　very　true；　he　said。



　　Well；　then；　he　added；　let　us　suppose　that　there　are　two　sorts　of



existences；　one　seen；　the　other　unseen。



　　Let　us　suppose　them。



　　The　seen　is　the　changing；　and　the　unseen　is　the　unchanging。



　　That　may　be　also　supposed。



　　And；　further；　is　not　one　part　of　us　body；　and　the　rest　of　us　soul？



　　To　be　sure。



　　And　to　which　class　may　we　say　that　the　body　is　more　alike　and　akin？



　　Clearly　to　the　seen：　no　one　can　doubt　that。



　　And　is　the　soul　seen　or　not　seen？



　　Not　by　man；　Socrates。



　　And　by　〃seen〃　and　〃not　seen〃　is　meant　by　us　that　which　is　or　is



not　visible　to　the　eye　of　man？



　　Yes；　to　the　eye　of　man。



　　And　what　do　we　say　of　the　soul？　is　that　seen　or　not　seen？



　　Not　seen。



　　Unseen　then？



　　Yes。



　　Then　the　soul　is　more　like　to　the　unseen；　and　the　body　to　the　seen？



　　That　is　most　certain；　Socrates。



　　And　were　we　not　saying　long　ago　that　the　soul　when　using　the　body　as



an　instrument　of　perception；　that　is　to　say；　when　using　the　sense　of



sight　or　hearing　or　some　other　sense　（for　the　meaning　of　perceiving



through　the　body　is　perceiving　through　the　senses）…were　we　not



saying　that　the　soul　too　is　then　dragged　by　the　body　into　the　region



of　the　changeable；　and　wanders　and　is　confused；　the　world　spins



round　her；　and　she　is　like　a　drunkard　when　under　their　influence？



　　Very　true。



　　But　when　returning　into　herself　she　reflects；　then　she　passes　into



the　realm　of　purity；　and　eternity；　and　immortality；　and



unchangeableness；　which　are　her　kindred；　and　with　them　she　ever　lives；



when　she　is　by　herself　and　is　not　let　or　hindered；　then　she　ceases



from　her　erring　ways；　and　being　in　communion　with　the　unchanging　is



unchanging。　And　this　state　of　the　soul　is　called　wisdom？



　　That　is　well　and　truly　said；　Socrates；　he　replied。



　　And　to　which　class　is　the　soul　more　nearly　alike　and　akin；　as　far　as



may　be　inferred　from　this　argument；　as　well　as　from　the　preceding　one？



　　I　think；　Socrates；　that；　in　the　opinion　of　everyone　who　follows



the　argument；　the　soul　will　be　infinitely　more　like　the　unchangeable



even　the　most　stupid　person　will　not　deny　that。



　　And　the　body　is　more　like　the　changing？



　　Yes。



　　Yet　once　more　consider　the　matter　in　this　light：　When　the　soul　and



the　body　are　united；　then　nature　orders　the　soul　to　rule　and　govern；



and　the　body　to　obey　and　serve。



　　Now　which　of　these　two　functions　is　akin　to　the　divine？　and　which　to



the　mortal？　Does　not　the　divine　appear　to　you　to　be　that　which



naturally　orders　and　rules；　and　the　mortal　that　which　is　subject　and



servant？



　　True。



　　And　which　does　the　soul　resemble？



　　The　soul　resembles　the　divine　and　the　body　the　mortal…there　can　be



no　doubt　of　that；　Socrates。



　　Then　reflect；　Cebes：　is　not　the　conclusion　of　the　whole　matter



this？…that　the　soul　is　in　the　very　likeness　of　the　divine；　and



immortal；　and　intelligible；　and　uniform；　and　indissoluble；　and



unchangeable；　and　the　body　is　in　the　very　likeness　of　the　human；　and



mortal；　and　unintelligible；　and　multiform；　and　dissoluble；　and



changeable。　Can　this；　my　dear　Cebes；　be　denied？



　　No；　indeed。



　　But　if　this　is　true；　then　is　not　the　body　liable　to　speedy



dissolution？



　　and　is　not　the　soul　almost　or　altogether　indissoluble？



　　Certainly。



　　And　do　you　further　observe；　that　after　a　man　is　dead；　the　body；



which　is　the　visible　part　of　man；　and　has　a　visible　framework；　which



is　called　a　corpse；　and　which　would　naturally　be　dissolved　and



decomposed　and　dissipated；　is　not　dissolved　or　decomposed　at　once；　but



may　remain　for　a　good　while；　if　the　constitution　be　sound　at　the



time　of　death；　and　the　season　of　the　year　favorable？　For　the　body　when



shrunk　and　embalmed；　as　is　the　custom　in　Egypt；　may　remain　almost



entire　through　infinite　ages；　and　even　in　decay；　still　there　are



some　portions；　such　as　the　bones　and　ligaments；　which　are



practically　indestructible。　You　allow　that？



　　Yes。



　　And　are　we　to　suppose　that　the　soul；　which　is　invisible；　in



passing　to　the　true　Hades；　which　like　her　is　invisible；　and　pure；



and　noble；　and　on　her　way　to　the　good　and　wise　God；　whither；　if　God



will；　my　soul　is　also　soon　to　go…that　the　soul；　I　repeat；　if　this　be



her　nature　and　origin；　is　blown　away　and　perishes　immediately　on



quitting　the　body　as　the　many　say？　That　can　never　be；　dear　Simmias　and



Cebes。　The　truth　rather　is　that　the　soul　which　is　pure　at　departing



draws　after　her　no　bodily　taint；　having　never　voluntarily　had



connection　with　the　body；　which　she　is　ever　avoiding；　herself　gathered



into　herself　（for　such　abstraction　has　been　the　study　of　her　life）。



A