英訳の練習1

日本語版

　Thoreauはしばしば菜食や節制を通じて精神的浄化を説く随筆家として読まれるが、 彼の主張は単なる菜食讃歌に還元できない複雑さを帯びているよう見える。 Thoreauは肉食に対して明確に距離を置き、時に強い「不潔」の語でその嫌悪を表明した。 『森の生活 ― ウォールデン ―』の「高い法則」の章を読む限り、彼が肉食を不潔だと考えた理由は大きく3つ存在していたことがうかがえる。 それは、五感に訴える美的あるいは生理的嫌悪、功利的判断、想像力や精神性との不調和をめぐる規範的および宗教的理由である。 第一と第二の理由は、本文で彼が明確に述べているし、特段飛躍も見受けられない、素朴な感情であるし、一定程度の同意の余地もあるだろう。 ここで議論したいのは、第三の理由である想像力や精神性との不調和をめぐる規範的および宗教的理由についてである。 彼は様々な表現でその思想について説明した。 しかし、結局のところ、Thoreauが肉食を忌避する理由のいずれも、その是非はさておき生命そのものの価値に優劣を付けて扱っているように思える。 「肉食は不潔である」「想像力や精神性と調和しない」という理由は、食べる相手の命の善悪や価値を判断していることに他ならない。 そして、肉食の不潔さや素朴な食事を礼賛するのであればこの点についての説明を与えねばならないはずである。 実際、この点が欠如しているからこそ、菜食主義の経典としてのThoreauの意見は規範とはなり得ず、一随筆の域を出ることはなかったのだと考えられる。

　では我々はThoreauの菜食に対する考えをどのように受け取るべきなのだろうか。 彼の菜食への姿勢を一言で受け取るとき、重要なのは彼が菜食を「最終目的」や「普遍的道徳」の主張として示しているわけではないという点である。 むしろ彼は菜食を、人間の内面的変化、とりわけ欲望や想像力のあり方の変容を示す一つの兆候として語っているに過ぎないのである。 本文中の「動物を食うことをやめることは、人類の運命がその徐々たる進歩において当然なすべき一事である」といった箇所は、菜食を文明の方向性や進歩のメタファーとして位置づける発言である。 しかし同時に、彼は「わたし自身の実際はともあれ」などの文章から個々人の実践が必ずしも断絶的な道徳命題に還元されないことも率直に認めている。 この読みを根拠づける論点を整理すれば、次の三つのようになるだろう。 第一に、彼は菜食を通じて「欲望の性質」を問題にしている点である。 本文では「われわれは自分のなかの動物を意識している」と自覚し、肉欲的衝動と精神的機能の二重性を明確に描いている。 第二に、菜食は想像力や詩的機能を整える実践として提示されている点である。 想像を反発させないほど単純で清潔な食事を提供することが精神活動と食の調和を意味することがうかがえる。 第三に、彼が社会的・文明的な文脈で菜食が「兆候」として機能することを示唆した点である。 狩猟や釣りが若い時期の洗礼のように自然との接触を促し、やがて「銃と釣竿をすてる」プロセスを通じて精神的志向が育つとする一連の記述は、 菜食を個人的修養と社会的進歩の両面で意味づけると読み取ることができる。

　ここから我々が学ぶべきことは大きく二つあるのではないだろうか。 ひとつは欲望の区別、すなわち「習慣としての欲望」と「本能としての欲望」を見分けるという技術だ。 彼は自分の釣りへの衝動を「本能」として認めつつ、それが年とともに弱まっていく経過を描くことで、欲望は固定不変ではなく制御可能なものであることを示した。 もうひとつは節制の位置づけ、すなわち、節制を刑罰や禁欲の美徳としてではなく、創造的・精神的活動の条件をつくる手段として捉えることである。 節制は想像力の苗床となりうる、という彼の主張は、食を巡る実践が倫理そのものではなく、倫理的・精神的な能力を育む訓練になり得ることを示唆するし、 我々の日常の経験と照らし合わせてみても、それほど相違がない。

　さらに私見を加えると、彼の立場は両義的であることはこの議論において必要不可欠である。 彼は荒野や若年期の釣り、狩猟の価値を肯定的に語りつつ、同時に「われわれの食事とすべて肉類には何か本質的に不潔なものがある」と述べることで、実践と規範のはざまに立ったことを表明した。 つまり、彼の菜食に対する考えは定言命法的ではなく、ある生活態度、すなわち、想像力や精神的機能を重視する態度の外形的な兆候なのだ。 だからこそ彼は「われわれの全体の生活はおどろくほど道徳的である」と言い、日常の小さな節制の積み重ねが「より高い法則」への従順を形作ると信じたのであろう。

　結論として、Thoreauの菜食観は本質よりむしろ兆候の一種と読めることを提案したい。 これは彼が食と精神の調和、欲望の自己調整、文明進歩の比喩性を同時に意識していたからであるはずで、 したがって、私たちは彼の言葉を食の是非を単純に断罪する道具としてではなく、欲望と想像力を問うきっかけとして受け取るべきであると、私は思う。

英語版

　Thoreau is often read as an essayist who advocates spiritual purity through vegetarianism and self restraint. However, I think his argument involves complexity that cannot be reduced to a mere praise of vegetarianism. He clearly stayed away from flesh eating, and sometimes expressed disgust for it by using the strong word "unclean". As far as I read the chapter Higher Laws in Walden, it seems that there were about three reasons why he thought flesh eating was unclean: aesthetic or physiological disgust which appeals to the five senses, utilitarian judgment, and normative and religious reasons concerning disharmony with imagination and spirituality. The first two reasons are clearly stated in the text, and there is no major leap in his discussion. They also sound like rather straightforward feelings, and I think there is some room for agreement with them. What I want to focus on here is the third reason. He explained this idea in various ways. However, in the end, it seems to me that all of his reasons for avoiding meat, whatever their validity, seem to assign different levels of value to living beings. The reasons that “eating meat is unclean” and “it is incompatible with imagination and spirituality” amount to nothing more than judging the moral worth or value of the life being consumed. Moreover, if he wished to praise the uncleanness of flesh eating or the simple diet, he have to give an explanation on this point. In fact, since he lacked this point, his opinion as a doctrine on vegetarianism didn't become a norm and never rose above the level of a mere essay.

　So, how should we accept his views on vegetarianism? When interpreting his attitude toward vegetarianism, it is important to understand that he did not present vegetarianism as a final goal or as a universal moral principle. On the contrary, he just portrayed vegetarianism as a sign indicating an inner change in human beings, particularly a transformation in the nature of desire and imagination. “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals” in the text is the comment that position vegetarianism as the direction of civilization and metaphors for progress. However, at the same time, he frankly acknowledges that individual practices are not necessarily reducible to isolated moral propositions, as seen in statements like “Whatever my own practice may be”. To organize point of issue that support this interpretation, they can be summarized as follwing three points. First, he concerned nature of desire through vegetarianism. In the text, he states that "We are conscious of an animal in us", and clearly pictures the duality of carnal impulses and mental functions. Second, he pointed out that vegetarianism is the practice that adjust imagination and poetic function. It can be seen that providing a simple and clean meal that don't repel the imagination means the harmony of spiritual activity and eating. Third, he suggested that vegetarianism functions as a sign in a socialized and civilized context. The passages that describe hunting and fishing as a kind of early baptism that brings young people into contact with nature, and that later lead them to throw away the gun and the fishing rod, can be read as giving vegetarianism a meaning both as a personal discipline and as a form of social progress.

　I think there are two things that we can learn from this. One is distingishing desires. In other words, it is important for us to distingish between desires as a habit and desires as an instinct. He suggested that desires are not fixed but controlable by illustrating the process by which his impulses toward fishing weakens over the years after admitting it as an instinct. The other is the position of restraint. Namely, it is important for us to regard restraint not as punishment or the virtues of abstinence but as means for creating conditions for creative and intellectual activity. His opinion that restraint could be nursery of imagination suggests that practice through eating could be not ethic itself but training that nurture ethical and mental ability. In addition, when we compare this to our daily lives, we find it is not so different.

　Furthermore, we can't discuss this theme without the fact that his position has duality. He spoke positively about the value of the wilderness and of fishing and hunting in his youth. At the same time, however, he also said that there is something essentially unclean in our diet and in all flesh. By doing so, he showed that he stood between practice and moral principle. In other words, his thought about vegetarianism is outward signs of an attitude that values imagination and mental functions rather than categorical imperative. For that reason, he said that our whole life is surprisingly moral, and he seemed to believe that small acts of restraint in daily life could shape our obedience to the “higher laws”.

　In conclusion, I would like to suggest that Thoreau’s view of vegetarianism can be read not as an essential doctrine but rather as a kind of sign. This is probably because he was aware of the harmony between food and the spirit, the self-regulation of desire, and the metaphorical meaning of civilization’s progress at the same time. Therefore, I think we should take his words not as a simple tool for judging the right or wrong of eating practices, but as an opportunity to reflect on our desires and our imagination.

英語版(添削後)

　Thoreau is often read as an essayist who advocates spiritual purity through vegetarianism and self restraint. However, I think his argument involves complexity that cannot be reduced to a mere praise of vegetarianism. He clearly stayed away from flesh eating, and sometimes expressed disgust for it by using the strong word "unclean". As far as I read the chapter Higher Laws in Walden, it seems that there were about three reasons why he thought flesh eating was unclean: aesthetic or physiological disgust which appeals to the five senses, utilitarian judgment, and normative and religious reasons concerning disharmony with imagination and spirituality. The first two reasons are clearly stated in the text, and there is no major leap in his discussion. They also sound like rather straightforward feelings, and I think there is some room for agreement with them. What I want to focus on here is the third reason. He explained this idea in various ways. However, in the end, it seems to me that all of his reasons for avoiding meat, whatever their validity, seem to assign different levels of value to living beings. The reasons that “eating meat is unclean” and “it is incompatible with imagination and spirituality” amount to nothing more than judging the moral worth or value of the life being consumed. Moreover, if he wished to praise the uncleanness of flesh eating or the simple diet, he has to give an explanation on this point. In fact, since he lacked this point, his opinion as a doctrine on vegetarianism didn't become a norm and never rose above the level of a mere essay.

　So, how should we accept his views on vegetarianism? When interpreting his attitude toward vegetarianism, it is important to understand that he did not present vegetarianism as a final goal or as a universal moral principle. On the contrary, he just portrayed vegetarianism as a sign indicating an inner change in human beings, particularly a transformation in the nature of desire and imagination. “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals” in the text is the comment that position vegetarianism as the direction of civilization and metaphors for progress. However, at the same time, he frankly acknowledges that individual practices are not necessarily reducible to isolated moral propositions, as seen in statements like “Whatever my own practice may be”. To organize point of issue that support this interpretation, they can be summarized as follwing three points. First, he concerned nature of desire through vegetarianism. In the text, he states that "We are conscious of an animal in us", and clearly pictures the duality of carnal impulses and mental functions. Second, he pointed out that vegetarianism is the practice that adjust imagination and poetic function. It can be seen that providing a simple and clean meal that don't repel the imagination means the harmony of spiritual activity and eating. Third, he suggested that vegetarianism functions as a sign in a socialized and civilized context. The passages that describe hunting and fishing as a kind of early baptism that brings young people into contact with nature, and that later lead them to throw away the gun and the fishing rod, can be read as giving vegetarianism a meaning both as a personal discipline and as a form of social progress.

　I think there are two things that we can learn from this. One is distingishing desires. In other words, it is important for us to distingish between desires as a habit and desires as an instinct. He suggested that desires are not fixed but controllable by illustrating the process by which his impulses toward fishing weakens over the years after admitting it as an instinct. The other is the position of restraint. Namely, it is important for us to regard restraint not as punishment or the virtues of abstinence but as means for creating conditions for creative and intellectual activity. His opinion that restraint could be nursery of imagination suggests that practice through eating could be not ethical itself but training that nurture ethical and mental ability. From my perspective, daily experience confirms this well.

　Furthermore, we can't discuss this theme without the fact that his position has duality. He spoke positively about the value of the wilderness and of fishing and hunting in his youth. At the same time, however, he also said that there is something essentially unclean in our diet and in all flesh. By doing so, he showed that he stood between practice and moral principle. In other words, his thought about vegetarianism is outward signs of an attitude that values imagination and mental functions rather than categorical imperative. For that reason, he said that our whole life is surprisingly moral, and he seemed to believe that small acts of restraint in daily life could shape our obedience to the “higher laws”.

　In conclusion, I would like to suggest that Thoreau’s view of vegetarianism can be read not as an essential doctrine but rather as a kind of sign. This is probably because he was aware of the harmony between food and the spirit, the self-regulation of desire, and the metaphorical meaning of civilization’s progress at the same time. Therefore, I think we should take his words not as a simple tool for judging the right or wrong of eating practices, but as an opportunity to reflect on our desires and our imagination.

参考文献

1. Henry David Thoreau 森の生活 ― ウォールデン ―． 青空文庫． https://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/001209/files/54189_68486.html （参照日：2025年11月28日）。