The Old Man and the Sea[老人と海]③:冠詞と代名詞+過去&仮定法
Ernest Hemingway氏（以下、EH氏と略）の"The Old Man and the Sea"（邦題「老人と海」）第三弾、名著の冒頭部分の和英比較と注目ポイントの解説を通して、英語と日本語の仕組みの違いを学んでもらいます。これまでは特に冠詞と代名詞の使い分けを中心に解説してきましたが、今回はいい題材があったので、過去時制と仮定法についても少し考察してみました。
いわゆる学校英語や学術英語で整理しきれていない部分を面白いと思っていただけると幸いです（閲覧して面白いと思った方は、コメントしていただけると、教材や答え合わせを今後公開する励みになります）。
探しやすいように、代名詞heとその格変化したものを太字にして右にナンバリングしてあります。重要な名詞句（a/the old man、a/the boy、a man）も同様に、太字にして右にナンバリングしてあります。
［タイトル］The Old Man and the Sea / 老人と海
［本文：最初から］
（｢The Old Man and the Sea[老人と海]①②｣で紹介&解説済）
記事①
He1 was an old man1 who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he2 had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. In the first forty days a boy1 had been with him3. But after forty days without a fish the boy’s2 parents had told him4 that the old man2 was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy3 had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week. It made the boy4 sad to see the old man3 come in each day with his5 skiff empty and he6 always went down to help him7 carry either the coiled lines or the gaff and harpoon and the sail that was furled around the mast. The sail was patched with flour sacks and, furled, it looked like the flag of permanent defeat.
The old man4 was thin and gaunt with deep wrinkles in the back of his8 neck. The brown blotches of the benevolent skin cancer the sun brings from its reflection on the tropic sea were on his9 cheeks. The blotches ran well down the sides of his10 face and his11 hands had the deep-creased scars from handling heavy fish on the cords. But none of these scars were fresh. They were as old as erosions in a fishless desert.
Everything about him12 was old except his13 eyes and they were the same color as the sea and were cheerful and undefeated.
“Santiago,” the boy5 said to him14 as they climbed the bank from where the skiff was hauled up. “I could go with you again. We’ve made some money.”
The old man5 had taught the boy6 to fish and the boy7 loved him15.
“No,” the old man6 said. “You’re with a lucky boat. Stay with them.”
“But remember how you went eighty-seven days without fish and then we caught big ones every day for three weeks.”
“I remember,” the old man7 said. “I know you did not leave me because you doubted.”
“It was papa made me leave. I am a boy8 and I must obey him16.”
“I know,” the old man8 said. “It is quite normal.”
“He17 hasn’t much faith.”
“No,” the old man9 said. “But we have. Haven’t we?”
“Yes,” the boy9 said. “Can I offer you a beer on the Terrace and then we’ll take the stuff home.”
“Why not?” the old man10 said. “Between fishermen.”
記事②
They sat on the Terrace and many of the fishermen made fun of the old man11 and he18 was not angry. Others, of the older fishermen, looked at him19 and were sad. But they did not show it and they spoke politely about the current and the depths they had drifted their lines at and the steady good weather and of what they had seen. The successful fishermen of that day were already in and had butchered their marlin out and carried them laid full length across two planks, with two men staggering at the end of each plank, to the fish house where they waited for the ice truck to carry them to the market in Havana. Those who had caught sharks had taken them to the shark factory on the other side of the cove where they were hoisted on a block and tackle, their livers removed, their fins cut off and their hides skinned out and their flesh cut into strips for salting.
When the wind was in the east a smell came across the harbour from the shark factory; but today there was only the faint edge of the odour because the wind had backed into the north and then dropped off and it was pleasant and sunny on the Terrace.
“Santiago,” the boy10 said.
“Yes,” the old man12 said. He20 was holding his21 glass and thinking of many years ago.
“Can I go out to get sardines for you for tomorrow?”
“No. Go and play baseball. I can still row and Rogelio will throw the net.”
“I would like to go. If I cannot fish with you. I would like to serve in some way.”
“You bought me a beer,” the old man13 said. “You are already a man1.”
“How old was I when you first took me in a boat?”
“Five and you nearly were killed when I brought the fish in too green and he22 nearly tore the boat to pieces. Can you remember?”
“I can remember the tail slapping and banging and the thwart breaking and the noise of the clubbing. I can remember you throwing me into the bow where the wet coiled lines were and feeling the whole boat shiver and the noise of you clubbing him23 like chopping a tree down and the sweet blood smell all over me.”
“Can you really remember that or did I just tell it to you?”
“I remember everything from when we first went together.”
The old man14 looked at him24 with his25 sun-burned, confident loving eyes.
［以下、③続き］（太字や日本語部分は私が入力）
“If you were my boy1 I’d take you out and gamble,” he26 said. “But you are your father’s and your mother’s and you are in a lucky boat.”
“May I get the sardines? I know where I can get four baits too.”
“I have mine left from today. I put them in salt in the box.”
“Let me get four fresh ones.”
“One,” the old man15 said. His27 hope and his28 confidence had never gone. But now they were freshening as when the breeze rises.
“Two,” the boy11 said.
“Two,” the old man16 agreed. “You didn’t steal them?”
“I would,” the boy12 said. “But I bought these.”
※実は"I would"は解釈が難しい表現。｢仮定法｣と解釈するなら、"I would have"や"I could (have)"との訳し分けが必要。もう一つの可能性は｢過去の習慣｣解釈。カーペンターズの"Yesterday Once More"の歌詞"When I was young, I'd listen to the radio" (I'd = I would)で有名な表現。これだと、｢(実際に)以前は盗んでいた｣という和訳に。あなたはどっちだと思いますか？今の段階で私は｢過去の習慣｣派ですが、もう一つ悩んでいる解釈が。和訳本も複数あり、翻訳者によってニュアンスが微妙に違うので、比べてみると面白いと思います。
★この｢過去形｣問題(特に助動詞の過去形)はかなり重要なので、文法的整理も兼ねて深掘り解説しておきます。まず、文法的に真っ当だと私が考える解釈は以下の３通り。
① シンプルな仮定法（現在や未来の動作でも"I would (steal)"と過去シフト）：どんなifの意図が背景にあるのかはケースバイケース（この文脈だと｢普通ならそうするけど、今回は別｣？）
② 過去時点の仮定法（"I would have (stolen)"と過去シフト）：普通は｢昔の自分だったら｣という意図で使うはずだが、ここではhaveを使っていないので、やや無理のある解釈。
③ 過去の習慣（"I would (steal)"）：｢(実際に)以前は盗んでいた｣。
残念ながら、この解釈は少数派のようです。私がこの解釈を第一候補に選ぶ理由は、老人も次の段落で過去を回想して現在と対比、少年もここで過去と現在の自分の違いを強調、で２人揃って過去と現在が対比される形になるから。
そもそも老人が"You didn’t steal them?"と聞いたのは、少年が昔そうしていたことを知った上で心配して質問したのでは？また、"You didn’t steal them?"という質問に対して最終的に"But I bought these."と答えており、didn'tもboughtも仮定法ではない本当の過去形なので、それに対応する過去時点の仮定法なら"I would have (stolen)"でないとダメ。もしかして、少年は仮定法を使いこなせない設定という解釈？そういう設定なら、今後読み進めていく中で少年の言葉遣いから明らかになるかも。
また、｢過去の習慣｣表現には"I used to (steal)"もありますが、これだと常習犯の意味に。一方、"I would (steal)"だと、時々〜良く盗んだ（気分次第）。
④ もう一つ悩んでいる解釈は、上記のシンプルな仮定法｢普通なら盗むけど、今回は別で、もう買った｣。これはEH氏の意図の解釈が難しく、少年は今でも盗むことはあるけど、今回だけ盗まずに購入（たまたま〜気まぐれ）？
⑤ ちなみに、市販の和訳本での解釈は以下の３通り（敬称略）
a. 越前訳(角川)､高見訳(新潮)､石波訳(佐和)は過去時点の仮定法"I could have stolen"と解釈した意訳
b. 福田訳(新潮)､野崎訳(GB21)はシンプルな仮定法"I could steal"と解釈した意訳
c. 小川訳(光文社)は"I would like to steal"と解釈した意訳
改めて、翻訳って難しいですね。さて、EH氏なら何と言うでしょう（こうした議論そのものを嫌うかも）。もちろん、私の解釈が間違っている可能性もありますが、いずれにせよwouldの解釈がこんなに多様に存在すること自体、英語が内包する弱点と言ってもいいでしょう。この議論、ここはボブ・ディラン氏（こちらもノーベル文学賞を受賞）の歌詞を引用してひとまず終わりにしたいと思います。"The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. The answer is blowing' in the wind."
“Thank you,” the old man17 said. He29 was too simple to wonder when he30 had attained humility. But he31 knew he32 had attained it and he33 knew it was not disgraceful and it carried no loss of true pride.
※ここも、読み比べてみると翻訳者によってニュアンスが微妙に違うところが面白いですね。
※しばらく"the old man"と"the boy"が交互に発言しており、どっちの発言かを発言内容から判断しにくいので、"he said"等は使いにくい流れ。
※the old man17=He29=he30=he31=he32=he33、日本語なら幾つかは省略できるはずですが。
“Tomorrow is going to be a good day with this current,” he34 said.
“Where are you going?” the boy13 asked.
“Far out to come in when the wind shifts. I want to be out before it is light.”
“I’ll try to get him35 to work far out,” the boy14 said. “Then if you hook something truly big we can come to your aid.”
※him35の先行詞は?
“He36 does not like to work too far out.”
※him35=He36
“No,” the boy15 said. “But I will see something that he37 cannot see such as a bird working and get him38 to come out after dolphin.”
※him35=He36=he37=he38
“Are his39 eyes that bad?”
※him35=He36=he37=he38=his39
“He40 is almost blind.”
※him35=He36=he37=he38=his39=He40
“It is strange,” the old man18 said. “He41 never went turtle-ing. That is what kills the eyes.”
※him35=He36=he37=he38=his39=He40=He41、これも日本語なら幾つかは省略できるはず。なかなか名前が出てこない人物he。
今回のご紹介は以上です。
アーネスト・ヘミングウェイ氏による実に見事な冠詞と代名詞の使い分けに加えて、今回は助動詞の過去形問題、いかがでしたか？
以下をクリックして関連記事もご覧ください。
こうして書籍を紹介するついでに、原文を直接読んでもらえるようにリンクを貼ることにしました。以下のアマゾンサイトからKindle版(電子書籍)を無料で試し読みできますので、是非ご一読ください。
※Amazonのアソシエイトとして、適格販売により収入を得ています。気に入ったら購入もご検討ください。
Audible版はこちら
日本語版はこちら（いろいろあり過ぎて迷います）
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？