So how do we reconcile, if we can, these two apparently contradictory points of view ? in these two dialogues?

如果可以，我们要如何调解这两种,存在这两本语录中的明显矛盾观点？

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选

In many ways that would seem to make a certain sense of the apparent discrepancy between these two dialogues.

从很多层面看来似乎有点道理,即明显的不一致,存在于那两则语录之中。

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选

These two dialogues, it should be evident, I mean, differ not only in content but in their dramatic context.

这两本语录，很明显地，不只是内容不同,其戏剧性的脉络更是不同。

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选

We see Socrates addressing, the only time in any platonic dialogue, an audience of this size.

我们看到苏格拉底自辩的对象，其它柏拉图式语录的听众人数，根本与其无法匹敌。

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选

Maybe the answer, or an answer, to this question is revealed in the Crito, the companion dialogue, the companion speech that goes along with the Apology, although it typically gets much less attention than the Apology.

也许答案或任何一种响应，这个问题的答案都可在《克里托篇》寻得，这是柏拉图的另一篇语录，另一篇,与《苏格拉底自辩篇》等齐的辩论，但一般较少受到,与《苏格拉底自辩篇》等同的注意。

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选

Plato's dialogues, the Apology as well as the Republic and the Crito are in the broadest sense of the term, an attempt not only to answer the charge against Aristophanes but also defend the cause of philosophy as something of value and merit.

柏拉图的语录《苏格拉底自辩篇》,《理想国》和《克里托篇》,以最广泛的解释看来，不仅试图响应,亚里斯多芬尼斯的控诉,同时还捍卫着,哲学的目标是价值与功绩。

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选

And in the Apology, the speech between Socrates and the laws that form, as it were the kind of central action of the dialogue, Anytus presents the case that Meletus and Anytus should have made against him.

则在《自辩篇》中,苏格拉底与城邦的法律，这几乎是语录的中心诉讼点，呈现的便是，Meletus及,应拿来对付他的论点。

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选