Soc. Very good (Kalw~j le/geij). But you had better watch me and see (fu/latte ga/r me) that I do not play tricks with you (mh/ ph=| parakrou/swmai/ se). For on the same principle (kata\ ga\r to\n au0to\n lo/gon) the son of a king is to be called a king (ka2n e0k basile/wj gi/gnhtai/ ti e1kgonon, basileu\j klhte/oj). And whether the syllables of the name are the same or not the same, makes no difference, provided the meaning is retained (ei0 de\ e0n e9te/raij sullabai=j h2 e0n e9te/raij to\ au0to\ shmai/nei ou0de\n pra=gma); nor does the addition or subtraction of a letter make any difference so long as the essence of the thing remains in possession of the name and appears in it (ou0d’ ei0 pro/skeitai/ ti gra/mma h2 a0fh|rhtai, oude\n ou0de\ tou=to, e3wj a2n e0gkrath\j h]| h9 ousi/a tou= pra/gmatoj dhloume/nh e0n tw~| o0no/mati).
Her. What do
you mean (Pw~j
tou=to le/geij;)?
Soc. A very
simple matter (Ou0de\n poiki/lon).
I may illustrate my meaning by the names of letters, which you know are not the
same as the letters themselves (a0ll’ w#jper tw~n
stoixei/wn oi]sqa o3ti o0no/mata le/gomen a0ll’ ou0k au0ta\ ta\ stoixei=a)
with the exception of e, u, o, w (plh\n tetta/rwn, tou=
E kai\ tou= U kai\ tou= O kai\ tou W); the names of the rest, whether vowels
or consonants, are made up of other letters which we add to them (toi=j d’ a1lloij fwnh/esi/ te kai\ a0fw&noij
oi]sqa o3ti peritiqe/ntej a1lla gra/mmata le/gomen, o0no/mata poiou=ntej); but so long as we introduce the
meaning, and there can be no mistake (a0ll’ e3wj a2n au0tou=
dhloume/nhn th\n du/namin e0ntiqw&men),
the name of the letter is quite correct (o0rqw~j e1xei e0kei=no to\ o1noma kalei=n o4
au0to\ h9mi=n dhlw~sei).
Take, for example, the letter beta (oi[o/n to “bh=ta”) – the addition of h,t,a, gives no offence (o9ra=|j o3ti
tou h]ta kai\ tou= tau= kai\ tou= a1lfa prosteqe/ntwn ou0de\n e0lu/phsen), and does not prevent the whole name
from having the value (w#ste mh\ ou0xi\ th\n e0kei/nou tou= stoixei/ou fu/sin
dhlw~sai o3lw| tw~| o0no/mati)
which the legislator intended (ou[ e0bou/leto o4 nomoqe/thj) – so well did he know how to give
the letters names (ou3twj e0pisth/qh kalw~j qe/sqai toi=j gra/mmasi ta\
o0no/mata).
Her. I
believe you are right (A0lhqh= moi dokei=j le/gein).
Soc. And may
not the same be said of a king (Ou0kou=n kai\ peri\ basile/wj o9 au0to\j lo/goj;)? a king will often be a son of a
king (e1stai
ga/r pote e0k basile/wj basileu/j),
the good son or the noble son of a good or noble sire (kai\ e0c a0gaqou=
a0gaqo/j, kai\ e0c kalou= kalo/j)
and similarly the offspring of every kind, in the regular course of nature, is like
the parent (kai\
a1lla ou3twj, e0c e9ka/stou ge/nouj e3teron toiou=ton e1kgonon, e0a\n mh\ te/raj
gi/gnhtai), and therefore
has the same name (klhte/on dh\ tau0ta\ o0no/mata).
Yet the syllables may be disguised (poiki/llein de\ e1cesti tai=j sullabai=j) until they appear different to the
ignorant person, and he may not recognize them, although they are the same (w#ste do/cai a2n tw~| i0diw&tikwj
e1xonti e3tera ei]nai a0llh/lwn ta\ au0ta\ o1nta), just as anyone of us would not recognize the same
drugs under different disguises of colour and smell (w#sper h9mi=n ta\ tw~n
i0atrw~n fa/rmaka xrw&masin kai\ o0smai=j pepoikilme/na a1lla fai/netai ta\
au0ta\ o1nta), although
to the physician (tw~| de/ ge i0atrw~|),
who regards the power of them (a3te th\n du/namin tw~n farma/kwn skopoume/nw|), they are the same (ta\ au0ta\ fai/netai), and he is not put out by the addition
(kai\
ou0k e0kplh/ttetai u9po\ tw~n proso/ntwn);
and in the like manner the etymologist (ou3tw de\ i1swj kai\ o9 e0pista/menoj peri\
o0noma/twn th\n du/namin au0tw~n skopei=)
is not put out by the addition or transposition or subtraction of the letter or
two, or indeed by the change of all the letters, for this need not interfere with
the meaning (kai\
ou0k e0kplh/ttetai ei1 ti pro/skeitai gra/mma h2 meta/keitai h2 a0fh/|rhtai, h2
kai\ e0n a1lloij panta/pasin gra/mmasi/n e0stin h9 tou= o0no/matoj du/namij). As was just now said (w#sper o4 nundh\ e0le/gomen), the names of Hector and Astyanax have
only one letter alike, which is the t
(“A0stua/nac” te kai\ “E#ktwr” ou0de\n tw~n au0tw~n
gramma/twn e1xei plh\n tou= tau=),
and yet they have the same meaning (a1ll’o3mwj to\ au0to\
shmai/nei). And how
little in common with the letters of their names has Archepolis [ruler of the
city] (kai\
“A0rxepoli/j” ge tw~n me\n gramma/twn ti/ e0pikoinwnei=;) – and yet the meaning is the same (dhloi= de\ o3mwj to\
au0to/). And there are
many other names which just mean “king” (kai\ a1lla polla/ e0stin a4 ou0de\n a0ll’ h2 basile/a shmai/nei). Again, there are several names for
a general (kai\
a1lla de\ au] strathgo/n),
as, for example Agis [leader] (oi[on “A]gij”) and Polemarchus [chief in war] (kai\ “Polema/rxoj”)
and Eupolemus [good warrior] (kai\ “Eu0po/lemoj”); and others which denote a physician (kai\ i0atrika/ ge
e3tera), as Iatrocles [famous
healer] (“I)atroklh=j”) and Acesimbrotus [curer of mortals] (kai\ “A0kesi/mbrotoj”); and there are many others (kai\ e3tera a2n i1swj suxna/), which might be cited (eu3roimen), differing in their syllables and
letters (tai=j
me\n sullabai=j kai\ toi=j gra/mmasi diafwnou=nta), but having the same meaning (th=| de\ duna/mei tau0to\n
fqeggo/mena). Would you
not say so (fai/netai
ou3twj h2 ou1;)?
Her. Yes (Pa/nu me\n ou]n).
Soc. The same
names, then, ought to be assigned to those who follow in the course of nature (Toi=j me\n dh\ kata\
fu/sin gignome/noij ta\ au0ta\ a0podote/on o0no/mata)?
Her. Yes (Pa/nu ge).
Soc. And what
of those who follow out of the course of nature, and are prodigies? for example,
when a good and religious man has an irreligious son, he ought to bear the name
not of his father, but of the class to which he belongs, just as in the case
which was before supposed of a horse foaling a calf (Ti/ de\ toi=j para\
fu/sin, oi9 a2n e0n te/ratoj ei1dei ge/nwntai; oi[on o3tan e0c a0ndro\j
a0gaqou= kai\ qeosebou=j a0sebh\j ge/nhtai, a]r’ ou0x w#jper e0n toi=j e1mprosqen, ka2n i3ppoj boo\j e1kgonon te/kh|,
ou0 tou= teko/ntoj dh/pou e1dei th\n e0pwnumi/an e1xein, a0lla\ tou= ge/nouj ou3
ei1h;).
Her. Quite
true (Pa/nu
ge).
Soc. Then the
son of a religious father should be called irreligious (Kai\ tw~| e0k tou= eu0sebou=j
a1ra genome/nw| a0sebei= to\ tou= ge/nouj o1noma a0podote/on)?
Her.
Certainly (E!sti
tau=ta).
Soc. He should not be called Theophilus [beloved of god] or Mnesitheus [mindful of god], or any of these names (Ou0 “Qeo/filon,” w(j e1oiken, ou0de\ "“Mnhsi/qeon” ou0de\ tw~n toiou/twn ou0de/n): if names are correctly given, his should have opposite meaning (a0ll’ o3ti ta0nanti/a tou/toij shmai/nei, e0a/nper th=j o0rqo/thtoj tugxa/nh| ta\ o0no/mata).
Her.
Certainly, Socrates (Panto/j ge ma=llon, w} Sw&kratej).
No comments:
Post a Comment