Soc. Then let us proceed (A0lla\ xrh\ ou3tw poiei=n); and where would you want us begin (po/qen ou]n bou/lei a0rcw&meqa diaskopou=ntej), now that we have got a sort of outline of the enquiry (e0peidh/per ei0j tu/pon tina\ e0mbebh/kamen)? Are there any names which witness of themselves that they are not given arbitrarily, but have a natural fitness (i3na ei0dw~men ei0 a1ra h9mi=n e0pimarturh/sei au0ta\ ta\ o0no/mata mh\ pa/nu a0po\ tou= au0toma/tou ou3twj e3kasta kei=sqai, a1ll\ e1xein tina/ o0rqo/thta;)? The names of heroes and of men in general are apt to be deceptive (ta\ me\n ou]n tw~n h9rw&wn kai\ a0nqrw&pwn lego/mena o0no/mata i1swj a2n h9ma=j e0capath/seien) because they are often called after ancestors with whose names, as we were saying, they may have no business (polla\ ga\r au0tw~n kei=tai kata\ progo/nwn e0pwnumi/aj, ou0de\n prosh=kon e0ni/oij, w#sper kat’ a0rxa\j e0le/gomen); or they are the expression of a wish like Eutychides [the son of good fortune] or Sosias [the saviour] or Theophilus [the beloved of God] (polla\ de\ w#sper eu0xo/menoi ti/qentai, oi[on “Eu0tuxi/dhn” kai\ “Swsi/an” kai\ “Qeo/filon”), and others (kai\ a1lla polla/). But I think that we had better leave these (ta\ me\n ou]n toiau=ta dokei= moi xrh=nai e0a=n), for there will be more chance of finding correctness in the names of immutable essences (ei0ko\j de\ ma/lista h9ma=j eu9rei=n ta\ o0rqw~j kei/mena peri\ ta\ a0ei\ o1nta kai\ pefuko/ta) – there ought to have been more care taken about them when they were named (e0spouda/sqai ga\r e0ntau/qa ma/lista pre/pei th\n qe/sin tw~n o0noma/twn), and perhaps there may have been some more than human power at work occasionally in giving them names (i1swj d’ e1nia au0tw~n kai\ u9po\ qeiote/raj duna/mewj h2 th=j tw~n a0nqrw&pwn e0te/qh).
Her. I think
so, Socrates (Dokei=j moi kalw~j le/gein, w} Sw&kratej).
Soc. Ought we
not begin with the consideration of the Gods, and show that they are rightly
named Gods (A]r’ ou]n ou0 di/kaion a0po\ tw~n qew~n
a1rxesqai, skopoume/nouj ph=| pote au0to\ tou=to to\ o1noma oi9 “qeoi\” o0rqw~j e0klh/qhsan;)?
Her. Yes,
that will be well (Ei0ko/j ge).
Soc. My
notion would be something of this sort (Toio/nde toi/nun e1gwge u9popteu/w): – I suspect that the sun, moon,
earth, stars, and heaven, which are still the gods of many barbarians, were the
only Gods known to the aboriginal Hellenes (fai/nontai/ moi oi9 prw~toi tw~n
a0nqrw&pwn tw~n peri\ th\n E(lla/da tou/touj mo/nouj h9gei=sqai ou3sper
nu=n polloi/ tw~n barba/rwn, h3lion kai\ selh/nhn kai\ gh=n kai\ a1stra kai\
ou0rano/n). Seeing that
they were always moving and running (a3te ou]n au0ta\ o9rw~ntej a0ei\ i0o/nta dro/mw|
kai\ qeo/nta), from their
running nature they were called Gods or runners [qeou\j, qe/ontaj] (a0po\ tau/thj th=j fu/sewj th=j tou=
qei=n “qeou\j” au0tou\j e0ponoma/sai); and when men became acquainted with
the other Gods (u3steron de\ katanoou=ntej tou\j a1llouj), they proceeded to apply the same name to them all (pa/ntaj h1dh tou/tw|
tw~| o0no/mati prosagoreu/ein).
Do you think that likely (e1oike/ ti o4 le/gw tw~| a0lhqei= h2 ou0de\n;)?
Her. I think
it very likely indeed (Pa/nu me\n ou]n e1oiken).
Soc. What
shall follow the Gods (Ti/ ou]n a2n meta\ tou=to skopoi=men;)?
Her. Must not
demons and heroes and men come next (Dh=lon dh\ o3ti dai/mona/j te kai\ h3rwaj kai\
a0nqrw&pouj)?
Soc. Demons!
And what do you consider to be the meaning of this word (Kai\ w(j a0lhqw~j, w}
E(rmo/genej, ti/ a1n pote nooi= to\ o/noma oi9 “dai/monej”;)? Tell me if my view is right (ske/yai a1n ti/ soi
do/cw ei0pei=n).
Her. Let me
hear (Le/ge
mo/non).
Soc. You know
how Hesiod uses the word (Oi]sqa ou]n ti/naj fhsi\n H(si/odoj tou\j dai/monaj;)?
Her. I do not
(Ou0k
e0nnow~).
Soc. Do you
not remember that he speaks of the golden race of men who came first (Ou0de\ o3ti xrusou=n
ge/noj to\ prw~to/n fhsin gene/sqai tw~n a0nqrw&pwn;)?
Her. Yes, I
do (Oi]da
tou=to/ ge).
Soc, He says
of them –
But now
that fate has closed over this race
They are
holy demons upon the earth,
Beneficent,
averters of ills, guardians of mortal men.
(Le/gei toi/nun peri\
au0tou= -
Au0ta\r
e0peidh\ tou=to ge/noj kata\ moi=r’ e0ka/luyen,
oi9
me\n dai/monej a9gnoi\ u9poxqo/nioi kale/ontai,
e0sqloi/,
a0leci/kakoi, fu/lakej qnhtw~n a0nqrw&pwn)
Her. What is
the inference (Ti/ ou]n dh/;)?
Soc. What is
the inference! Why, I suppose that he means by the golden men, not men
literally made of gold (O#ti oi]mai e0gw_ le/gein au0to\n to\ xrusou=n ge/noj ou0k e0k xrusou=
pefuko/j), but good and
noble (a0l’ a0gaqo/n te kai\ kalo/n); and I am convinced of this (tekmh/rion de\ moi/
e0stin) because he further
says that we are the iron race (o3ti kai\ h9ma=j fhsin sidhrou=n ei]nai ge/noj).
Her. That is
true (A0lhqh=
le/geij).
Soc. And do
you not suppose that the good men of our own day would by him be said to be of
golden race (Ou0kou=n
kai\ tw~n nu=n oi]ei a2n fa/nai au0to\n ei1 tij a0gaqo/j e0stin e0kei/nou tou=
xrusou= ge/nouj ei]nai;)?
Her. Very
likely (Ei0ko/j
ge).
Soc. And are
not the good wise (Oi9 d’ a0gaqoi\ a1llo ti h2
fro/nimoi;)?
Her. Yes,
they are wise (Fro/nimoi).
Soc. And
therefore I have the most entire conviction that he called them demons, because
they were dah/monej
[knowing or wise] (Tou/to toi/nun pa/ntoj
ma=llon le/gei, w(j e0moi\ dokei=, tou\j dai/monaj, o3ti fro/nimoi kai\
dah/monej h]san, “dai/monaj” au0tou\j w)no/masen), and in our older Attic dialect the
word itself occurs (kai\ e1n ge th=| a0rxai/a|| th=| h9mete/ra| fwnh=| au0to\ sumbai/nei
to\ o1noma). Now he and
other poets say truly (le/gei ou]n kalw~j kai\ ou[toj kai\ a1lloi poihtai\ polloi\ o3soi le/gousin), that when a good man dies (w(j e0peida/n tij
a0gaqo\j w@n teleuth/sh|)
he has honour and a mighty portion among the dead (mega/lhn moi=ran kai\ timh\n
e1xei), and becomes a
demon (kai\
gi/gnetai dai/mwn); which
is a name given to him signifying wisdom (kata\ th\n th=j fronh/sewj e0pwnumi/an). And I say too, that every wise man
who happens to be a good man (tau/th| ou]n ti/qemai kai\ e0gw_ pa/nt’ a1ndra o3j a2n a0gaqo\j h=|) is more than human (daimo/nion ei]nai) both in life and death (kai\ zw&nta kai\
teleuth/santa), and is
rightly called a demon (kai\ o0rqw~j “dai/mona” kalei=sqai).
Her. Then I
rather think that I am of one mind with you (Kai\ e0gw& moi dokw~, w}
Sw&kratej, tou/tou pa/nu soi su/myhfoj ei]nai); but what is the meaning of the word “hero”? [h3rwj, in the old writing e3rwj] (o9 de\ dh\ “h3rwj” ti/ a2n ei1h;).
Soc. I think
that there is not much difficulty in explaining (Tou=to de\ ou0 pa/nu xalepo\n e0nnoh=sai), for the name is not much altered (smikro\n ga\r parh=ktai
a0tw~n to\ o1noma), and
signifies that they were born of love (dhlou=n th\n e0k tou= e1rwtoj ge/nesin).
Her. What do
you mean (Pw~j
le/geij;)?
Soc. Do you
not know that the heroes are demigods (Ou0k oi]sqa o3ti h9mi/qeoi oi0 h3rwej;)?
Her. What
then (Ti/
ou]n;)?
Soc. All of
them sprang either from a love of a god for a mortal woman (Pa/ntej dh/pou
gego/nasin e0rasqe/ntoj h2 qeou= qnhth=j),
or of a mortal man for a Goddess (h2 qnhtou= qea/j); think of the word in the old Attic (e0a\n ou]n skoph=|j
kai\ tou=to kata\ th\n A0ttikh\n th\n palaia\n fwnh/n), and you will see better (ma=llon ei1sh|) that the name heros is only a slight
alteration of Eros, from whom the heroes sprang (dhlw&sei ga/r soi o3ti para\ to\ tou=
e1rwtoj o1noma, o3qen gego/nasin oi9 h3rwej, smikro\n parhgme/non e0sti\n
o0no/matoj xa/rin):
either this is the meaning (kai\ h1toi tou=to le/gei tou\j h1rwaj), or, if not this, then they must have been skilful as
rhetoricians and dialecticians (h2 o3ti sofoi\ h]san kai\ r9h/torej kai\ deinoi\
kai\ dialektikoi/), and
able to put the question (e0rwta=n i9kanoi\ o1ntej),
for ei1rein
is equivalent to le/gein (to\ ga\r “ei1rein” le/gein e0sti/n).
And therefore, as I was saying (o3per ou]n a1rti le/gomen), in the Attic dialect the heroes
turn out to be rhetoricians and questioners. All this is easy enough; the noble
breed of heroes are a tribe of sophists and rhetors (e0n th=| Attikh=|
fwnh=| lego/menoi oi9 h3rwej r9htore/j tinej kai\ e0rwthtikoi\ sumbai/nousin,
w#ste r9hto/rwn kai\ sofistw~n ge/noj gi/gnetai to\ h9rwiko\n fu=lon. a0lla\
ou0 tou=to xalepo/n e0stin e0nnoh=sai).
But can you tell me why men are called a1nqrwpoi?
– that is more difficult (a0lla\ ma=llon to\ tw~n a0nqrw&pwn, dia\ ti/ pote “a1nqrwpoi” kalou=ntai, h2 su\ e1xeij ei0pei=n;).
Her. No, I
cannot (Po/qen,
w)gaqe/, e1xw;); and I
would not try even if I could (ou0d’ ei1 ti oi[o/j t’ a2n ei1hn eu9rei=n, ou0 suntei/nw), because I think that you are the
more likely to succeed (dia\ to\ h9gei=sqai se\ ma=llon eu9rh/sein h2 e0mauto/n).
Soc. That is
to say, you trust to the inspiration of Euthyphro (Th=| tou Eu0qu/fronoj e0pipnoi/a|
pisteu/eij, w(j e1oikaj).
Her. Of
course (Dh=la
dh/).
Soc. Your
faith is not vain (O)rqw&j ge su\ pisteu/wn);
for at this very moment a new and ingenious thought strikes me (w(j kai\ nu=n ge/ moi
fai/nomai komyw~j e0nnohke/nai),
and, if I am not careful, before tomorrow’s dawn I shall be wiser than I ought
to be (kai\
kinduneu/sw, e0a\n mh\ eu0labw&mai, e1ti th/meron sofw&teroj tou=
de/ontoj gene/sqai). Now,
attend to me (sko/pei dh\ o4 le/gw);
and first, remember that we often put in and pull out letters in words, and give
names as we please and change the accents (prw~ton me\n ga\r to\ toio/nde dei=
e0nnoh/sai peri\ o0noma/twn, o3ti polla/kij e0pemba/llomen gra/mmata, ta\ de\
e0cairou=men par’ o9 boulo/meqa
o0noma/zontej, kai\ ta\j o0cu/thtaj metaba/llomen). Take, for example, the word Dii/ Fi/loj (Oi[on “Dii/ fi/loj”); in order to
convert this from a sentence into a noun (tou=to i3na a1nti r9h/matoj o1noma h9mi=n
ge/nhtai), we omit one of
the iotas and sound the middle syllable grave instead of acute (to/ te e3teron
au0to/qen i0w~ta e0cei/lomen kai\ a0nti\ o0cei/aj th=j me/shj sullabh=j
barei=an e0fqegca/meqa);
as on the other hand (a1llwn de\ tou0nanti/on),
letters are sometimes inserted in words instead of being omitted (e0mba/llomen gra/mmata), and the acute takes the place of
the grave (ta/
te baru/tera o0cu/tera fqeggo/meqa).
Her. That is
true (A0lhqh=
le/geij).
Soc. The name
a1nqrwpoj, which was once a sentence, and is now
a noun, appears to be a case just of this sort, for one letter, which is the a, has been omitted, and the acute on
the last syllable has been changed into a grave (Tou/twn toi/nun e4n kai\ to\ tw~n
a0nqrw&pwn o1noma pe/ponqen, w#j e0moi\ dokei=, e0k ga\r r9h/matoj o1noma
ge/gonen, e9no\j gra/mmatoj tou= a1lfa e0caireqe/ntoj kai barute/raj th=j
teleuth=j genome/nhj).
Her. What do
you mean (Pw~j
le/geij;)?
Soc. I mean
to say that the word “man” implies that the other animals never examine, or
consider, or look up at what they see, but that man not only sees [o1pwpe] but considers and looks up at that
what he sees, and hence he alone of all animals is rightly called a1nqrwpoj, meaning a0naqrw~n a4 o1pwpen (W{de, shmai/nei tou=to to\ o1noma o9 “a1nqrwpoj” o3ti ta\ me\n a1lla qhri/a w{n o9ra=| ou0de\n e0piskopei= ou0de\
a0nalogi/zetai ou0de\ a0naqrei=, o9 de\ a1nqrwpoj a3ma e9w&raken – tou=to d’ e0sti\ to\ “o1pwpe” – kai\ a0naqrei= kai\
logi/zetai tou=to o9 o1pwpen, e0nteu/qen dh\ mo/non tw~n qhri/wn o0rqw~j o9
a1nqrwpoj 2a1nqrwpoj” w)noma/sqh, a0naqrw~n
a4 o1pwpe).
Her. May I
ask you to examine another word about which I am curious (Ti/ ou]n to\ meta\
tou=to; e1rwmai/ se o4 h9de/wj a2n puqoi/mhn;)?
Soc.
Certainly (Pa/nu
ge).
Her. I will
take that which appears to me to follow next in order (W#sper toi/nun moi
dokei= tou/toij e9ch=j ei]nai/ ti xrh=ma).
You know the distinction of soul and body (“yuxh\n” ga/r pou kai\ “sw&ma” kalou=men tou= a0nqrw&pou)?
Soc. Of
course (Pw~j
ga\r ou1;).
***
Jowett’s free
idiosyncratic translations sometimes distort Plato’s text. Left with nothing
but Jowett’s translation, the reader must ask: ‘On what basis could Hermogenes ask
Socrates, whether he knows the distinction between soul and body?’
Socrates has
just given his exposition of “a1nqrwpoj”
as a name that expresses the man’s true nature. Hermogenes notes that in his
view “soul” and “body” distinction comes next; he would like Socrates to analyse
(dielei=n) these two parts, first the soul and
then the body. Socrates’ Pw~j ga\r ou1; (“How
could it be otherwise”) authoritatively removes any uncertainty that Hermogenes’
‘I think that what comes next is – for we speak of man’s soul and body’ might
imply.
***
Her. Let us
endeavour to analyse them (Peirw&meqa dh\ kai\ tau=ta dielei=n) like the previous words (w#sper ta\ e1mprosqen).
Soc. You want
me first of all to examine the natural fitness of the word yu/xh [soul] (Yuxh\n le/geij e0piske/yasqai w(j ei0ko/twj
tou/tou tou= o0no/matoj tugxa/nei),
and then of the word sw~ma [body] (e2peit’ au] to\ sw~ma;)?
Her. Yes (Nai/).
No comments:
Post a Comment