Cratylus 7

 

Soc. If I am to say what occurs to me at the moment (W(j me\n toi/nun e0k tou= paraxrh=ma le/gein), I should imagine that those who first use the name yuxh/ meant to express (oi]mai/ ti toiou=ton noei=n tou\j th\n yuxh\n o0noma/santaj) that the soul when in the body (w(j tou=to a1ra, o3tan parh=| tw~| sw~mati) is the source of life (ai1tio/n e0sti tou= zh=n au0tw~|), and gives the power of breath (th\n tou= a0napnei=n du/namin pare/xon) and revival (kai\ a0nayu/xon), and when this reviving power fails (a3ma de\ e0klei/pontoj tou= a0nayu/xontoj) then the body perishes and dies (to\ sw~ma a0po/lluetai/ te kai\ teleuta=|), and this, if I am not mistaken, they called psyche (o3qen dh/ moi dokou=sin au0to\ “yuxh\n” kale/sai). But please stay a moment (ei0 de\ bou/lei – e1xe h0re/ma): I fancy that I can discover something (dokw~ ga/r ti/ moi kaqora=n) which will be more acceptable to the disciples of Euthyphro (piqanw&teron tou/tou toi=j a0mfi\ Eu0qu/frona), for I am afraid that they will scorn this explanation (tou/tou me\n ga\r, w(j e0moi\ dokei=, katafronh/saien a2n kai\ h9gh/sainto fortiko\n ei]nai). What do you say to another (to/de de\ sko/pei e0a\n a1ra kai\ soi\ a0re/sh|)?

Her. Let me hear (Le/ge mo/non).

What is that which holds and carries and gives life and motion to the entire nature of the body? What else but the soul (Th\n fu/sin panto\j tou= sw&matoj, w#ste kai\ zh\n kai\ periie/nai, ti/ soi dokei= e1xein te kai\ o0xei=n a1llo h2 yuxh/;)?

Her. Just that (Ou0de\n a1llo).

Soc. And do you not believe with Anaxagoras that mind or soul is the ordering and containing principle of all things (Ti/ de/; kai\ th\n tw~n a1llwn a9pa/ntwn fu/sin ou0 pisteu/eij Anaxago/ra| nou=n kai\ yuxh\n ei]nai th\n diakosmou=san kai\ e1xousan;)?

Her. Yes; I do (E1gwge).

 Soc. Then you may well call that power fuse/xh which carries and holds nature [h9 fu/sin o0xei=, kai\ e1xei], and this may be refined away into yuxh/ (Kalw~j a1ra a2n kai\ to\ o1noma tou=to e1xoi th=| duna/mei tau/th| h9 fu/sin o0xei= kai\ e1xei “fuse/xhn” e0ponoma/zein, e1cesti de\ kai\ “yuxh\n” komyeuo/menon le/gein).

Her. Certainly (Pa/nu me\n ou]n); and this derivation is, I think, more scientific than the other (kai\ dokei= ge/ moi tou=to e0kei/nou texnikw~teron ei]nai).

Soc. It is so (Kai\ ga\r e1stin); but I cannot help laughing (geloi=on me/ntoi fai/netai), if I am to suppose that this was the true meaning of the name (w(j a0lhqw~j o0nomazo/menon w(j e0te/qh).

Her. But what shall we say of the next word (A0lla\ dh\ to\ meta\ tou=to pw~j fw~men e1xein)?

Soc. You mean sw~ma [the body] (To\ sw~ma le/geij;).

Her. Yes (Nai/).

Soc. That may be variously interpreted (Pollaxh=| moi dokei= tou=to/ ge); and yet more variously if a little permutation is allowed (a2n me\n kai\ smikro/n tij parakli/nh|, kai\ pa/nu). For some say that the body is the grave [sh=ma] of the soul (kai\ ga\r sh=ma/ tine/j fasin au0to\ ei]nai th=j yuxh=j) which may be thought buried in our present life (w(j teqamme/nhj e0n tw~| nu=n paro/nti); or again the index of the soul, because the soul gives indication to [shmai/nei] the body (kai\ dio/ti au] tou/tw| shmai/nei a4 a2n shmai/nh| h9 yuxh/, kai\ tau/th| “sh=ma” o0rqw~j kalei=sqai); probably the Orphic poets were the inventors of the name (dokou=si me/ntoi moi ma/lista qe/sqai oi9 a0mfi\ O)rfe/a tou=to to\ o1noma), and they were under the impression that the soul is suffering the punishment for sin, and that the body is an enclosure or prison in which the soul is incarcerated, kept safe [sw~ma, sw&zhtai], as the name sw~ma implies, until the penalty is paid (w(j di/khn didou/shj th=j yuxh=j w{n dh\ e3neka di/dwsi, tou=ton to\n peri/bolon e1xein, i3na sw|&zhtai, desmwthri/ou ei0ko/na); according to this view, not even a letter of this word need be changed (ei]nai ou]n th=j yuxh=j tou=to, w#sper au0to\ o0noma/zetai, e3wj a2n e0ktei/sh| ta\ o0feilo/mena, “sw~ma”, kai\ ou0de\n dei=n para/gein ou0d’ e4n gra/mma).

Her. I think, Socrates, that we have said enough of this class of words. But have we any more explanations of the names of the Gods, like that which you were giving of Zeus? I should like to know whether any similar principle of correctness is to be applied to them (Tau=ta me/n moi dokei= i9kanw~j ei0rh=sqai, peri\ de\ tw~n qew~n tw~n o0noma/twn, oi[on kai\ peri\ tou= “Dio\j” nundh\ e1legej, e1xoimen a1n pou kata\ to\n au0to\n tro/pon e0piske/yasqai kata\ ti/na pote\ o0rqo/thta au0tw~n ta\ o0no/mata kei=tai;).

Soc. Yes indeed Hermogenes (Nai\ ma\ Di/a h9mei=j ge, w} E(rmo/genej); and there is one excellent principle which, as men of sense, we must acknowledge (ei1per ge nou=n e1xoimen, e3na me\n to\n ka/lliston tro/pon) – that of the Gods we know nothing (o3ti peri\ qew~n ou0de\n i1smen), either of their natures (ou1te peri\ au0tw~n) or of the names which they give themselves (ou1te peri\ tw~n o0noma/twn, a3tta pote\ e9autou\j kalou=sin); but we are sure that the names by which they call themselves, whatever they may be, are true (dh=lon ga\r o3ti e0kei=noi/ ge ta0lhqh= kalou=si). And this is the best of all principles; and the next best is (deu/teroj d’ au] tro/poj o0rqo/thtoj) to say, as in prayers, that we will call them by any sort of kind of names or patronymic which they like (w#sper e0n tai=j eu0xai=j no/moj e0stin h9ma=j eu1xesqai, oi3tine/j te kai\ o9po/qen xai/rousin o0nomazo/menoi, tau=ta kai\ h9ma=j au0tou\j kalei=n), because we do not know of any other (w(j a1llo mhde\n ei0do/taj). That also, I think, is a very good custom, and which I should much wish to observe (kalw~j ga\r dh\ e1moige dokei= nenomi/sqai). Let us then, if you please (ei0 ou]n bou/lei, skopw&men), in the first place announce to them that we are not enquiring about them (w#sper proeipo/ntej toi=j qeoi=j o3ti peri\ peri\ au0tw~n ou0de\n h9mei=j skeyo/meqa); we do not presume that we are able to do so (ou0 ga\r a0ciou=men oi[oi/ t’ a2n ei]nai skopei=n); but we are enquiring about the meaning of men in giving them these names (a0lla\ peri\ tw~n a0nqrw&pwn, h4n pote/ tina do/can e1xontej e0ti/qento au0toi=j ta o0no/mata), – in this there can be small blame (tou=to ga\r a0neme/shton).

Her. I think, Socrates, that you are quite right, and I would like to do as you say (A0lla/ moi dokei=j, w} Sw&kratej, metri/wj le/gein, kai\ ou3tw poiw~men).

Soc. Shall we begin, then, with Hestia, according to custom (A1llo ti ou]n a0f’ E(sti/aj a0rxw&meqa kata\ to\n no/mon;)?

Her. Yes, that will be very proper (Di/kaion gou=n).

Soc. What may we suppose him to have meant who gave the name Hestia (Ti/ ou]n a1n tij fai/h dianoou/menon to\n o0noma/santa E(sti/an o0noma/sai;)?

Her. That is another and certainly a most difficult question (Ou0 ma\ to\n Di/a ou0de\ tou=to oi]mai r9a/|dion ei]nai).

Soc. My dear Hermogenes, the first imposers of names must surely have been considerable persons; they were philosophers, and had a good deal to say (Kinduneu/ousi\ gou=n, w}gaqe\ E(rmo/genej, oi9 prw~toi ta\ o0no/mata tiqe/menoi ou0 fau=loi ei]nai a0lla\ metewrolo/goi kai\ a0dole/sxai tine/j).

Her. Well, and what of them (Ti/ dh/)?

Soc. They are the men to whom I should attribute the imposition of names (Katafai/netai/ moi h9 qe/sij tw~n o0noma/twn toiou/twn tinw~n a0nqrw&pwn). Even in foreign names, if you analyse them (kai\ e0a/n tij ta\ cenika\ o0no/mata a0naskoph=|), a meaning is still discernible (ou0x h3tton a0neuri/sketai o4 e3kaston bou/letai). For example (oi[on), that which we term ou0si/a (kai\ e0n tou/tw| o4 h9mei=j “ou0si/an” kalou=men) is by some called e0si/a (ei0si\n oi9 “e0ssi/an” kalou=sin), and by others again w)si/a (oi4 d’ au] “w)si/an”). Now that the essence of things should be called e9sti/a, which is akin to the first of these [e0si/a=e9sti/a], is rational enough (prw~ton me\n ou]n kata\ to\ e3teron o1noma tou/twn h9 tw~n pragma/twn ou0si/a “E(sti/a” kalei=sqai e1xei lo/gon). And there is reason in Athenians calling that e9sti/a which participates in ou0si/a (kai\ o3ti ge au] h9mei=j to\ th=j ou0si/aj mete/xon “e1stin” fame/n, kai\ kata\ tou=to o0rqw~j a2n kaloi=to “E(sti/a”). For in ancient times we too seem to have said e0ssi/a, which was natural enough if they meant that e9sti/a was the essence of things (e1ti de\ kai\ kata\ ta\j qusi/aj a1n tij e0nnoh/saj h9gh/saito ou3tw noei=n tau=ta tou\j tiqeme/nouj, to\ ga\r pro\ pa/ntwn qew~n th=| E(sti/a| prw&th| proqu/ein ei0ko\j e0kei/nouj oi3tinej th\n pa/ntwn ou0si/an “e0ssi/an” e0pwno/masan). Those again who read w)si/a (o3soi d’ au] “w)si/an”) seem to have inclined to the opinion of Heracleitus (sxedo/n ti au] ou3toi kaq’ H(ra/kleiton a2n h9goi=nto), that all things flow and nothing stands (ta\ o1nta i0e/nai te pa/nta kai\ me/nein ou9de/n); with them the pushing principle [w)qou=n] is the cause and ruling power of things (to\ ou]n ai1tion kai\ to\ a0rxhgo\n au0tw~n ei]nai to\ w)qou=n), and is therefore rightly called w)si/a (o3qen dh\ kalw~j e1xein au0to\ “w)si/an” w)noma/sqai). Enough of this, which is all that we who know nothing can affirm (kai\ tau=ta me\n dh\ tau/th| w(j para\ mhde\n ei0do/twn ei0rh/sqw). Next in the order after Hestia we ought to consider Rhea and Cronos (meta\ d’ E(sti/an di/kaion R(e/an kai\ Kro/non e0piske/yasqai), although the name of Cronos has been already discussed (kai/toi to/ ge tou Kro/nou o1noma h1dh dih/lqomen). But I dare say that I am talking great nonsense (i1swj me/ntoi ou0de\n le/gw).

Her. Why, Socrates (Ti/ dh/, w} Sw&kratej;)?

Soc. My good friend, I have discovered a hive of wisdom (W)gaqe/, e0nneno/eka/ ti smh=noj sofi/aj).

Her. Of what nature (Poi=on dh\ tou=to;)?

Soc. Well, rather ridiculous (Geloi=on me\n pa/nu ei0pei=n), and yet plausible (oi]mai me/ntoi tina\ piqano/thta e1xon).

Her. How plausible (Ti/na tau/thn;)?

Soc. I fancy to myself Heracleitus repeating wise traditions of antiquity as old as the days of Cronos and Rhea, and of which Homer also spoke (To\n H(ra/kleito/n moi dokw~ kaqora=n palai/’ a1tta sofa\ lego/nta, a0texnw~j ta\ peri\ Kro/nou kai\ R(e/aj, a4 kai\ O#mhroj e1legen).

Her. How do you mean (Pw~j tou=to le/geij;)?

Soc. Heracleitus is supposed to say (Le/gei pou H(ra/kleitoj) that all things are in motion (o3ti “pa/nta xwrei=) and nothing at rest (kai\ ou0de\n me/nei”); he compares them to the stream of a river (kai\ potamou= r(oh=| a0peika/zwn ta\ o1nta), and says that (le/gei w(j) you cannot go into the same water twice (“di\j ei0j to\n au0to\n potamo\n ou0k a2n e0mbai/hj”).

Her. That is true (E!sti tau=ta).

Soc. Well, then (Ti/ ou]n;), how can we avoid inferring that he who gave the names of Cronos and Rhea to the ancestors of Gods, agreed pretty much in the doctrine of Heracleitus (dokei= soi a0lloio/teron H(raklei/tou noei=n o9 tiqe/menoj toi=j tw~n a1llwn qew~n progo/noij “R(e/an” te kai\ “Kro/non”;)? Is the giving of the names of streams to both of them purely accidental (a]ra oi1ei a0po\ tou= au0toma/tou au0to\n a0mfote/roij r9euma/twn o0no/mata qe/sqai;)? Compare the line in which Homer, and, as I believe, Hesiod also, tells us of

Ocean, the origine of Gods, and mother Tethys (w#sper au] O#mhroj “W)keano/n te qew~n genesi/n” fhsin “kai mh/tera Thqu/n, oi]mai de\ kai\ H(si/odoj).

And again, Orpheus says (le/gei de/ pou kai\ Orfeu\j), that (o3ti)

The fair river of Ocean was the first to marry, and he espoused his sister Tethys, who was his mother’s daughter. (W)keano\j prw~toj kalli/rrooj h]rce gamoi=o,

O3j r(a kasignh/thn o9momh/tora Thqu\n o1puen)

You see that this is a remarkable coincidence (Tau=t’ ou]n sko/pei o3ti kai\ a0llh/loij sumfwnei=), and all in the direction of Heracleitus (kai\ pro\j ta\ tou= H(raklei/tou pa/nta tei/nei).

Her. I think that there is something in what you say, Socrates; but I do not understand the meaning of the name Tethys (Fai/nh| ti/ moi le/gein, w} Sw&kratej, to\ me/ntoi th=j Thqu/oj ou0k e0nnow~ o1noma ti/ bou/letai).

Soc. Well that is almost self-explained, being only the name of a spring, a little disguised; for that which is strained and filtered [diattw&menon, h0qou/menon] may be likened to a spring, and the name Tethys is made up of these two words (A0lla\ me\n tou=to/ ge oli/gou au0to\ le/gei o3ti phgh=j o1noma e0pikekrumme/non e0sti/n, to\ ga\r diattw&menon kai\ to\ h0qou/menon phgh=j a0peikasma/ e0stin, e0k de\ tou/twn a0mfote/rwn tw~n o0noma/twn h9 “Thqu\j” to\ o1noma su/gkeitai).

Her. The idea is ingenious, Socrates (Tou/to me/n, w} Sw&kratej, komyo/n).

Soc. To be sure (Ti/ d’ ou0 me/llei;).