cratylus-第8章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



way　of　explaining　them　has　been　already　suggestedthey　may　be　of　foreign

origin；　and　possibly　this　is　the　true　answer。　　But　mere　antiquity　may　often

prevent　our　recognizing　words；　after　all　the　complications　which　they　have

undergone；　and　we　must　remember　that　however　far　we　carry　back　our　analysis

some　ultimate　elements　or　roots　will　remain　which　can　be　no　further

analyzed。　　For　example；　the　word　agathos　was　supposed　by　us　to　be　a

compound　of　agastos　and　thoos；　and　probably　thoos　may　be　further

resolvable。　　But　if　we　take　a　word　of　which　no　further　resolution　seems

attainable；　we　may　fairly　conclude　that　we　have　reached　one　of　these

original　elements；　and　the　truth　of　such　a　word　must　be　tested　by　some　new

method。　　Will　you　help　me　in　the　search？



All　names；　whether　primary　or　secondary；　are　intended　to　show　the　nature　of

things；　and　the　secondary；　as　I　conceive；　derive　their　significance　from

the　primary。　　But　then；　how　do　the　primary　names　indicate　anything？　　And

let　me　ask　another　question；If　we　had　no　faculty　of　speech；　how　should　we

communicate　with　one　another？　　Should　we　not　use　signs；　like　the　deaf　and

dumb？　　The　elevation　of　our　hands　would　mean　lightnessheaviness　would　be

expressed　by　letting　them　drop。　　The　running　of　any　animal　would　be

described　by　a　similar　movement　of　our　own　frames。　　The　body　can　only

express　anything　by　imitation；　and　the　tongue　or　mouth　can　imitate　as　well

as　the　rest　of　the　body。　　But　this　imitation　of　the　tongue　or　voice　is　not

yet　a　name；　because　people　may　imitate　sheep　or　goats　without　naming　them。　

What；　then；　is　a　name？　　In　the　first　place；　a　name　is　not　a　musical；　or；

secondly；　a　pictorial　imitation；　but　an　imitation　of　that　kind　which

expresses　the　nature　of　a　thing；　and　is　the　invention　not　of　a　musician；　or

of　a　painter；　but　of　a　namer。



And　now；　I　think　that　we　may　consider　the　names　about　which　you　were

asking。　　The　way　to　analyze　them　will　be　by　going　back　to　the　letters；　or

primary　elements　of　which　they　are　composed。　　First；　we　separate　the

alphabet　into　classes　of　letters；　distinguishing　the　consonants；　mutes；

vowels；　and　semivowels；　and　when　we　have　learnt　them　singly；　we　shall　learn

to　know　them　in　their　various　combinations　of　two　or　more　letters；　just　as

the　painter　knows　how　to　use　either　a　single　colour；　or　a　combination　of

colours。　　And　like　the　painter；　we　may　apply　letters　to　the　expression　of

objects；　and　form　them　into　syllables；　and　these　again　into　words；　until

the　picture　or　figurethat　is；　languageis　completed。　　Not　that　I　am

literally　speaking　of　ourselves；　but　I　mean　to　say　that　this　was　the　way　in

which　the　ancients　framed　language。　　And　this　leads　me　to　consider　whether

the　primary　as　well　as　the　secondary　elements　are　rightly　given。　　I　may

remark；　as　I　was　saying　about　the　Gods；　that　we　can　only　attain　to

conjecture　of　them。　　But　still　we　insist　that　ours　is　the　true　and　only

method　of　discovery；　otherwise　we　must　have　recourse；　like　the　tragic

poets；　to　a　Deus　ex　machina；　and　say　that　God　gave　the　first　names；　and

therefore　they　are　right；　or　that　the　barbarians　are　older　than　we　are；　and

that　we　learnt　of　them；　or　that　antiquity　has　cast　a　veil　over　the　truth。　

Yet　all　these　are　not　reasons；　they　are　only　ingenious　excuses　for　having

no　reasons。



I　will　freely　impart　to　you　my　own　notions；　though　they　are　somewhat

crude：the　letter　rho　appears　to　me　to　be　the　general　instrument　which　the

legislator　has　employed　to　express　all　motion　or　kinesis。　　（I　ought　to

explain　that　kinesis　is　just　iesis　（going）；　for　the　letter　eta　was　unknown

to　the　ancients；　and　the　root；　kiein；　is　a　foreign　form　of　ienai：　　of

kinesis　or　eisis；　the　opposite　is　stasis）。　　This　use　of　rho　is　evident　in

the　words　tremble；　break；　crush；　crumble；　and　the　like；　the　imposer　of

names　perceived　that　the　tongue　is　most　agitated　in　the　pronunciation　of

this　letter；　just　as　he　used　iota　to　express　the　subtle　power　which

penetrates　through　all　things。　　The　letters　phi；　psi；　sigma；　zeta；　which

require　a　great　deal　of　wind；　are　employed　in　the　imitation　of　such　notions

as　shivering；　seething；　shaking；　and　in　general　of　what　is　windy。　　The

letters　delta　and　tau　convey　the　idea　of　binding　and　rest　in　a　place：　　the

lambda　denotes　smoothness；　as　in　the　words　slip；　sleek；　sleep；　and　the

like。　　But　when　the　slipping　tongue　is　detained　by　the　heavier　sound　of

gamma；　then　arises　the　notion　of　a　glutinous　clammy　nature：　　nu　is　sounded

from　within；　and　has　a　notion　of　inwardness：　　alpha　is　the　expression　of

size；　eta　of　length；　omicron　of　roundness；　and　therefore　there　is　plenty　of

omicron　in　the　word　goggulon。　　That　is　my　view；　Hermogenes；　of　the

correctness　of　names；　and　I　should　like　to　hear　what　Cratylus　would　say。　

'But；　Socrates；　as　I　was　telling　you；　Cratylus　mystifies　me；　I　should　like

to　ask　him；　in　your　presence；　what　he　means　by　the　fitness　of　names？'　　To

this　appeal；　Cratylus　replies　'that　he　cannot　explain　so　important　a

subject　all　in　a　moment。'　　'No；　but　you　may　〃add　little　to　little；〃　as

Hesiod　says。'　　Socrates　here　interposes　his　own　request；　that　Cratylus　will

give　some　account　of　his　theory。　　Hermogenes　and　himself　are　mere

sciolists；　but　Cratylus　has　reflected　on　these　matters；　and　has　had

teachers。　　Cratylus　replies　in　the　words　of　Achilles：　　'〃Illustrious　Ajax；

you　have　spoken　in　all　things　much　to　my　mind；〃　whether　Euthyphro；　or　some

Muse　inhabiting　your　own　breast；　was　the　inspirer。'　　Socrates　replies；　that

he　is　afraid　of　being　self…deceived；　and　therefore　he　must　'look　fore　and

aft；'　as　Homer　remarks。　　Does　not　Cratylus　agree　with　him　that　names　teach

us　the　nature　of　things？　　'Yes。'　　And　naming　is　an　art；　and　the　artists　are

legislators；　and　like　artists　in　general；　some　of　them　are　better　and　some

of　them　are　worse　than　others；　and　give　better　or　worse　laws；　and　make

better　or　worse　names。　　Cratylus　cannot　admit　that　one　name　is　better　than

another；　they　are　either　true　names；　or　they　are　not　names　at　all；　and　when

he　is　asked　about　the　name　of　Hermogenes；　who　is　acknowledged　to　have　no

luck　in　him；　he　affirms　this　to　be　the　name　of　somebody　else。　　Socrates

supposes　him　to　mean　that　falsehood　is　impossible；　to　which　his　own　answer

would　be；　that　there　has　never　been　a　lack　of　liars。　　Cratylus　presses　him

with　the　old　sophistical　argument；　that　falsehood　is　saying　that　which　is

not；　and　therefore　saying　nothing；you　cannot　utter　the　word　which　is　not。

Socrates　complains　that　this　argument　is　too　subtle　for　an　old　man　to

understand：　　Suppose　a　person　addressing　Cratylus　were　to　say；　Hail；

Athenian　Stranger；　Hermogenes！　would　these　words　be　true　or　false？　　'I

should　say　that　they　would　be　mere　unmeaning　sounds；　like　the　hammering　of

a　brass　pot。'　　But　you　would　acknowledge　that　names；　as　well　as　pictures；

are　imitations；　and　also　that　pictures　may　give　a　right　or　wrong

representation　of　a　man　or　woman：why　may　not　names　then　equally　give　a

representation　true　and　right　or　false　and　wrong？　　Cratylus　admits　that

pictures　may　give　a　true　or　false　representation；　but　denies　that　names

can。　　Socrates　argues；　that　he　may　go　up　to　a　man　and　say　'this　is　year

picture；'　and　again；　he　may　go　and　say　to　him　'this　is　your　name'in　the

one　case　appealing　to　his　sense　of　sight；　and　in　the　other　to　his　sense　of

hearing；may　he　not？　　'Yes。'　　Then　you　will　admit　that　there　is　a　right　or

a　wrong　assignment　of　names；　and　if　of　names；　then　of　verbs　and　nouns；　and

if　of　verbs　and　nouns；　then　of　the　sentences　which　are　made　up　of　them；　and

comparing　nouns　to　pictures；　you　may　give　them　all　the　appropriate　sounds；

or　only　some　of　them。　　And　as　he　who　gives　all　the　colours　makes　a　good

picture；　and　he　who　gives　only　some　of　them；　a　bad　or　imperfect　one；　but

still　a　picture；　so　he　who　gives　all　the　sounds　makes　a　good　name；　and　he

who　gives　only　some　of　them；　a　bad　or　imperfect　one；　but　a　name　still。　　The

artist　of　names；　that　is；　the　legislator；　may　be　a　good　or　he　may　be　a　bad

arti