cratylus- 第1部分

Cratylus

by　Plato

Translated　by　Benjamin　Jowett






INTRODUCTION。



The　Cratylus　has　always　been　a　source　of　perplexity　to　the　student　of

Plato。　　While　in　fancy　and　humour；　and　perfection　of　style　and　metaphysical

originality；　this　dialogue　may　be　ranked　with　the　best　of　the　Platonic

writings；　there　has　been　an　uncertainty　about　the　motive　of　the　piece；

which　interpreters　have　hitherto　not　succeeded　in　dispelling。　　We　need　not

suppose　that　Plato　used　words　in　order　to　conceal　his　thoughts；　or　that　he

would　have　been　unintelligible　to　an　educated　contemporary。　　In　the

Phaedrus　and　Euthydemus　we　also　find　a　difficulty　in　determining　the

precise　aim　of　the　author。　　Plato　wrote　satires　in　the　form　of　dialogues；

and　his　meaning；　like　that　of　other　satirical　writers；　has　often　slept　in

the　ear　of　posterity。　　Two　causes　may　be　assigned　for　this　obscurity：　　1st；

the　subtlety　and　allusiveness　of　this　species　of　composition；　2nd；　the

difficulty　of　reproducing　a　state　of　life　and　literature　which　has　passed

away。　　A　satire　is　unmeaning　unless　we　can　place　ourselves　back　among　the

persons　and　thoughts　of　the　age　in　which　it　was　written。　　Had　the　treatise

of　Antisthenes　upon　words；　or　the　speculations　of　Cratylus；　or　some　other

Heracleitean　of　the　fourth　century　B。C。；　on　the　nature　of　language　been

preserved　to　us；　or　if　we　had　lived　at　the　time；　and　been　'rich　enough　to

attend　the　fifty…drachma　course　of　Prodicus；'　we　should　have　understood

Plato　better；　and　many　points　which　are　now　attributed　to　the　extravagance

of　Socrates'　humour　would　have　been　found；　like　the　allusions　of

Aristophanes　in　the　Clouds；　to　have　gone　home　to　the　sophists　and

grammarians　of　the　day。



For　the　age　was　very　busy　with　philological　speculation；　and　many　questions

were　beginning　to　be　asked　about　language　which　were　parallel　to　other

questions　about　justice；　virtue；　knowledge；　and　were　illustrated　in　a

similar　manner　by　the　analogy　of　the　arts。　　Was　there　a　correctness　in

words；　and　were　they　given　by　nature　or　convention？　　In　the　presocratic

philosophy　mankind　had　been　striving　to　attain　an　expression　of　their

ideas；　and　now　they　were　beginning　to　ask　themselves　whether　the　expression

might　not　be　distinguished　from　the　idea？　　They　were　also　seeking　to

distinguish　the　parts　of　speech　and　to　enquire　into　the　relation　of　subject

and　predicate。　　Grammar　and　logic　were　moving　about　somewhere　in　the　depths

of　the　human　soul；　but　they　were　not　yet　awakened　into　consciousness　and

had　not　found　names　for　themselves；　or　terms　by　which　they　might　be

expressed。　　Of　these　beginnings　of　the　study　of　language　we　know　little；

and　there　necessarily　arises　an　obscurity　when　the　surroundings　of　such　a

work　as　the　Cratylus　are　taken　away。　　Moreover；　in　this；　as　in　most　of　the

dialogues　of　Plato；　allowance　has　to　be　made　for　the　character　of　Socrates。　

For　the　theory　of　language　can　only　be　propounded　by　him　in　a　manner　which

is　consistent　with　his　own　profession　of　ignorance。　　Hence　his　ridicule　of

the　new　school　of　etymology　is　interspersed　with　many　declarations　'that　he

knows　nothing；'　'that　he　has　learned　from　Euthyphro；'　and　the　like。　　Even

the　truest　things　which　he　says　are　depreciated　by　himself。　　He　professes

to　be　guessing；　but　the　guesses　of　Plato　are　better　than　all　the　other

theories　of　the　ancients　respecting　language　put　together。



The　dialogue　hardly　derives　any　light　from　Plato's　other　writings；　and

still　less　from　Scholiasts　and　Neoplatonist　writers。　　Socrates　must　be

interpreted　from　himself；　and　on　first　reading　we　certainly　have　a

difficulty　in　understanding　his　drift；　or　his　relation　to　the　two　other

interlocutors　in　the　dialogue。　　Does　he　agree　with　Cratylus　or　with

Hermogenes；　and　is　he　serious　in　those　fanciful　etymologies；　extending　over

more　than　half　the　dialogue；　which　he　seems　so　greatly　to　relish？　　Or　is　he

serious　in　part　only；　and　can　we　separate　his　jest　from　his　earnest？Sunt

bona；　sunt　quaedum　mediocria；　sunt　mala　plura。　　Most　of　them　are

ridiculously　bad；　and　yet　among　them　are　found；　as　if　by　accident；

principles　of　philology　which　are　unsurpassed　in　any　ancient　writer；　and

even　in　advance　of　any　philologer　of　the　last　century。　　May　we　suppose　that

Plato；　like　Lucian；　has　been　amusing　his　fancy　by　writing　a　comedy　in　the

form　of　a　prose　dialogue？　　And　what　is　the　final　result　of　the　enquiry？　　Is

Plato　an　upholder　of　the　conventional　theory　of　language；　which　he

acknowledges　to　be　imperfect？　or　does　he　mean　to　imply　that　a　perfect

language　can　only　be　based　on　his　own　theory　of　ideas？　　Or　if　this　latter

explanation　is　refuted　by　his　silence；　then　in　what　relation　does　his

account　of　language　stand　to　the　rest　of　his　philosophy？　　Or　may　we　be　so

bold　as　to　deny　the　connexion　between　them？　　（For　the　allusion　to　the　ideas

at　the　end　of　the　dialogue　is　merely　intended　to　show　that　we　must　not　put

words　in　the　place　of　things　or　realities；　which　is　a　thesis　strongly

insisted　on　by　Plato　in　many　other　passages）。。。These　are　some　of　the　first

thoughts　which　arise　in　the　mind　of　the　reader　of　the　Cratylus。　　And　the

consideration　of　them　may　form　a　convenient　introduction　to　the　general

subject　of　the　dialogue。



We　must　not　expect　all　the　parts　of　a　dialogue　of　Plato　to　tend　equally　to

some　clearly…defined　end。　　His　idea　of　literary　art　is　not　the　absolute

proportion　of　the　whole；　such　as　we　appear　to　find　in　a　Greek　temple　or

statue；　nor　should　his　works　be　tried　by　any　such　standard。　　They　have

often　the　beauty　of　poetry；　but　they　have　also　the　freedom　of　conversation。

'Words　are　more　plastic　than　wax'　（Rep。）；　and　may　be　moulded　into　any　form。　

He　wanders　on　from　one　topic　to　another；　careless　of　the　unity　of　his　work；

not　fearing　any　'judge；　or　spectator；　who　may　recall　him　to　the　point'

（Theat。）；　'whither　the　argument　blows　we　follow'　（Rep。）。　　To　have

determined　beforehand；　as　in　a　modern　didactic　treatise；　the　nature　and

limits　of　the　subject；　would　have　been　fatal　to　the　spirit　of　enquiry　or

discovery；　which　is　the　soul　of　the　dialogue。。。These　remarks　are　applicable

to　nearly　all　the　works　of　Plato；　but　to　the　Cratylus　and　Phaedrus　more

than　any　others。　　See　Phaedrus；　Introduction。



There　is　another　aspect　under　which　some　of　the　dialogues　of　Plato　may　be

more　truly　viewed：they　are　dramatic　sketches　of　an　argument。　　We　have

found　that　in　the　Lysis；　Charmides；　Laches；　Protagoras；　Meno；　we　arrived　at

no　conclusionthe　different　sides　of　the　argument　were　personified　in　the

different　speakers；　but　the　victory　was　not　distinctly　attributed　to　any　of

them；　nor　the　truth　wholly　the　property　of　any。　　And　in　the　Cratylus　we

have　no　reason　to　assume　that　Socrates　is　either　wholly　right　or　wholly

wrong；　or　that　Plato；　though　he　evidently　inclines　to　him；　had　any　other

aim　than　that　of　personifying；　in　the　characters　of　Hermogenes；　Socrates；

and　Cratylus；　the　three　theories　of　language　which　are　respectively

maintained　by　them。



The　two　subordinate　persons　of　the　dialogue；　Hermogenes　and　Cratylus；　are

at　the　opposite　poles　of　the　argument。　　But　after　a　while　the　disciple　of

the　Sophist　and　the　follower　of　Heracleitus　are　found　to　be　not　so　far

removed　from　one　another　as　at　first　sight　appeared；　and　both　show　an

inclination　to　accept　the　third　view　which　Socrates　interposes　between

them。　　First；　Hermogenes；　the　poor　brother　of　the　rich　Callias；　expounds

the　doctrine　that　names　are　conventional；　like　the　names　of　slaves；　they

may　be　given　and　altered　at　pleasure。　　This　is　one　of　those　principles

which；　whether　applied　to　society　or　language；　explains　everything　and

nothing。　　For　in　all　things　there　is　an　element　of　convention；　but　the

admission　of　this　does　not　help　us　to　understand　the　rational　ground　or

basis　in　human　nature　on　which　the　convention　proceeds。　　Socrates　first　of

all　intimates　to　Hermogenes　that　his　view　of　language　is　only　a　part　of　a

sophistical　whole；　and　ultimately　tends　to　abolish　the　distinction　between

truth　and　falsehood。　　Hermogenes　is　very　ready　to　throw　aside　the

sophistical　tenet；　and　listens　with　a　sort　of　half　admiration；　half　belief；

to　the　speculations　of　Socrates。



Cratylus　is　of　opinion　that　a　name　is　either　a　true　name　or　not　a　name　at

all。　　He　is　unable　to　conceive　of　degrees　of　imitation；　a　word　is　either

the　perfect　expression　of　a　thing；　or　a　mere　inarticulate　sound　（a　fallacy

which　is　still　prevalent　among　theorizers　about　the　origin　of　language）。　

He　is　at　once　a　philosopher　and　a　sophist；　for　while　wanting　to　rest

language　on　an　immutable　basis；　he　would　deny　the　possibility　of　falsehood。　

He　is　inclined　to　derive　all　truth　from　language；　and　in　language　he　sees

reflected　the　philosophy　of　Heracleitus。　　His　views　are　not　like　those　of

Hermogenes；　hastily　taken　up；　but　are　said　to　be　the　result　of　mature

consideration；　although　he　is　described　as　still　a　young　man。　　With　a

tenacity　characteristic　of　the　Heracleitean　philosophers；　he　clings　to　the

doctrine　of　the　flux。　　（Compare　Theaet。）　　Of　the　real　Cratylus　we　know

nothing；　except　that　he　is　recorded　by　Aristotle　to　have　been　the　friend　or

teacher　of　Plato；　nor　have　we　any　proof　that　he　resembled　the　likeness　of

him　in　Plato　any　more　than　the　Critias　of　Plato　is　like　the　real　Critias；

or　the　Euthyphro　in　this　dialogue　like　the　other　Euthyphro；　the　diviner；　in

the　dialogue　which　is　called　after　him。



Between　these　two　extremes；　which　have　both　of　them　a　sophistical

character；　the　view　of　Socrates　is　introduced；　which　is　in　a　manner　the

union　of　the　two。　　Language　is　conventional　and　also　natural；　and　the　true

conventional…natural　is　the　rational。　　It　is　a　work　not　of　chance；　but　of

art；　the　dialectician　is　the　artificer　of　words；　and　the　legislator　gives

authority　to　them。　　They　are　the　expressions　or　imitations　in　sound　of

things。　　In　a　sense；　Cratylus　is　right　in　saying　that　things　have　by　nature

names；　for　nature　is　not　opposed　ei