I do not know how to answer you, Socrates; nevertheless it is not easy to change my conviction suddenly.
I think you would be more likely to convince me, if you were to show me just what it is that you say is the natural correctness of names.
I, my dear Hermogenes, do not say that there is any. You forget what I said a while ago, that I did not know, but would join you in looking for the truth. And now, as we are looking, you and I, we already see one thing we did not know before, that names do possess a certain natural correctness, and that not every man knows
how to give a name well to anything whatsoever. Is not that true?
Certainly.
Then our next task is to try to find out, if you care to know about it, what kind of correctness that is which belongs to names.
To be sure I care to know.
Then investigate.
How shall I investigate?
The best way to investigate, my friend, is with the help of those who know; and you make sure of their favour by paying them money. They are the sophists,
Truth was the title of a book written by Protagoras. of Protagoras altogether, should desire what is said in such a Truth, as if it were of any value.
Then if you do not like that,
you ought to learn from Homer and the other poets.
Why, Socrates, what does Homer say about names, and where?
In many passages; but chiefly and most admirably in those in which he distinguishes between the names by which gods and men call the same things. Do you not think he gives in those passages great and wonderful information about the correctness of names? For clearly the gods call things
by the names that are naturally right. Do you not think so?
Of course I know that if they call things, they call them rightly. But what are these instances to which you refer?
Do you not know that he says about the river in Troy which had the single combat with Hephaestus,Hom. Il. 21.342-380whom the gods call Xanthus, but men call ScamanderHom. Il. 20.74?
Oh yes.
Well, do you not think this is a grand thing to know, that the name of that river is rightly Xanthus, rather than Scamander? Or, if you like, do you think it is a slight thing to learn about the bird which he says gods call chalcis, but men call cymindis,Hom. Il. 14.291 that it is much more correct for the same bird to be called chalcis than cymindis? Or to learn that the hill men call Batieia is called by the gods Myrina’s tomb,Hom. Il. 2.813 f and many other such statements by Homer and other poets?
But perhaps these matters are too high for us to understand; it is, I think, more within human power to investigate the names Scamandrius and Astyanax, and understand what kind of correctness he ascribes to these, which he says are the names of Hector’s son. You recall, of course: the lines which contain the words to which I refer.
Certainly.
Which of the names of the boy do you imagine Homer thought was more correct, Astyanax or Scamandrius?
I cannot say.
Look at it in this way: suppose you were asked, Do the wise or the unwise give names more correctly?
The wise, obviously, I should say.
And do you think the women or the men of a city, regarded as a class in general, are the wiser?
The men.
And do you not know that Homer says the child of Hector was called Astyanax by the men of Troy;Hom. Il. 22.506so he must have been called Scamandrius by the women, since the men called him Astyanax?
Yes, probably.
And Homer too thought the Trojan men were wiser than the women?
I suppose he did.
Then he thought Astyanax was more rightly the boy’s name than Scamandrius?
So it appears.
Let us, then, consider the reason for this. Does he not himself indicate the reason most admirably? For he says—
He alone defended their city and long walls.Hom. Il. 22.507But the verb is in the second person, addressed by Hecuba to Hector after his death. Therefore, as it seems, it is right to call the son of the defender Astyanax (Lord of the city), ruler of that which his father, as Homer says, defended.
That is clear to me.
Indeed? I do not yet understand about it myself, Hermogenes. Do you?
No, by Zeus, I do not.
But, my good friend, did not Homer himself also give Hector his name?
Why do you ask that?
Because that name seems to me similar to Astyanax, and both names seem to be Greek. For lord (ἄναξ) and holder (ἕκτωρ) mean nearly the same thing, indicating that they are names of a king; for surely a man is holder of that of which he is lord; for it is clear that he rules it and possesses it and holds it.
Or does it seem to you that there is nothing in what I am saying, and am I wrong in imagining that I have found a clue to Homer’s opinion about the correctness of names?
No, by Zeus, you are not wrong, in my opinion; I think perhaps you have found a clue.
It is right, I think, to call a lion’s offspring a lion and a horse’s offspring a horse. I am not speaking of prodigies, such as the birth of some other kind of creature from a horse,
but of the natural offspring of each species after its kind. If a horse, contrary to nature, should bring forth a calf, the natural offspring of a cow, it should be called a calf, not a colt, nor if any offspring that is not human should be born from a human being, should that other offspring be called a human being; and the same applies to trees and all the rest. Do you not agree?
Yes.
Good; but keep watch of me, and do not let me trick you; for by the same argument any offspring of a king should be called a king;
and whether the same meaning is expressed in one set of syllables or another makes no difference; and if a letter is added or subtracted, that does not matter either, so long as the essence of the thing named remains in force and is made plain in the name.
What do you mean?
Something quite simple. For instance, when we speak of the letters of the alphabet, you know, we speak their names, not merely the letters themselves, except in the case of four, ε, υ, ο, ω.In Plato’s time the names epsilon, ypsilon, omicron, and omega were not yet in vogue. The names used were εἶ, ὖ, οὖ,andὦ.We make names for all the other vowels and consonants by adding other letters to them; and so long as we include the letter in question and make its force plain, we may properly call it by that name, and that will designate it for us. Take beta, for instance, The addition of e(η), t(τ), a(α) does no harm and does not prevent the whole name from making clear the nature of that letter which the lawgiver wished to designate; he knew so well how to give names to letters.
I think you are right.
Does not the same reasoning apply to a king?
A king’s son will probably be a king, a good man’s good, a handsome man’s handsome, and so forth; the offspring of each class will be of the same class, unless some unnatural birth takes place; so they should be called by the same names. But variety in the syllables is admissible, so that names which are the same appear different to the uninitiated, just as the physicians’ drugs, when prepared with various colors and perfumes, seem different to us, though they are the same, but to the physician,
who considers only their medicinal value, they seem the same, and he is not confused by the additions. So perhaps the man who knows about names considers their value and is not confused if some letter is added, transposed, or subtracted, or even if the force of the name is expressed in entirely different letters. So, for instance, in the names we were just discussing, Astyanax and Hector, none of the letters is the same, except T,
but nevertheless they have the same meaning. And what letters has Archepolis (ruler of the city) in common with them? Yet it means the same thing; and there are many other names which mean simply king. Others again mean general, such as Agis (leader), Polemarchus (war-lord), and Eupolemus (good warrior); and others indicate physicians, as Iatrocles (famous physician) and Acesimbrotus (healer of mortals); and we might perhaps find many others which differ in syllables and letters, but express the same meaning. Do you think that is true, or not?
Certainly.
To those, then, who are born in accordance with nature the same names should be given.
Yes.
And how about those who are born contrary to nature as prodigies? For instance, when an impious son is born to a good and pious man, ought he not, as in our former example when a mare brought forth a calf, to have the designation of the class to which he belongs, instead of that of his parent?
Certainly.
Then the impious son of a pious father ought to receive the name of his class.
True.
Not Theophilus (beloved of God) or Mnesitheus (mindful of God) or anything of that sort; but something of opposite meaning, if names are correct.
Most assuredly, Socrates.
As the name of Orestes (mountain man) is undoubtedly correct, Hermogenes, whether it was given him by chance or by some poet who indicated by the name the fierceness, rudeness, and mountain-wildness of his nature.