You have faith in the inspiration of Euthyphro, it seems.
Evidently.
And you are right in having it; for just at this very moment I think I have had a clever thought, and if I am not careful, before the day is over I am likely to be wiser than I ought to be. So pay attention. First we must remember in regard to names that we often put in or take out letters, making the names different from the meaning we intend, and we change the accent.
Take, for instance, Διὶ φίλος; to change this from a phrase to a name, we took out the second iota and pronounced the middle syllable with the grave instead of the acute accent (Diphilus). In other instances, on the contrary, we insert letters and pronounce grave accents as acute.
True.
Now it appears to me that the name of men (ἄνθρωπος) underwent a change of that sort. It was a phrase, but became a noun when one letter, alpha, was removed and the accent of the last syllable was dropped.
What do you mean?
I will tell you. The name man (ἄνθρωπος) indicates that the other animals do not examine, or consider, or look up at (ἀναθρεῖ) any of the things that they see, but man has no sooner seen—that is, ὄπωπε—than he looks up at and considers that which he has seen. Therefore of all the animals man alone is rightly called man (ἄνθρωπος), because he looks up at (ἀναθρεῖ) what he has seen (ὄπωπε).
Of course. May I ask you about the next word I should like to have explained?
Certainly.
It seems to me to come naturally next after those you have discussed. We speak of man’s soul and body.
Yes, of course.
Let us try to analyze these, as we did the previous words.
You mean consider soul (ψυχή) and see why it is properly called by that name, and likewise body (σῶμα)?
Yes.
To speak on the spur of the moment, I think those who gave the soul its name had something of this sort in mind: they thought when it was present in the body it was the cause of its living,
giving it the power to breathe and reviving it (ἀναψῦχον), and when this revivifying force fails, the body perishes and comes to an end therefore, I think, they called it ψυχή. But—please keep still a moment. I fancy I see something which will carry more conviction
to Euthyphro and his followers; for I think they would despise this attempt and would consider it cheap talk. Now see if you like the new one.
I am listening.
Do you think there is anything which holds and carries the whole nature of the body, so that it lives and moves, except the soul?
No; nothing.
Well, and do you not believe the doctrine of Anaxagoras, that it is mind or soul which orders and holds the nature of all things?
I do.
Then there would be an admirable fitness in calling that power which carries and holds (ἔχει) nature (φύσιν) φυσέχη and this may be refined and pronounced ψυχή.
Certainly; and I think this is a more scientific explanation than the other.
Yes, it is. But it seems actually absurd that the name was given with such truth.
Now what shall we say about the next word?
You mean body (σῶμα)?
Yes.
I think this admits of many explanations, if a little, even very little, change is made; for some say it is the tomb (σῆμα) of the soul,
their notion being that the soul is buried in the present life; and again, because by its means the soul gives any signs which it gives, it is for this reason also properly called sign (σῆμα). But I think it most likely that the Orphic poets gave this name, with the idea that the soul is undergoing punishment for something; they think it has the body as an enclosure to keep it safe, like a prison, and this is, as the name itself denotes, the safe (σῶμα) for the soul, until the penalty is paid, and not even a letter needs to be changed.
I think, Socrates, enough has been said about these words; but might we not consider the names of the gods in the same way in which you were speaking about that of Zeus a few minutes ago, and see what kind of correctness there is in them?
By Zeus, Hermogenes, we, if we are sensible, must recognize that there is one most excellent kind, since of the gods we know nothing, neither of them nor of their names, whatever they may be, by which they call themselves, for it is clear that they use the true names. But there is a second kind of correctness,
that we call them, as is customary in prayers, by whatever names and patronymics are pleasing to them, since we know no other.
Now I think that is an excellent custom.