So, if you like, let us first make a kind of announcement to the gods, saying that we are not going to investigate about them—for we do not claim to be able to do that—but about men, and let us inquire what thought men had in giving them their names; for in that there is no impiety.
I think, Socrates, you are right; let us do as you say.
Shall we, then, begin with Hestia, according to custom?
That is the proper thing.
Then what would you say the man had in mind who gave Hestia her name?
By Zeus, I think that is no more easy question than the other.
At any rate, my dear Hermogenes, the first men who gave names were no ordinary persons, but high thinkers and great talkers.
What then?
I am sure the names were given by men of that kind; and if foreign names are examined,
the meaning of each of them is equally evident. Take, for instance, that which we call οὐσία (reality, essence); some people call it ἐσσία, and still others ὠσία. First, then, in connection with the second of these forms, it is reasonable that the essence of things be called Hestia; and moreover, because we ourselves say of that which partakes of reality it is, (ἔστιν), the name Hestia would be correct in this connection also; for apparently we also called οὐσία (reality) ἐσσία in ancient times. And besides, if you consider it in connection with sacrifices,
you would come to the conclusion that those who established them understood the name in that way; for those who called the essence of things ἐσσία would naturally sacrifice to Hestia first of all the gods. Those on the other hand, who say ὠσία would agree, well enough with Heracleitus that all things move and nothing remains still. So they would say the cause and ruler of things was the pushing power (ὠθοῦν), wherefore it had been rightly named ὠσία. But enough of this, considering that we know nothing.
After Hestia it is right to consider Rhea and Cronus. The name of Cronus, however, has already been discussed. But perhaps I am talking nonsense.
Why, Socrates?
My friend, I have thought of a swarm of wisdom.
What is it?
It sounds absurd, but I think there is some probability in it.
What is this probability?
I seem to have a vision of Heracleitus saying some ancient words of wisdom as old as the reign of Cronus and Rhea, which Homer said too.
What do you mean by that?
Heracleitus says, you know, that all things move and nothing remains still, and he likens the universe to the current of a river, saying that you cannot step twice into the same stream.
True.
Well, don’t you think he who gave to the ancestors of the other gods the names Rhea and Cronus had the same thought as Heracleitus? Do you think he gave both of them the names of streams merely by chance? Just so Homer, too, says—Ocean the origin of the gods, and their mother Tethys;Hom. Il. 14.201, 302 and I believe Hesiod says that also. Orpheus, too, says—Fair-flowing Ocean was the first to marry,and he wedded his sister Tethys, daughter of his mother.Orpheus FrSee how they agree with each other and all tend towards the doctrine of Heracleitus.
I think there is something in what you say, Socrates; but I do not know what the name of Tethys means.
Why, the name itself almost tells that it is the name of a spring somewhat disguised; for that which is strained (διαττώμενον)
and filtered (ἠθούμενον) represents a spring, and the name Tethys is compounded of those two words.
That is very neat, Socrates.
Of course it is. But what comes next? Zeus we discussed before.
Yes.
Let us, then, speak of his brothers, Poseidon and Pluto, including also the other name of the latter.
By all means.
I think Poseidon’s name was given by him who first applied it,
because the power the sea restrained him as he was walking and hindered his advance; it acted as a bond (δεσμός) of his feet (ποδῶν). So he called the lord of this power Poseidon, regarding him as a foot-bond (ποσί-δεσμον). The e is inserted perhaps for euphony.