<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg005.perseus-eng2:405-422</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg005.perseus-eng2:405-422</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg005.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="405"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I will try to tell you what I think about it;
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="405"/><milestone n="405a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>for no single name could more aptly indicate the four functions of the god, touching upon them all and in a manner declaring his power in music, prophecy, medicine, and archery.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Go on;  you seem to imply that it is a remarkable name.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> His name and nature are in harmony;  you see he is a musical god.  For in the first place, purification and purgations used in medicine and in soothsaying, and fumigations with medicinal and magic drugs,
<milestone n="405b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and the baths and sprinklings connected with that sort of thing all have the single function of making a man pure in body and soul, do they not?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> But this is the god who purifies and washes away (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπαλοούων</foreign>) and delivers (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπολύων</foreign>) from such evils, is he not?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> With reference, then, to his acts of delivering and his washings,
<milestone n="405c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>as being the physician of such diseases, he might properly be called Apoluon (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπαλούων</foreign>, the washer), and with reference to soothsaying and truth and simplicity—for the two are identical—he might most properly be called by the name the Thessalians use;  for all Thessalians call the god Aplun.  And because he is always by his archery controller of darts (<foreign xml:lang="grc">βολῶν</foreign>) he is ever darting (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεὶ βάλλων</foreign>).  And with reference to music we have to understand that <term>alpha</term> often signifies <q type="emph">together,</q> and here it denotes moving together in the heavens about the poles, as we call them, and harmony in song,
<milestone n="405d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>which is called concord;  for, as the ingenious musicians and astronomers tell us, all these things move together by a kind of harmony.  And this god directs the harmony, making them all move together, among both gods and men;  and so, just as we call the <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁμοκέλευθον</foreign> (him who accompanies), and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁμόκοιτιν</foreign> (bedfellow), by changing the <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁμο</foreign> to alpha, <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀκόλουθον</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄκοιτιν</foreign>, so also we called him Apollo who was Homopolo,
<milestone n="405e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and the second lambda was inserted, because without it the name sounded of disaster (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπολῶ, ἀπόλωλα</foreign>, etc.).</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="406"><p><said who="Socrates" rend="merge"><label>Socrates.</label> Even as it is, some have a suspicion of this, because they do not properly regard the force of the name, and therefore they fear it, thinking that it denotes some kind of ruin.  But in fact, as was said,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="406"/><milestone n="406a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>the name touches upon all the qualities of the god, as simple, ever-darting, purifying, and accompanying. The Muses and music in general are named, apparently, from <foreign xml:lang="grc">μῶσθαι</foreign>, searching, and philosophy;  and Leto from her gentleness, because whatever is asked of her, she is willing (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐθελήμων</foreign>).  But perhaps her name is Letho, as she is called by many foreigners;  and those who call her by that name seem to do so
<milestone n="406b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>on account of the mild and gentle (<foreign xml:lang="grc">λεῖον, Ληθώ</foreign>) kindness of her character.  Artemis appears to get her name from her healthy (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀρτεμές</foreign>) and well-ordered nature, and her love of virginity;  or perhaps he who named her meant that she is learned in virtue (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀρετή</foreign>), or possibly, too, that she hates sexual intercourse (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄροτον μισεῖ</foreign>) of man and woman;  or he who gave the goddess her name may have given it for any or all of these reasons.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What of Dionysus and Aphrodite?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You ask great things of me, son of Hipponicus.  You see there is both a serious and a facetious account of the form
<milestone n="406c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>of the name of these deities.  You will have to ask others for the serious one;  but there is nothing to hinder my giving you the facetious account, for the gods also have a sense of humor.  Dionysus, the giver (<foreign xml:lang="grc">διδούς</foreign>) of wine (<foreign xml:lang="grc">οἶνος</foreign>), might be called in jest Didoinysus, and wine, because it makes most drinkers think (<foreign xml:lang="grc">οἴεσθαι</foreign>) they have wit (<foreign xml:lang="grc">νοῦς</foreign>) when they have not, might very justly be called Oeonus (<foreign xml:lang="grc">οἰόνους</foreign>).  As for Aphrodite, we need not oppose Hesiod;  we can accept his derivation of the name
<milestone n="406d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>from her birth out of the foam (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀφροῦ</foreign>).</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> But surely you, as an Athenian, will not forget Athena, nor Hephaestus and Ares.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> That is not likely.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> No.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> It is easy to tell the reason of one of her two names.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What name?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> We call her <placeName key="tgn,2565867">Pallas</placeName>, you know.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Those of us are right, I fancy,
<milestone n="406e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>who think this name is derived from armed dances, for lifting oneself or anything else from the ground or
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="407"/><milestone n="407a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>in the hands is called shaking (<foreign xml:lang="grc">πάλλειν</foreign>) and being shaken, or dancing and being danced.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="407"><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> So that is the reason she is called <placeName key="tgn,2565867">Pallas</placeName>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> And rightly called so.  But what can you say of her other name?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You mean Athena?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> That is a weightier matter, my friend.  The ancients seem to have had the same belief about Athena as the interpreters of Homer have now;
<milestone n="407b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>for most of these, in commenting on the poet, say that he represents Athena as mind (<foreign xml:lang="grc">νοῦς</foreign>) and intellect (<foreign xml:lang="grc">διάνοια</foreign>);  and the maker of her name seems to have had a similar conception of her, but he gives her the still grander title of <q type="emph">mind of God</q> <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡ θεοῦ νόησις</foreign>, seeming to say that she is a <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἁ θεονόα</foreign>;  here he used the alpha in foreign fashion instead of eta, and dropped out the iota and sigma.  But perhaps that was not his reason;  he may have called her Theonoe because she has unequalled knowledge of divine things (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὰ θεῖα νοοῦσα</foreign>).  Perhaps, too, he may have wished to identify the goddess with wisdom of character (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐν ἤθει νόησις</foreign>)
<milestone n="407c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>by calling her Ethonoe;  and then he himself or others afterwards improved the name, as they thought, and called her Athenaa.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> And how do you explain Hephaestus?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You ask about <q type="emph">the noble master of light</q>?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> To be sure.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Hephaestus is <placeName key="tgn,7010788">Phaestus</placeName>, with the eta added by attraction;  anyone could see that, I should think.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Very likely, unless some other explanation occurs to you, as it probably will.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> To prevent that, ask about Ares.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I do ask.
<milestone n="407d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Ares, then, if you like, would be named for his virility and courage, or for his hard and unbending nature, which is called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄρρατον</foreign>;  so Ares would be in every way a fitting name for the god of war.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> For God’s sake, let us leave the gods, as I am afraid to talk about them;  but ask me about any others you please, <quote>that you may see what</quote> Euthyphro’s <quote>horses are.</quote><note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">Cf. <bibl n="Hom. Il. 5.221">Hom. Il. 5.221</bibl>, <bibl n="Hom. Il. 8.105">Hom. Il. 8.105</bibl>.</note>
<milestone n="407e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I will do so, but first one more god.  I want to ask you about Hermes, since Cratylus says I am not Hermogenes (son of Hermes).  Let us investigate the name of Hermes, to find out whether there is anything in what he says.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="408"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Well then, this name <q type="emph">Hermes</q> seems to me to have to do with speech;  he is an interpreter (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡρμηνεύς</foreign>) and a messenger,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="408"/><milestone n="408a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>is wily and deceptive in speech, and is oratorical.  All this activity is concerned with the power of speech.  Now, as I said before, <foreign xml:lang="grc">εἴρειν</foreign> denotes the use of speech;  moreover, Homer often uses the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐμήσατο</foreign>, which means <gloss>contrive.</gloss>  From these two words, then, the lawgiver imposes upon us the name of this god who contrived speech and the use of speech—<foreign xml:lang="grc">εἴρειν</foreign>means <gloss>speak</gloss>—
<milestone n="408b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and tells us:  <q type="written">Ye human beings, he who contrived speech (<foreign xml:lang="grc">εἴρειν ἐμήσατο</foreign>) ought to be called Eiremes by you.</q>  We, however, have beautified the name, as we imagine, and call him Hermes.  Iris also seems to have got her name from <foreign xml:lang="grc">εἴρειν</foreign>, because she is a messenger.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> By Zeus, I believe Cratylus was right in saying I was not Hermogenes;  I certainly am no good contriver of speech.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And it is reasonable, my friend, that Pan is the double-natured son of Hermes.
<milestone n="408c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> How is that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You know that speech makes all things (<foreign xml:lang="grc">πᾶν</foreign>) known and always makes them circulate and move about, and is twofold, true and false.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Well, the true part is smooth and divine and dwells aloft among the gods, but falsehood dwells below among common men, is rough and like the tragic goat<note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The chorus of the primitive performances from which tragedy developed appeared as satyrs, clad in goat-skins.  Hence the name <foreign xml:lang="grc">τραγῳδία</foreign> (goat-song).  The adjective <foreign xml:lang="grc">τραγικός</foreign> may mean either <gloss>goat-like</gloss> or <gloss>tragic.</gloss>  In this passage it has both meanings.</note>;  for tales and falsehoods are most at home there, in the tragic life.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Then Pan, who declares and always moves (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεὶ πολῶν</foreign>) all, is rightly called goat-herd (<foreign xml:lang="grc">αἰπόλος</foreign>),
<milestone n="408d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>being the double-natured son of Hermes, smooth in his upper parts, rough and goat-like in his lower parts.  And Pan, if he is the son of Hermes, is either speech or the brother of speech, and that brother resembles brother is not at all surprising.  But, as I said, my friend, let us get away from the gods.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> From such gods as those, if you like, Socrates;  but why should you not tell of another kind of gods, such as sun, moon, stars, earth,
<milestone n="408e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>ether, air, fire, water, the seasons, and the year?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You are imposing a good many tasks upon me;  however, if it will give you pleasure, I am willing.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> It will give me pleasure.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> What, then, do you wish first?  Shall we discuss the sun (<foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἥλιος</foreign>), as you mentioned it first?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> By all means.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="409"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I think it would be clearer
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="409"/><milestone n="409a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>if we were to use the Doric form of the name.  The Dorians call it <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἅλιος</foreign>.  Now <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἅλιος</foreign> might be derived from collecting (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἁλίζειν</foreign>) men when he rises, or because he always turns (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεὶ εἱλεῖν</foreign>) about the earth in his course, or because he variegates the products of the earth, for variegate is identical with <foreign xml:lang="grc">αἰολλεῖν</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> And what of the moon, Selene?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> That name appears to put Anaxagoras in an uncomfortable position.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> How so?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Why, it seems to have anticipated by many years the recent doctrine of Anaxagoras,
<milestone n="409b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>that the moon receives its light from the sun.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> How is that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label><foreign xml:lang="grc">Σέλας</foreign> (gleam) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">φῶς</foreign> (light) are the same thing.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Now the light is always new and old about the moon, if the Anaxagoreans are right;  for they say the sun, in its continuous course about the moon, always sheds new light upon it, and the light of the previous month persists.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> The moon is often called <foreign xml:lang="grc">Σελαναία</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Because it has always a new and old gleam (<foreign xml:lang="grc">σέλα νέον τε καὶ ἕνον</foreign>)
<milestone n="409c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>the very most fitting name for it would be <foreign xml:lang="grc">Σελαενονεοάεια</foreign>, which has been compressed into <foreign xml:lang="grc">Σελαναία</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> That is a regular opera bouffe name, Socrates. But what have you to say of the month (<foreign xml:lang="grc">μήν</foreign>) and the stars?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> The word <q type="emph">month</q> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">μείς</foreign>) would be properly pronounced <foreign xml:lang="grc">μείης</foreign>, from <foreign xml:lang="grc">μειοῦσθαι</foreign>, <gloss>to grow less,</gloss> and I think the stars (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄστερα</foreign>) get their name from <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀστραπή</foreign> (lightning).  But <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀστραπή</foreign>, because it turns our eyes upwards (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὰ ὦπα ἀναστρέθει</foreign>), would be called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀναστρωπή</foreign>, which is now pronounced more prettily <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀστραπή</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> And what of <foreign xml:lang="grc">πῦρ</foreign> (fire) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὕδωρ</foreign> (water)?
<milestone n="409d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label><foreign xml:lang="grc">Πῦρ</foreign> is too much for me.  It must be that either the muse of Euthyphro has deserted me or this is a very difficult word.  Now just note the contrivance I introduce in all cases like this which are too much for me.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What contrivance?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I will tell you.  Answer me;  can you tell the reason of the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">πῦρ</foreign>?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Not I, by Zeus.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> See what I suspect about it.  I know that many Greeks,
<milestone n="409e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>especially those who are subject to the barbarians, have adopted many foreign words.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What of that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> If we should try to demonstrate the fitness of those words in accordance with the Greek language, and not in accordance with the language from which they are derived, you know we should get into trouble.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Naturally.
</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="410"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="410"/><milestone n="410a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Well, this word <foreign xml:lang="grc">πῦρ</foreign> is probably foreign;  for it is difficult to connect it with the Greek language, and besides, the Phrygians have the same word, only slightly altered.  The same is the case with <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὕδωρ</foreign> (water), <foreign xml:lang="grc">κύων</foreign> (dog), and many other words.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, that is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> So we must not propose forced explanations of these words, though something might be said about them.  I therefore set aside <foreign xml:lang="grc">πῦρ</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὕδωρ</foreign> in this way.
<milestone n="410b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>But is air called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀήρ</foreign> because it raises (<foreign xml:lang="grc">αἴρει</foreign>) things from the earth, or because it is always flowing (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεὶ ῥεῖ</foreign>), or because wind arises from its flow?  The poets call the winds <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀήτας</foreign>, <gloss>blasts.</gloss>  Perhaps the poet means to say <q type="emph">air-flow</q> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀητόρρουν</foreign>), as he might say <q type="emph">wind-flow</q> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">πνευματόρρουν</foreign>).  The word <foreign xml:lang="grc">αἴθηρ</foreign> (ether) I understand in this way: because it always runs and flows about the air (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεὶ θεῖ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα ῥέον</foreign>), it may properly be called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀειθεήρα</foreign>.  The word <foreign xml:lang="grc">γῆ</foreign> (earth) shows the meaning better
<milestone n="410c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>in the form <foreign xml:lang="grc">γαῖα</foreign>;  for <foreign xml:lang="grc">γαῖα</foreign> is a correct word for <q type="emph">mother,</q> as Homer says, for he uses <foreign xml:lang="grc">γεγάασιν</foreign> to mean <foreign xml:lang="grc">γεγενῆσθαι</foreign> (be born).  Well, now what came next?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> The seasons, Socrates, and the two words for year.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> The word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὧραι</foreign> (seasons) should be pronounced in the old Attic fashion, <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὅραι</foreign>, if you wish to know the probable meaning;  <foreign xml:lang="grc">ΗΟΡΑΙ</foreign> exist to divide winters and summers and winds and the fruits of the earth;  and since they divide (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁρίζουσι</foreign>), they would rightly be called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὅραι</foreign>.
<milestone n="410d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>The two words for year, <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐνιαυτός</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔτος</foreign>, are really one.  For that which brings to light within itself the plants and animals, each in its turn, and examines them, is called by some <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐνιαυτός</foreign>, because of its activity within itself (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐν ἑαυτῷ</foreign>), and by others <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔτος</foreign>, because it examines (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐτάζει</foreign>), just as we saw before that the name of Zeus was divided and some said <foreign xml:lang="grc">Δία</foreign> and others <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ζῆνα</foreign>.  The whole phrase is <q type="emph">that which examines within itself</q> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ ἐν ἁυτῷ ἐτάζον</foreign>), and this one phrase is divided in speech so that the two words <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐνιαυτός</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔτος</foreign>
<milestone n="410e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>are formed from one phrase.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Truly, Socrates, you are going ahead at a great rate.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Yes, I fancy I am already far along on the road of wisdom.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I am sure you are.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You will be surer presently.
</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="411"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="411"/><milestone n="411a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Now after the class of words you, have explained, I should like to examine the correctness of the noble words that relate to virtue, such as wisdom, intelligence, justice, and all the others of that sort.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You are stirring up a mighty tribe of words, my friend;  however, since I have put on the lion helmet, I must not play the coward, but must, it seems, examine wisdom, intelligence, thought, knowledge,
<milestone n="411b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and all the other noble words of which you speak.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly we must not stop until that is done.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> By dog, I believe I have a fine intuition which has just come to me, that the very ancient men who invented names were quite like most of the present philosophers who always get dizzy as they turn round and round in their search for the nature of things, and then the things seem to them to turn round and round and be in motion.
<milestone n="411c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>They think the cause of this belief is not an affection within themselves, but that the nature of things really is such that nothing is at rest or stable, but everything is flowing and moving and always full of constant motion and generation.  I say this because I thought of it with reference to all these words we are now considering.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> How is that, Socrates?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Perhaps you did not observe that the names we just mentioned are given under the assumption that the things named are moving and flowing and being generated.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> No, I did not notice that at all.
<milestone n="411d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Surely the first one we mentioned is subject to such assumptions.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What is the word ?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Wisdom (<foreign xml:lang="grc">φρόνησις</foreign>);  for it is perception (<foreign xml:lang="grc">νόησις</foreign>) of motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">φορᾶς</foreign>) and flowing (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ῥοῦ</foreign>);  or it might be understood as benefit (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ὄνησις</foreign>) of motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">φορᾶς</foreign>);  in either case it has to do with motion.  And <foreign xml:lang="grc">γνώμη</foreign> (thought), if you please, certainly denotes contemplation and consideration of generation (<foreign xml:lang="grc">γονῆς νώμησις</foreign>);  for to consider is the same as to contemplate.  Or, if you please, <foreign xml:lang="grc">νόησις</foreign> (intelligence) is merely <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἕσις</foreign> (desire) <foreign xml:lang="grc">τοῦ νεοῦ</foreign> (of the new);  but that things are new shows that they are always being generated;
<milestone n="411e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>therefore the soul’s desire for generation is declared by the giver of the name <foreign xml:lang="grc">νεόεσις</foreign>;  for in antiquity the name was not <foreign xml:lang="grc">νόησις</foreign>, but two epsilons had to be spoken instead of the eta.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="412"><p><said who="#Socrates" rend="merge"><label>Socrates.</label><foreign xml:lang="grc">Σωφροσύνη</foreign> (self-restraint) is <foreign xml:lang="grc">σωτηρία</foreign> (salvation) of <foreign xml:lang="grc">φρόνησις</foreign> (wisdom), which we have just been discussing.
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="412"/><milestone n="412a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>And <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπιστήμη</foreign> (knowledge) indicates that the soul which is of any account accompanies (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἕπεται</foreign>) things in their motion, neither falling behind them nor running in front of them;  therefore we ought to insert an epsilon and call it <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπεϊστήμη</foreign>.  <foreign xml:lang="grc">Σύνεσις</foreign> (intelligence) in its turn is a kind of reckoning together;  when one says <foreign xml:lang="grc">συνιέναι</foreign> (understand), the same thing as <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπίστασθαι</foreign> is said;
<milestone n="412b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>for <foreign xml:lang="grc">συνιέναι</foreign> means that the soul goes with things.  Certainly <foreign xml:lang="grc">σοφία</foreign> (wisdom) denotes the touching of motion.  This word is very obscure and of foreign origin;  but we must remember that the poets often say of something which begins to advance <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐσύθη</foreign> (it rushed).  There was a famous Laconian whose name was <foreign xml:lang="grc">Σοῦς</foreign> (Rush), for this is the Laconian word for rapid motion.  Now <foreign xml:lang="grc">σοφία</foreign> signifies the touching (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπαφή</foreign>) of this rapid motion, the assumption being that things are in motion.  And the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαθόν</foreign> (good)
<milestone n="412c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>is intended to denote the admirable (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαστόν</foreign>) in all nature.  For since all things are in motion, they possess quickness and slowness;  now not all that is swift, but only part of it, is admirable;  this name <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαθόν</foreign> is therefore given to the admirable (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαστόν</foreign>) part of the swift (<foreign xml:lang="grc">θοοῦ</foreign>).<milestone ed="P" unit="para"/>It is easy to conjecture that the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">δικαιασύνη</foreign> applies to the understanding (<foreign xml:lang="grc">σύνεσις</foreign>) of the just (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τοῦ διαίον</foreign>) but the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">δίκαιον</foreign> (just) is itself difficult.  Up to a certain point, you see, many men seem to agree about it, but beyond that they differ.
<milestone n="412d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>For those who think the universe is in motion believe that the greater part of it is of such a nature as to be a mere receptacle, and that there is some element which passes through all this, by means of which all created things are generated.  And this element must be very rapid and very subtle;  for it could not pass through all the universe unless it were very subtle, so that nothing could keep it out, and it must be very swift, so that all other things are relatively at rest.  Since, then, it superintends and passes through (<foreign xml:lang="grc">διαϊόν</foreign>) all other things,
<milestone n="412e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>this is rightly called by the name <foreign xml:lang="grc">δίκαιον</foreign>, the sound of the kappa being added merely for the sake of euphony.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="413"><p><said who="#Socrates" rend="merge"><label>Socrates.</label> Up to this point, as I said just now, many men agree about justice (<foreign xml:lang="grc">δίκαιον</foreign>);
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="413"/><milestone n="413a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and I, Hermogenes, being very much in earnest about it, have persistently asked questions and have been told in secret teachings that this is justice, or the cause—for that through which creation takes place is a cause—and some one told me that it was for this reason rightly called Zeus (<foreign xml:lang="grc">Δία</foreign>).  But when, after hearing this, I nevertheless ask them quietly, <q type="spoken">What then, my most excellent friend, if this is true, is justice?</q> they think I am asking too many questions and am leaping over the trenches.<note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">A trench was the limit of the leap for the pentathletes.</note>
<milestone n="413b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>They say I have been told enough;  they try to satisfy me by saying all sorts of different things, and they no longer agree.  For one says the sun is justice, for the sun alone superintends all things, passing through and burning (<foreign xml:lang="grc">διαϊόντα καὶ καίοντα</foreign>) them.  Then when I am pleased and tell this to some one, thinking it is a fine answer, he laughs at me and asks if I think there is no justice among men when the sun has set.  So I beg him to tell me what he thinks it is,
<milestone n="413c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and he says <q type="spoken">Fire.</q>  But this is not easy to understand.  He says it is not actual fire, but heat in the abstract that is in the fire.  Another man says he laughs at all these notions, and that justice is what Anaxagoras says it is, mind;  for mind, he says, is ruled only by itself, is mixed with nothing, orders all things, and passes through them.  Then, my friend, I am far more perplexed than before I undertook to learn about the nature of justice.
<milestone n="413d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>But I think the name—and that was the subject of our investigation—was given for the reasons I have mentioned.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I think, Socrates, you must have heard this from some one and are not inventing it yourself.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And how about the rest of my talk?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I do not at all think you had heard that.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Listen then;  perhaps I may deceive you into thinking that all I am going to say is my own. What remains to consider after justice?  I think we have not yet discussed courage.
<milestone n="413e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>It is plain enough that injustice (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀδικία</foreign>) is really a mere hindrance of that which passes through (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τοῦ διαϊόντος</foreign>, but the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀδρεία</foreign> (courage) implies that courage got its name in battle, and if the universe is flowing, a battle in the universe can be nothing else than an opposite current or flow (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ῥοή</foreign>).  Now if we remove the delta from the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνδρεία</foreign>, the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνρεία</foreign> signifies exactly that activity.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="414"><p><said who="#Socrates" rend="merge"><label>Socrates</label> Of course it is clear that not the current opposed to every current is courage, but only that opposed to the current which is contrary to justice;
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="414"/><milestone n="414a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>for otherwise courage would not be praised.  The words <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄρρεν</foreign> (male) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνήρ</foreign> (man) refer, like <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνδρεία</foreign>, to the upward (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄνω</foreign>) current or flow.  The word <foreign xml:lang="grc">γυνή</foreign> (woman) seems to me to be much the same as <foreign xml:lang="grc">γονή</foreign> (birth).  I think <foreign xml:lang="grc">θῆλυ</foreign> (female) is derived from <foreign xml:lang="grc">θηλή</foreign> (teat);  and is not <foreign xml:lang="grc">θηλή</foreign>, Hermogenes, so called because it makes things flourish (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τεθηλέναι</foreign>), like plants wet with showers?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Very likely, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And again, the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">θάλλειν</foreign> (flourish) seems to me to figure the rapid and sudden growth of the young.
<milestone n="414b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>Something of that sort the namegiver has reproduced in the name, which he compounded of <foreign xml:lang="grc">θεῖν</foreign> (run) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἅλλεσθαι</foreign> (jump).  You do not seem to notice how I rush along outside of the race-course, when I get on smooth ground.  But we still have plenty of subjects left which seem to be serious.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> True.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> One of which is to see what the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">τέχνη</foreign> (art, science) means.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Does not this denote possession of mind, if you remove the tau and insert omicron between the chi and the nu
<milestone n="414c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and the nu and the eta (making <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐχονόη</foreign>)?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> It does it very poorly, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> My friend, you do not bear in mind that the original words have before now been completely buried by those who wished to dress them up, for they have added and subtracted letters for the sake of euphony and have distorted the words in every way for ornamentation or merely in the lapse of time.  Do you not, for instance, think it absurd that the letter rho is inserted in the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">κάαπτρον</foreign> (mirror)?
<milestone n="414d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>I think that sort of thing is the work of people who care nothing for truth, but only for the shape of their mouths;  so they keep adding to the original words until finally no human being can understand what in the world the word means.  So the sphinx, for instance, is called sphinx, instead of phix, and there are many other examples.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, that is true, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And if we are permitted to insert and remove any letters we please in words, it will be perfectly easy to fit any name to anything.
<milestone n="414e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> True.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Yes, quite true.  But I think you, as a wise director, must observe the rule of moderation and probability.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I should like to do so.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="415"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And I, too, Hermogenes.
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="415"/><milestone n="415a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>But do not, my friend, demand too much precision, lest you 
    <quote type="Verse">enfeeble me of my sight.</quote><bibl n="Hom. Il. 6.265">Hom. Il. 6.265</bibl> For now that <foreign xml:lang="grc">τέχνη</foreign> (art) is disposed of, I am nearing the loftiest height of my subject, when once we have investigated <foreign xml:lang="grc">μηχανή</foreign>(contrivance).  For I think <foreign xml:lang="grc">μηχανή</foreign> signifies <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄνειν ἐπὶ πολύ</foreign> (much accomplishment);  for <foreign xml:lang="grc">μῆκος</foreign> (length) has about the same meaning as <foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ πολύ</foreign> (much), and the name <foreign xml:lang="grc">μηχανή</foreign> is composed of these two, <foreign xml:lang="grc">μῆκος</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄνειν</foreign>.  But, as I was just saying, we must go on to the loftiest height of our subject;  we must search for the meaning of the words <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀρετή</foreign> (virtue) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">κακία</foreign> (wickedness).  Now one of them I cannot yet see;
<milestone n="415b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>but the other seems to be quite clear, since it agrees with everything we have said before.  For inasmuch as all things are in motion, everything that moves badly (<foreign xml:lang="grc">κακῶς ἰόν</foreign>) would be evil (<foreign xml:lang="grc">κακία</foreign>);  and when this evil motion in relation to its environment exists in the soul, it receives the general name <foreign xml:lang="grc">κακία</foreign> (evil) in the special sense of wickedness.  But the nature of evil motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">κακῶς ἰέναι</foreign>) is made clear, I think, also in the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">δειλία</foreign> (cowardice), which we have not yet discussed.  We passed it by,
<milestone n="415c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>when we ought to have examined it after <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνδρεία</foreign> (courage);  and I fancy we passed over a good many other words.  Now the meaning of <foreign xml:lang="grc">δειλία</foreign> is <gloss>a strong bond of the soul</gloss>;  for <foreign xml:lang="grc">λίαν</foreign> (excessively) is, in a way, expressive of strength;  so <foreign xml:lang="grc">δειλία</foreign> would be the excessive or greatest bond (<foreign xml:lang="grc">δεσμός, δεῖν</foreign>) of the soul;  and so, too, <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπορία</foreign> (perplexity) is an evil, as is everything, apparently, which hinders motion and progress (<foreign xml:lang="grc">πορεύεσθαι</foreign>).  This, then, seems to be the meaning of evil motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">κακῶς ἰέναι</foreign>), that advance is halting and impeded;  and the soul that is infected by it becomes filled with wickedness (<foreign xml:lang="grc">κακία</foreign>).  If these are the reasons for the name of wickedness, virtue (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀρετή</foreign>) would be the opposite of this;  it would signify first ease of motion,
<milestone n="415d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and secondly that the flow of the good soul is always unimpeded, and therefore it has received this name, which designates that which always flows (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεὶ ῥέον</foreign>) without let or hindrance.  It is properly called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀειρειτή</foreign>, or perhaps also <foreign xml:lang="grc">αἱρετή</foreign>, indicating that this condition is especially to be chosen;  but it has been compressed and is pronounced <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀρετή</foreign>.  Perhaps you will say this is another invention of mine;  but I say if what I said just now about <foreign xml:lang="grc">κακία</foreign> is right,
<milestone n="415e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>this about the name of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀρετή</foreign> is right too.
</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="416"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="416"/><milestone n="416a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> But what is the meaning of the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">κακόν</foreign> which you used in many of your derivations?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> By Zeus, I think it is a strange word and hard to understand;  so I apply to it that contrivance of mine.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What contrivance?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> The claim of foreign origin, which I advance in this case as in those others.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Well, probably you are right.  But, if you please, let us drop these words and try to discover the reasons for the words <foreign xml:lang="grc">καλόν</foreign> (beautiful, noble) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">αἰσχρόν</foreign> (base).</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I think the meaning of <foreign xml:lang="grc">αἰσχρόν</foreign> is clear,
<milestone n="416b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and this also agrees with what has been said before.  For the giver of names appears to me throughout to denounce that which hinders and restrains things from flowing, and in this instance he gave to that which always restrains the flow (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεὶ ἴσχει τὸν ῥοῦν</foreign>) this name <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀεισχοροῦν</foreign>, which is now compressed and pronounced <foreign xml:lang="grc">αἰσχρόν</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What about <foreign xml:lang="grc">καλόν</foreign>?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> That is harder to understand, and yet it expresses its meaning:  it has been altered merely in accent and in the length of the O.
<milestone n="416c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> How is that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I think this word denotes intellect.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Why, what do you think is the cause why anything is called by a name?  Is it not the power which gave the name?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Why, certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And is not that power the intellect either of gods or of men or both?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Are not that which called things by name and that which calls them by name (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ καλοῦν</foreign>) the same thing, namely intellect?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, clearly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And are not all works which are done by mind and intelligence worthy of praise, and those that are not done by them worthy of blame?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.
<milestone n="416d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Does not the medical power perform medical works and the power of carpentry works of carpentry?  Do you agree to that?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I agree.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And the beautiful performs beautiful works?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> It must do so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And the beautiful is, we say, intellect?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Then this name, the beautiful, is rightly given to mind, since it accomplishes the works which we call beautiful and in which we delight.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Evidently.
<milestone n="416e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> What further words of this sort are left for us?</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="417"><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Those that are related to the good and the beautiful,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="417"/><milestone n="417a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>such as <foreign xml:lang="grc">συμφέροντα</foreign> (advantageous), <foreign xml:lang="grc">λυσιτελοῦντα</foreign> (profitable), <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὠφέλιμα</foreign> (useful), <foreign xml:lang="grc">κερδαλέα</foreign> (gainful), and their opposites.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You might by this time be able to find the meaning of <foreign xml:lang="grc">συμφέροντα</foreign> by yourself in the light of the previous explanations, for it appears to be own brother to <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπιστήμη</foreign>.  It means nothing else but the motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">φορά</foreign>) of the soul in company with the world, and naturally things which are done by such a power are called <foreign xml:lang="grc">συμφέροντα</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">σύμφορα</foreign> because they are carried round with (<foreign xml:lang="grc">συμπεριφέρεσθαι</foreign>) the world.  But <foreign xml:lang="grc">κερδαλέον</foreign> is from <foreign xml:lang="grc">κέρδος</foreign> (gain).
<milestone n="417b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>If you restore nu in the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">κέρδος</foreign> in place of the delta, the meaning is plain;  it signifies good, but in another way.  Because it passes through and is mingled (<foreign xml:lang="grc">κεράννυται</foreign>) with all things, he who named it gave it this name which indicates that function;  but he inserted a delta instead of nu and said <foreign xml:lang="grc">κέρδος</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> And what is <foreign xml:lang="grc">λυσιτελοῦν</foreign>?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I do not think, Hermogenes, the name-giver gives the meaning to <foreign xml:lang="grc">λυσιτελοῦν</foreign> which it has in the language of tradesfolk, when profit sets free (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπολύει</foreign>) the sum invested,
<milestone n="417c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>but he means that because it is the swiftest thing in the world it does not allow things to remain at rest and does not allow the motion to come to any end (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τέλος</foreign>) of movement or to stop or pause, but always, if any end of the motion is attempted, it sets it free, making it unceasing and immortal.  It is in this sense, I think, that the good is dubbed <foreign xml:lang="grc">λυσιτελοῦν</foreign>, for it frees (<foreign xml:lang="grc">λύει</foreign>) the end (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τέλος</foreign>) of the motion.  But the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὠφέλιμον</foreign> is a foreign one, which Homer often uses in the verbal form <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὀφέλλειν</foreign>.  This is a synonym of <q type="emph">increase</q> and <q type="emph">create.</q>
<milestone n="417d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What shall be our explanations of the opposites of these?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Those of them that are mere negatives, need, I think, no discussion.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Which are those?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Disadvantageous, useless, unprofitable, and ungainful.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> True.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> But <foreign xml:lang="grc">βλαβερόν</foreign> (harmful) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζημιῶδες</foreign> (hurtful) do need it.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And <foreign xml:lang="grc">βλαβερόν</foreign> means that which harms (<foreign xml:lang="grc">βλάπτον</foreign>) the flow (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ῥοῦν</foreign>);
<milestone n="417e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>but <foreign xml:lang="grc">βλάπτον</foreign> means <gloss>wishing to fasten</gloss> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἅπτειν</foreign>), and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἅπτειν</foreign> is the same thing as <foreign xml:lang="grc">δεῖν</foreign> (bind), which the name-giver constantly finds fault with.  Now <foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ βουλόμενον ἅπτειν ῥοῦν</foreign> (that which wishes to fasten the flow) would most correctly be called <foreign xml:lang="grc">βουλαπτεροῦν</foreign>, but is called <foreign xml:lang="grc">βλαβερόν</foreign> merely, as I think, to make it prettier.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Elaborate names these are, Socrates, that result from your method.  Just now,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="418"/><milestone n="418a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>when you pronounced <foreign xml:lang="grc">βουλαπτεροῦν</foreign>, you looked as if you had made up your mouth to whistle the flute-prelude of the hymn to Athena.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="418"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Not I, Hermogenes, am responsible, but those who gave the name.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> True.  Well, what is the origin of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζημιῶδες</foreign>?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> What can the origin of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζημιῶδες</foreign> be?  See, Hermogenes, how true my words are when I say that by adding and taking away letters people alter the sense of words so that even by very slight changes they sometimes make them mean the opposite of what they meant before;  as, for instance,
<milestone n="418b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>in the case of the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">δέον</foreign> (obligation, right), for that just occurred to me and I was reminded of it by what I was going to say to you, that this fine modern language of ours has turned <foreign xml:lang="grc">δέον</foreign> and also <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζημιῶδες</foreign> round, so that each has the opposite of its original meaning, whereas the ancient language shows clearly the real sense of both words.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I will tell you.  You know that our ancestors made good use of the sounds of iota and delta,
<milestone n="418c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and that is especially true of the women, who are most addicted to preserving old forms of speech.  But nowadays people change iota to eta or epsilon, and delta to zeta, thinking they have a grander sound.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> How is that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> For instance, in the earliest times they called day <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἱμέρα</foreign>, others said <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἑμέρα</foreign>, and now they say <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡμέρα</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Only the ancient word discloses the intention of the name-giver, don’t you know?  For day comes out of darkness to men;  they welcome it and long (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἱμείρουσι</foreign>) for it,
<milestone n="418d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and so they called it <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἱμέρα</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> That is clear.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> But now <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡμέρα</foreign> is masquerading so that you could not guess its meaning.  Why, some people think day is called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡμέρα</foreign> because it makes things gentle (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἥμερα</foreign>).</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I believe they do.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And you know the ancients called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζυγόν</foreign> (yoke) <foreign xml:lang="grc">δυογόν</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζυγόν</foreign> conveys no clear meaning,
<milestone n="418e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>but the name <foreign xml:lang="grc">δυογόν</foreign> is quite properly given to that which binds two together for the purpose of draught; now, however, we say <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζυγόν</foreign>.  There are a great many other such instances.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, that is plain.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Similarly the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">δέον</foreign> (obligation) at first, when spoken in this way, denotes the opposite of all words connected with the good;  for although it is a form of good, <foreign xml:lang="grc">δέον</foreign> seems to be a bond (<foreign xml:lang="grc">δεσμός</foreign>) and hindrance of motion, own brother, as it were, to<foreign xml:lang="grc">βλαβερόν</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, Socrates, it certainly does seem so.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="419"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> But it does not, if you employ the ancient word,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="419"/><milestone n="419a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>which is more likely to be right than the present one.  You will find that it agrees with the previous words for <q type="emph">good,</q> if instead of the epsilon you restore the iota, as it was in old times for <foreign xml:lang="grc">διόν</foreign> (going through), not <foreign xml:lang="grc">δέον</foreign>, signifies good, which the name-giver praises.  And so the giver of names does not contradict himself, but <foreign xml:lang="grc">δέον</foreign> (obligation, right), <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὠφέλιμον</foreign> (useful), <foreign xml:lang="grc">λυσιτελοῦν</foreign> (profitable), <foreign xml:lang="grc">κερδαλέον</foreign> (gainful), <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαθόν</foreign> (good), <foreign xml:lang="grc">ξυμφέρον</foreign> (advantageous), and <foreign xml:lang="grc">εὔπορον</foreign> (prosperous), are plainly identical, signifying under different names the principle of arrangement and motion which has constantly been praised,
<milestone n="419b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>whereas the principle of constraint and bondage is found fault with.  And likewise in the case of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ζημιῶδες</foreign>, if you restore the ancient delta in place of the zeta, you will see that the name, pronounced <foreign xml:lang="grc">δημιῶδες</foreign>, was given to that which binds motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">δοῦντι τὸ ἰόν</foreign>).</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡδονή</foreign> (pleasure) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">λύπη</foreign> (pain) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπιθυμία</foreign> (desire), and the like, Socrates?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I do not think they are at all difficult, Hermogenes, for <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡδονή</foreign> appears to have this name because it is the action that tends towards advantage (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡ πρὸς τὴν ὄνησιν τείνουσα</foreign>);  the delta is inserted, so that we say <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡδονή</foreign> instead of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡονή</foreign>.
<milestone n="419c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><foreign xml:lang="grc">Λύπη</foreign> appears to have received its name from the dissolution (<foreign xml:lang="grc">διάλυσις</foreign>) of the body which takes place through pain.  <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀνία</foreign> (sorrow) is that which hinders motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἰέναι</foreign>).  <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀλγηδών</foreign> (distress) is, I think, a foreign word, derived from <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀλγεινός</foreign> (distressing).  <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ὀδύνη</foreign> (grief) appears to be so called from the putting on of pain (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τῆς ἐνδύσεως τῆς λύπης</foreign>).  <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀχθηδών</foreign> (vexation) has a name, as anyone can see, made in the likeness of the weight (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄχθος</foreign>, burden) which vexation imposes upon motion.  <foreign xml:lang="grc">Χαρά</foreign> (joy) seems to have its name from the plenteous diffusion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">διάχυσις</foreign>) of the flow of the soul.
<milestone n="419d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><foreign xml:lang="grc">Τέρψις</foreign> (delight) is from <foreign xml:lang="grc">τερπνόν</foreign> (delightful);  and <foreign xml:lang="grc">τερπνόν</foreign> is called from the creeping (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἕρψις</foreign>) of the soul, which is likened to a breath (<foreign xml:lang="grc">πνοή</foreign>), and would properly be called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἕρπνουν</foreign>, but the name has been changed in course of time to <foreign xml:lang="grc">τερπνόν</foreign>.  <foreign xml:lang="grc">Εὐφροσύνη</foreign>(mirth) needs no explanation, for it is clear to anyone that from the motion of the soul in harmony (<foreign xml:lang="grc">εὖ</foreign>) with the universe, it received the name <foreign xml:lang="grc">εὐφεροσύνη</foreign>, as it rightfully is;  but we call it <foreign xml:lang="grc">ευφροσύνη</foreign>.
<milestone n="419e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>Nor is there any difficulty about <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπιθυμία</foreign> (desire), for this name was evidently given to the power that goes (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἰοῦσα</foreign>) into the soul (<foreign xml:lang="grc">θυμός</foreign>).  And <foreign xml:lang="grc">θυμός</foreign> has its name from the raging (<foreign xml:lang="grc">θύσις</foreign>) and boiling of the soul.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="420"><p><said who="#Socrates" rend="merge"><label>Socrates</label> 
                The name <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἵμερος</foreign> (longing) was given to the stream (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ῥοῦς</foreign>) which most draws the soul;
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="420"/><milestone n="420a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>for because it flows with a rush (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἱέμενος</foreign>) and with a desire for things and thus draws the soul on through the impulse of its flowing, all this power gives it the name of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἵμερος</foreign>.  And the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">πόθος</foreign> (yearning) signifies that it pertains not to that which is present, but to that which is elsewhere (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄλλοθί που</foreign>) or absent, and therefore the same feeling which is called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἵμερος</foreign> when its object is present, is called <foreign xml:lang="grc">πόθος</foreign> when it is absent.  And <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔρως</foreign> (love) is so called because it flows in (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐσρεῖ</foreign>) from without, and this flowing is not inherent in him who has it,
<milestone n="420b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>but is introduced through the eyes;  for this reason it was in ancient times called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔσρος</foreign>, from <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐσρεῖν</foreign>—for we used to employ omicron instead of omega—but now it is called <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔρως</foreign> through the change of omicron to omega.  Well, what more is there that you want to examine?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What is your view about <foreign xml:lang="grc">δόξα</foreign> (opinion) and the like?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label><foreign xml:lang="grc">Δόξα</foreign> is derived either from the pursuit (<foreign xml:lang="grc">δίωξις</foreign>) which the soul carries on as it pursues the knowledge of the nature of things, or from the shooting of the bow (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τόξον</foreign>);  the latter is more likely;  at any rate <foreign xml:lang="grc">οἴησις</foreign> (belief) supports this view,
<milestone n="420c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>for it appears to mean the motion (<foreign xml:lang="grc">οἶσις</foreign>) of the soul towards the essential nature of every individual thing, just as <foreign xml:lang="grc">βουλή</foreign> (intention) denotes shooting (<foreign xml:lang="grc">βολή</foreign>) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">βούλεσθαι</foreign> (wish), as well as <foreign xml:lang="grc">βουλεύεσθαι</foreign> (plan), denotes aiming at something.  All these words seem to follow <foreign xml:lang="grc">δόξα</foreign> and to express the idea of shooting, just as <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀβουλία</foreign> (ill-advisedness), on the other hand, appears to be a failure to hit, as if a person did not shoot or hit that which he shot at or wished or planned or desired.
<milestone n="420d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I think you are hurrying things a bit, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Yes, for I am running the last lap now. But I think I must still explain <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνάγκη</foreign> (compulsion) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἑκούσιον</foreign> (voluntary) because they naturally come next.  Now by the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἑκούσιον</foreign> is expressed the yielding (<foreign xml:lang="grc">εἶκον</foreign>) and not opposing, but, as I say, yielding to the motion which is in accordance with the will;  but the compulsory (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ ἀναγκαῖον</foreign>) and resistant, being contrary to the will, is associated with error and ignorance;  so it is likened to walking through ravines (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄγκη</foreign>),
<milestone n="420e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>because they are hard to traverse, rough, and rugged, and retard motion; the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀναγκαῖον</foreign> may, then, originate in a comparison with progress through a ravine.  But let us not cease to use my strength, so long as it lasts and do not you cease from asking questions.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="421"><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I ask, then, about the greatest and noblest words,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="421"/><milestone n="421a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>truth (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀλήθεια</foreign>), falsehood (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ψεῦδος</foreign>), being (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ ὄν</foreign>), and why name, the subject of our whole discourse, has the name <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὄνομα</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Does the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">μαίσθαι</foreign> (search) mean anything to you?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, it means <gloss>seek.</gloss></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> The word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὄνομα</foreign> seems to be a word composed from a sentence signifying <q type="emph">this is a being about which our search is.</q> You can recognize that more readily in the adjective <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὀνομαστόν</foreign>, for that says clearly that this is
<milestone n="421b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><foreign xml:lang="grc">ὄν οὗ μάσμα ἐστίν</foreign> (being of which the search is).  And <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀλήθεια</foreign> (truth) is like the others;  for the divine motion of the universe is, I think, called by this name, <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀλήθεια</foreign>, because it is a divine wandering <foreign xml:lang="grc">θεία ἄλη</foreign>.  But <foreign xml:lang="grc">ψεῦδος</foreign> (falsehood) is the opposite of motion;  for once more that which is held back and forced to be quiet is found fault with, and it is compared to slumberers (<foreign xml:lang="grc">εὕουσι</foreign>);  but the addition of the psi conceals the meaning of the word.  The words <foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ ὄν</foreign> (being) and <foreign xml:lang="grc">οὐσία</foreign> (existence) agree with <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀληθής</foreign> with the loss of iota, for they mean <gloss>going</gloss> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἰόν</foreign>).  And <foreign xml:lang="grc">οὐκ ὄν</foreign> (not being) means <foreign xml:lang="grc">οὐκ ἰόν</foreign> (not going),
<milestone n="421c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>and indeed some people pronounce it so.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I think you have knocked these words to pieces manfully, Socrates;  but if anyone should ask you what propriety or correctness there was in these words that you have employed—<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἰόν</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ρἕον</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">δοῦν</foreign>—</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> What answer should I make?  Is that your meaning?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, exactly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> We acquired just now one way of making an answer with a semblance of sense in it.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> What way was that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Saying, if there is a word we do not know about, that it is of foreign origin.
<milestone n="421d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>Now this may be true of some of them, and also on account of the lapse of time it may be impossible to find out about the earliest words;  for since words get twisted in all sorts of ways, it would not be in the least wonderful if the ancient Greek word should be identical with the modern foreign one.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> That is not unlikely.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> It is indeed quite probable.  However, we must play the game<note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">A proverbial expression.</note> and investigate these questions vigorously.  But let us bear in mind that if a person asks
<milestone n="421e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>about the words by means of which names are formed, and again about those by means of which those words were formed, and keeps on doing this indefinitely, he who answers his questions will at last give up;  will he not?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, I think so.
</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="422"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="422"/><milestone n="422a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Now at what point will he be right in giving up and stopping?  Will it not be when he reaches the names which are the elements of the other names and words?  For these, if they are the elements, can no longer rightly appear to be composed of other names.  For instance, we said just now that <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαθόν</foreign> was composed of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαστόν</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">θοόν</foreign>;  and perhaps we might say that <foreign xml:lang="grc">θοόν</foreign> was composed of other words, and those of still others;
<milestone n="422b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>but if we ever get hold of a word which is no longer composed of other words, we should be right ill saying that we had at last reached an element, and that we must no longer refer to other words for its derivation.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I think you are right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Are, then, these words about which you are now asking elements, and must we henceforth investigate their correctness by some other method?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Probably.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Yes, probably, Hermogenes;  at any rate, all the previous words were traced back to these.
<milestone n="422c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>But if this be true, as I think it is, come to my aid again and help me in the investigation, that I may not say anything foolish in declaring what principle must underlie the correctness of the earliest names.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Go on, and I will help you to the best of my ability.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I think you agree with me that there is but one principle of correctness in all names, the earliest as well as the latest, and that none of them is any more a name than the rest.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.
<milestone n="422d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Now the correctness of all the names we have discussed was based upon the intention of showing the nature of the things named.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And this principle of correctness must be present in all names, the earliest as well as the later ones, if they are really to be names.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> But the later ones, apparently, were able to accomplish this by means of the earlier ones.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Evidently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Well, then, how can the earliest names, which are not as yet based upon any others, make clear to us the nature of things, so far as that is possible,
<milestone n="422e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>which they must do if they are to be names at all?  Answer me this question:  If we had no voice or tongue, and wished to make things clear to one another, should we not try, as dumb people actually do, to make signs with our hands and head and person generally?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes.  What other method is there, Socrates?
</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>