按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
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 either to art or to law。 But vocal
imitation； like any other copy； may be imperfectly executed； and in this
way an element of chance or convention enters in。 There is much which is
accidental or exceptional in language。 Some words have had their original
meaning so obscured； that they require to be helped out by convention。 But
still the true name is that which has a natural meaning。 Thus nature； art；
chance； all combine in the formation of language。 And the three views
respectively propounded by Hermogenes； Socrates； Cratylus； may be described
as the conventional； the artificial or rational； and the natural。 The view
of Socrates is the meeting…point of the other two； just as conceptualism is
the meeting…point of nominalism and realism。
We can hardly say that Plato was aware of the truth； that 'languages are
not made； but grow。' But still； when he says that 'the legislator made
language with the dialectician standing on his right hand；' we need not
infer from this that he conceived words； like coins； to be issued from the
mint of the State。 The creator of laws and of social life is naturally
regarded as the creator of language； according to Hellenic notions； and the
philosopher is his natural advisor。 We are not to suppose that the
legislator is performing any extraordinary function； he is merely the
Eponymus of the State； who prescribes rules for the dialectician and for
all other artists。 According to a truly Platonic mode of approaching the
subject； language； like virtue in the Republic； is examined by the analogy
of the arts。 Words are works of art which may be equally made in different
materials； and are well made when they have a meaning。 Of the process
which he thus describes； Plato had probably no very definite notion。 But
he means to express generally that language is the product of intelligence；
and that languages belong to States and not to individuals。
A better conception of language could not have been formed in Plato's age；
than that which he attributes to Socrates。 Yet many persons have thought
that the mind of Plato is more truly seen in the vague realism of Cratylus。
This misconception has probably arisen from two causes： first； the desire
to bring Plato's theory of language into accordance with the received
doctrine of the Platonic ideas； secondly； the impression created by
Socrates himself； that he is not in earnest； and is only indulging the
fancy of the hour。
1。 We shall have occasion to show more at length； in the Introduction to
future dialogues； that the so…called Platonic ideas are only a semi…
mythical form； in which he attempts to realize abstractions； and that they
are replaced in his later writings by a rational theory of psychology。
（See introductions to the Meno and the Sophist。） And in the Cratylus he
gives a general account of the nature and origin of language； in which Adam
Smith； Rousseau； and other writers of the last century； would have
substantially agreed。 At the end of the dialogue； he speaks as in the
Symposium and Republic of absolute beauty and good； but he never supposed
that they were capable of being embodied in words。 Of the names of the
ideas； he would have said； as he says of the names of the Gods； that we
know nothing。 Even the realism of Cratylus is not based upon the ideas of
Plato； but upon the flux of Heracleitus。 Here； as in the Sophist and
Politicus； Plato expressly draws attention to the want of agreement in
words and things。 Hence we are led to infer； that the view of Socrates is
not the less Plato's own； because not based upon the ideas； 2nd； that
Plato's theory of language is not inconsistent with the rest of his
philosophy。
2。 We do not deny that Socrates is partly in jest and partly in earnest。
He is discoursing in a high…flown vein； which may be compared to the
'dithyrambics of the Phaedrus。' They are mysteries of which he is
speaking； and he professes a kind of ludicrous fear of his imaginary
wisdom。 When he is