cratylus- 第9部分

or　has　not　an　actual　existence；　or　that　the　antitheses；　parallels；

conjugates；　correlatives　of　language　have　anything　corresponding　to　them　in

nature。　　There　are　too　many　words　as　well　as　too　few；　and　they　generalize

the　objects　or　ideas　which　they　represent。　　The　greatest　lesson　which　the

philosophical　analysis　of　language　teaches　us　is；　that　we　should　be　above

language；　making　words　our　servants；　and　not　allowing　them　to　be　our

masters。



Plato　does　not　add　the　further　observation；　that　the　etymological　meaning

of　words　is　in　process　of　being　lost。　　If　at　first　framed　on　a　principle　of

intelligibility；　they　would　gradually　cease　to　be　intelligible；　like　those

of　a　foreign　language；　he　is　willing　to　admit　that　they　are　subject　to　many

changes；　and　put　on　many　disguises。　　He　acknowledges　that　the　'poor

creature'　imitation　is　supplemented　by　another　'poor　creature；'

convention。　　But　he　does　not　see　that　'habit　and　repute；'　and　their

relation　to　other　words；　are　always　exercising　an　influence　over　them。　

Words　appear　to　be　isolated；　but　they　are　really　the　parts　of　an　organism

which　is　always　being　reproduced。　　They　are　refined　by　civilization；

harmonized　by　poetry；　emphasized　by　literature；　technically　applied　in

philosophy　and　art；　they　are　used　as　symbols　on　the　border…ground　of　human

knowledge；　they　receive　a　fresh　impress　from　individual　genius；　and　come

with　a　new　force　and　association　to　every　lively…minded　person。　　They　are

fixed　by　the　simultaneous　utterance　of　millions；　and　yet　are　always

imperceptibly　changing；not　the　inventors　of　language；　but　writing　and

speaking；　and　particularly　great　writers；　or　works　which　pass　into　the

hearts　of　nations；　Homer；　Shakespear；　Dante；　the　German　or　English　Bible；

Kant　and　Hegel；　are　the　makers　of　them　in　later　ages。　　They　carry　with　them

the　faded　recollection　of　their　own　past　history；　the　use　of　a　word　in　a

striking　and　familiar　passage　gives　a　complexion　to　its　use　everywhere

else；　and　the　new　use　of　an　old　and　familiar　phrase　has　also　a　peculiar

power　over　us。　　But　these　and　other　subtleties　of　language　escaped　the

observation　of　Plato。　　He　is　not　aware　that　the　languages　of　the　world　are

organic　structures；　and　that　every　word　in　them　is　related　to　every　other；

nor　does　he　conceive　of　language　as　the　joint　work　of　the　speaker　and　the

hearer；　requiring　in　man　a　faculty　not　only　of　expressing　his　thoughts　but

of　understanding　those　of　others。



On　the　other　hand；　he　cannot　be　justly　charged　with　a　desire　to　frame

language　on　artificial　principles。　　Philosophers　have　sometimes　dreamed　of

a　technical　or　scientific　language；　in　words　which　should　have　fixed

meanings；　and　stand　in　the　same　relation　to　one　another　as　the　substances

which　they　denote。　　But　there　is　no　more　trace　of　this　in　Plato　than　there

is　of　a　language　corresponding　to　the　ideas；　nor；　indeed；　could　the　want　of

such　a　language　be　felt　until　the　sciences　were　far　more　developed。　　Those

who　would　extend　the　use　of　technical　phraseology　beyond　the　limits　of

science　or　of　custom；　seem　to　forget　that　freedom　and　suggestiveness　and

the　play　of　association　are　essential　characteristics　of　language。　　The

great　master　has　shown　how　he　regarded　pedantic　distinctions　of　words　or

attempts　to　confine　their　meaning　in　the　satire　on　Prodicus　in　the

Protagoras。



（5）　In　addition　to　these　anticipations　of　the　general　principles　of

philology；　we　may　note　also　a　few　curious　observations　on　words　and　sounds。

'The　Eretrians　say　sklerotes　for　skleroter；'　'the　Thessalians　call　Apollo

Amlos；'　'The　Phrygians　have　the　words　pur；　udor；　kunes　slightly　changed；'

'there　is　an　old　Homeric　word　emesato；　meaning　〃he　contrived〃；'　'our

forefathers；　and　especially　the　women；　who　are　most　conservative　of　the

ancient　language；　loved　the　letters　iota　and　delta；　but　now　iota　is　changed

into　eta　and　epsilon；　and　delta　into　zeta；　this　is　supposed　to　increase　the

grandeur　of　the　sound。'　　Plato　was　very　willing　to　use　inductive　arguments；

so　far　as　they　were　within　his　reach；　but　he　would　also　have　assigned　a

large　influence　to　chance。　　Nor　indeed　is　induction　applicable　to　philology

in　the　same　degree　as　to　most　of　the　physical　sciences。　　For　after　we　have

pushed　our　researches　to　the　furthest　point；　in　language　as　in　all　the

other　creations　of　the　human　mind；　there　will　always　remain　an　element　of

exception　or　accident　or　free…will；　which　cannot　be　eliminated。



The　question；　'whether　falsehood　is　impossible；'　which　Socrates

characteristically　sets　aside　as　too　subtle　for　an　old　man　（compare

Euthyd。）；　could　only　have　arisen　in　an　age　of　imperfect　consciousness；

which　had　not　yet　learned　to　distinguish　words　from　things。　　Socrates

replies　in　effect　that　words　have　an　independent　existence；　thus

anticipating　the　solution　of　the　mediaeval　controversy　of　Nominalism　and

Realism。　　He　is　aware　too　that　languages　exist　in　various　degrees　of

perfection；　and　that　the　analysis　of　them　can　only　be　carried　to　a　certain

point。　　'If　we　could　always；　or　almost　always；　use　likenesses；　which　are

the　appropriate　expressions；　that　would　be　the　most　perfect　state　of

language。'　　These　words　suggest　a　question　of　deeper　interest　than　the

origin　of　language；　viz。　what　is　the　ideal　of　language；　how　far　by　any

correction　of　their　usages　existing　languages　might　become　clearer　and　more

expressive　than　they　are；　more　poetical；　and　also　more　logical；　or　whether

they　are　now　finally　fixed　and　have　received　their　last　impress　from　time

and　authority。



On　the　whole；　the　Cratylus　seems　to　contain　deeper　truths　about　language

than　any　other　ancient　writing。　　But　feeling　the　uncertain　ground　upon

which　he　is　walking；　and　partly　in　order　to　preserve　the　character　of

Socrates；　Plato　envelopes　the　whole　subject　in　a　robe　of　fancy；　and　allows

his　principles　to　drop　out　as　if　by　accident。



II。　　What　is　the　result　of　recent　speculations　about　the　origin　and　nature

of　language？　　Like　other　modern　metaphysical　enquiries；　they　end　at　last　in

a　statement　of　facts。　　But；　in　order　to　state　or　understand　the　facts；　a

metaphysical　insight　seems　to　be　required。　　There　are　more　things　in

language　than　the　human　mind　easily　conceives。　　And　many　fallacies　have　to

be　dispelled；　as　well　as　observations　made。　　The　true　spirit　of　philosophy

or　metaphysics　can　alone　charm　away　metaphysical　illusions；　which　are

always　reappearing；　formerly　in　the　fancies　of　neoplatonist　writers；　now　in

the　disguise　of　experience　and　common　sense。　　An　analogy；　a　figure　of

speech；　an　intelligible　theory；　a　superficial　observation　of　the

individual；　have　often　been　mistaken　for　a　true　account　of　the　origin　of

language。



Speaking　is　one　of　the　simplest　natural　operations；　and　also　the　most

complex。　　Nothing　would　seem　to　be　easier　or　more　trivial　than　a　few　words

uttered　by　a　child　in　any　language。　　Yet　into　the　formation　of　those　words

have　entered　causes　which　the　human　mind　is　not　capable　of　calculating。　

They　are　a　drop　or　two　of　the　great　stream　or　ocean　of　speech　which　has

been　flowing　in　all　ages。　　They　have　been　transmitted　from　one　language　to

another；　like　the　child　himself；　they　go　back　to　the　beginnings　of　the

human　race。　　How　they　originated；　who　can　tell？　　Nevertheless　we　can

imagine　a　stage　of　human　society　in　which　the　circle　of　men's　minds　was

narrower　and　their　sympathies　and　instincts　stronger；　in　which　their　organs

of　speech　were　more　flexible；　and　the　sense　of　hearing　finer　and　more

discerning；　in　which　they　lived　more　in　company；　and　after　the　manner　of

children　were　more　given　to　express　their　feelings；　in　which　'they　moved

all　together；'　like　a　herd　of　wild　animals；　'when　they　moved　at　all。'　

Among　them；　as　in　every　society；　a　particular　person　would　be　more

sensitive　and　intelligent　than　the　rest。　　Suddenly；　on　some　occasion　of

interest　（at　the　approach　of　a　wild　beast；　shall　we　say？）；　he　first；　they

following　him；　utter　a　cry　which　resounds　through　the　forest。　　The　cry　is

almost　or　quite　involuntary；　and　may　be　an　imitation　of　the　roar　of　the

animal。　　Thus　far　we　have　not　speech；　but　only　the　inarticulate　expression

of　feeling　or　emotion　in　no　respect　differing　from　the　cries　of　animals；

for　they　too　call　to　one　another　and　are　answered。　　But　now　suppose　that

some　one　at　a　distance　not　only　hears　the　sound；　but　apprehends　the

meaning：　　or　we　may　imagine　that　the　cry　is　repeated　to　a　member　of　the

society　who　had　been　absent；　the　others　act　the　scene　over　again　when　he

returns　home　in　the　evening。　　And　so　the　cry　becomes　a　word。　　The　hearer　in

turn　gives　back　the　word　to　the　speaker；　who　is　now　aware　that　he　has

acquired　a　new　power。　　Many　thousand　times　he　exercises　this　power；　like　a

child　learning　to　talk；　he　repeats　the　same　cry　again；　and　again　he　is

answered；　he　tries　experiments　with　a　like　result；　and　the　speaker　and　the

hearer　rejoice　together　in　their　newly…discovered　faculty。　　At　first　there

would　be　few　such　cries；　and　little　danger　of　mistaking　or　confusing　them。　

For　the　mind　of　primitive　man　had　a　narrow　range　of　perceptions　and

feelings；　his　senses　were　microscopic；　twenty　or　thirty　sounds　or　gestures

would　be　enough　for　him；　nor　would　he　have　any　difficulty　in　finding　them。　

Naturally　he　broke　out　into　speechlike　the　young　infant　he　laughed　and

babbled；　but　not　until　there　were　hearers　as　well　as　speakers　did　language

begin。　　Not　the　interjection　or　the　vocal　imitation　of　the　object；　but　the

interjection　or　the　vocal　imitation　of　the　object　understood；　is　the　first

rudiment　of　human　speech。



After　a　while　the　word　gathers　associations；　and　has　an　independent

existence。　　The　imitation　of　the　lion's　roar　calls　up　the　fears　and　hopes

of　the　chase；　which　are　excited　by　his　appearance。　　In　the　moment　of

hearing　the　sound；　without　any　appreciable　interval；　these　and　other　latent

experiences　wake　up　in　the　mind　of　the　hearer。　　Not　only　does　he　receive　an

impression；　but　he　brings