cratylus-第8部分

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！


state。　　Whether　the　doctrine　of　the　flux　or　of　the　eternal　nature　be　the

truer；　is　hard　to　determine。　　But　no　man　of　sense　will　put　himself；　or　the

education　of　his　mind；　in　the　power　of　names：　　he　will　not　condemn　himself

to　be　an　unreal　thing；　nor　will　he　believe　that　everything　is　in　a　flux

like　the　water　in　a　leaky　vessel；　or　that　the　world　is　a　man　who　has　a

running　at　the　nose。　　This　doctrine　may　be　true；　Cratylus；　but　is　also　very

likely　to　be　untrue；　and　therefore　I　would　have　you　reflect　while　you　are

young；　and　find　out　the　truth；　and　when　you　know　come　and　tell　me。　　'I　have

thought；　Socrates；　and　after　a　good　deal　of　thinking　I　incline　to

Heracleitus。'　　Then　another　day；　my　friend；　you　shall　give　me　a　lesson。　

'Very　good；　Socrates；　and　I　hope　that　you　will　continue　to　study　these

things　yourself。'



。。。



We　may　now　consider　（I）　how　far　Plato　in　the　Cratylus　has　discovered　the

true　principles　of　language；　and　then　（II）　proceed　to　compare　modern

speculations　respecting　the　origin　and　nature　of　language　with　the

anticipations　of　his　genius。



I。　　（1）　Plato　is　aware　that　language　is　not　the　work　of　chance；　nor　does　he

deny　that　there　is　a　natural　fitness　in　names。　　He　only　insists　that　this

natural　fitness　shall　be　intelligibly　explained。　　But　he　has　no　idea　that

language　is　a　natural　organism。　　He　would　have　heard　with　surprise　that

languages　are　the　common　work　of　whole　nations　in　a　primitive　or　semi…

barbarous　age。　　How；　he　would　probably　have　argued；　could　men　devoid　of　art

have　contrived　a　structure　of　such　complexity？　　No　answer　could　have　been

given　to　this　question；　either　in　ancient　or　in　modern　times；　until　the

nature　of　primitive　antiquity　had　been　thoroughly　studied；　and　the

instincts　of　man　had　been　shown　to　exist　in　greater　force；　when　his　state

approaches　more　nearly　to　that　of　children　or　animals。　　The　philosophers　of

the　last　century；　after　their　manner；　would　have　vainly　endeavoured　to

trace　the　process　by　which　proper　names　were　converted　into　common；　and

would　have　shown　how　the　last　effort　of　abstraction　invented　prepositions

and　auxiliaries。　　The　theologian　would　have　proved　that　language　must　have

had　a　divine　origin；　because　in　childhood；　while　the　organs　are　pliable；

the　intelligence　is　wanting；　and　when　the　intelligence　is　able　to　frame

conceptions；　the　organs　are　no　longer　able　to　express　them。　　Or；　as　others

have　said：　　Man　is　man　because　he　has　the　gift　of　speech；　and　he　could　not

have　invented　that　which　he　is。　　But　this　would　have　been　an　'argument　too

subtle'　for　Socrates；　who　rejects　the　theological　account　of　the　origin　of

language　'as　an　excuse　for　not　giving　a　reason；'　which　he　compares　to　the

introduction　of　the　'Deus　ex　machina'　by　the　tragic　poets　when　they　have　to

solve　a　difficulty；　thus　anticipating　many　modern　controversies　in　which

the　primary　agency　of　the　divine　Being　is　confused　with　the　secondary

cause；　and　God　is　assumed　to　have　worked　a　miracle　in　order　to　fill　up　a

lacuna　in　human　knowledge。　　（Compare　Timaeus。）



Neither　is　Plato　wrong　in　supposing　that　an　element　of　design　and　art

enters　into　language。　　The　creative　power　abating　is　supplemented　by　a

mechanical　process。　　'Languages　are　not　made　but　grow；'　but　they　are　made

as　well　as　grow；　bursting　into　life　like　a　plant　or　a　flower；　they　are　also

capable　of　being　trained　and　improved　and　engrafted　upon　one　another。　　The

change　in　them　is　effected　in　earlier　ages　by　musical　and　euphonic

improvements；　at　a　later　stage　by　the　influence　of　grammar　and　logic；　and

by　the　poetical　and　literary　use　of　words。　　They　develope　rapidly　in

childhood；　and　when　they　are　full　grown　and　set　they　may　still　put　forth

intellectual　powers；　like　the　mind　in　the　body；　or　rather　we　may　say　that

the　nobler　use　of　language　only　begins　when　the　frame…work　is　complete。　

The　savage　or　primitive　man；　in　whom　the　natural　instinct　is　strongest；　is

also　the　greatest　improver　of　the　forms　of　language。　　He　is　the　poet　or

maker　of　words；　as　in　civilised　ages　the　dialectician　is　the　definer　or

distinguisher　of　them。　　The　latter　calls　the　second　world　of　abstract　terms

into　existence；　as　the　former　has　created　the　picture　sounds　which

represent　natural　objects　or　processes。　　Poetry　and　philosophythese　two；

are　the　two　great　formative　principles　of　language；　when　they　have　passed

their　first　stage；　of　which；　as　of　the　first　invention　of　the　arts　in

general；　we　only　entertain　conjecture。　　And　mythology　is　a　link　between

them；　connecting　the　visible　and　invisible；　until　at　length　the　sensuous

exterior　falls　away；　and　the　severance　of　the　inner　and　outer　world；　of　the

idea　and　the　object　of　sense；　becomes　complete。　　At　a　later　period；　logic

and　grammar；　sister　arts；　preserve　and　enlarge　the　decaying　instinct　of

language；　by　rule　and　method；　which　they　gather　from　analysis　and

observation。



（2）　There　is　no　trace　in　any　of　Plato's　writings　that　he　was　acquainted

with　any　language　but　Greek。　　Yet　he　has　conceived　very　truly　the　relation

of　Greek　to　foreign　languages；　which　he　is　led　to　consider；　because　he

finds　that　many　Greek　words　are　incapable　of　explanation。　　Allowing　a　good

deal　for　accident；　and　also　for　the　fancies　of　the　conditores　linguae

Graecae；　there　is　an　element　of　which　he　is　unable　to　give　an　account。　

These　unintelligible　words　he　supposes　to　be　of　foreign　origin；　and　to　have

been　derived　from　a　time　when　the　Greeks　were　either　barbarians；　or　in

close　relations　to　the　barbarians。　　Socrates　is　aware　that　this　principle

is　liable　to　great　abuse；　and；　like　the　'Deus　ex　machina；'　explains

nothing。　　Hence　he　excuses　himself　for　the　employment　of　such　a　device；　

and　remarks　that　in　foreign　words　there　is　still　a　principle　of

correctness；　which　applies　equally　both　to　Greeks　and　barbarians。



（3）　　But　the　greater　number　of　primary　words　do　not　admit　of　derivation

from　foreign　languages；　they　must　be　resolved　into　the　letters　out　of　which

they　are　composed；　and　therefore　the　letters　must　have　a　meaning。　　The

framers　of　language　were　aware　of　this；　they　observed　that　alpha　was

adapted　to　express　size；　eta　length；　omicron　roundness；　nu　inwardness；　rho

accent　rush　or　roar；　lambda　liquidity；　gamma　lambda　the　detention　of　the

liquid　or　slippery　element；　delta　and　tau　binding；　phi；　psi；　sigma；　xi；

wind　and　cold；　and　so　on。　　Plato's　analysis　of　the　letters　of　the　alphabet

shows　a　wonderful　insight　into　the　nature　of　language。　　He　does　not

expressively　distinguish　between　mere　imitation　and　the　symbolical　use　of

sound　to　express　thought；　but　he　recognises　in　the　examples　which　he　gives

both　modes　of　imitation。　　Gesture　is　the　mode　which　a　deaf　and　dumb　person

would　take　of　indicating　his　meaning。　　And　language　is　the　gesture　of　the

tongue；　in　the　use　of　the　letter　rho　accent；　to　express　a　rushing　or

roaring；　or　of　omicron　to　express　roundness；　there　is　a　direct　imitation；

while　in　the　use　of　the　letter　alpha　to　express　size；　or　of　eta　to　express

length；　the　imitation　is　symbolical。　　The　use　of　analogous　or　similar

sounds；　in　order　to　express　similar　analogous　ideas；　seems　to　have　escaped

him。



In　passing　from　the　gesture　of　the　body　to　the　movement　of　the　tongue；

Plato　makes　a　great　step　in　the　physiology　of　language。　　He　was　probably

the　first　who　said　that　'language　is　imitative　sound；'　which　is　the

greatest　and　deepest　truth　of　philology；　although　he　is　not　aware　of　the

laws　of　euphony　and　association　by　which　imitation　must　be　regulated。　　He

was　probably　also　the　first　who　made　a　distinction　between　simple　and

compound　words；　a　truth　second　only　in　importance　to　that　which　has　just

been　mentioned。　　His　great　insight　in　one　direction　curiously　contrasts

with　his　blindness　in　another；　for　he　appears　to　be　wholly　unaware　（compare

his　derivation　of　agathos　from　agastos　and　thoos）　of　the　difference　between

the　root　and　termination。　　But　we　must　recollect　that　he　was　necessarily

more　ignorant　than　any　schoolboy　of　Greek　grammar；　and　had　no　table　of　the

inflexions　of　verbs　and　nouns　before　his　eyes；　which　might　have　suggested

to　him　the　distinction。



（4）　Plato　distinctly　affirms　that　language　is　not　truth；　or　'philosophie

une　langue　bien　faite。'　　At　first；　Socrates　has　delighted　himself　with

discovering　the　flux　of　Heracleitus　in　language。　　But　he　is　covertly

satirising　the　pretence　of　that　or　any　other　age　to　find　philosophy　in

words；　and　he　afterwards　corrects　any　erroneous　inference　which　might　be

gathered　from　his　experiment。　　For　he　finds　as　many；　or　almost　as　many；

words　expressive　of　rest；　as　he　had　previously　found　expressive　of　motion。　

And　even　if　this　had　been　otherwise；　who　would　learn　of　words　when　he　might

learn　of　things？　　There　is　a　great　controversy　and　high　argument　between

Heracleiteans　and　Eleatics；　but　no　man　of　sense　would　commit　his　soul　in

such　enquiries　to　the　imposers　of　names。。。In　this　and　other　passages　Plato

shows　that　he　is　as　completely　emancipated　from　the　influence　of　'Idols　of

the　tribe'　as　Bacon　himself。



The　lesson　which　may　be　gathered　from　words　is　not　metaphysical　or　moral；

but　historical。　　They　teach　us　the　affinity　of　races；　they　tell　us

something　about　the　association　of　ideas；　they　occasionally　preserve　the

memory　of　a　disused　custom；　but　we　cannot　safely　argue　from　them　about

right　and　wrong；　matter　and　mind；　freedom　and　necessity；　or　the　other

problems　of　moral　and　metaphysical　philosophy。　　For　the　use　of　words　on

such　subjects　may　often　be　metaphorical；　accidental；　derived　from　other

languages；　and　may　have　no　relation　to　the　contemporary　state　of　thought

and　feeling。　　Nor　in　any　case　is　the　invention　of　them　the　result　of

philosophical　reflection；　they　have　been　commonly　transferred　from　matter

to　mind；　and　their　meaning　is　the　very　reverse　of　their　etymology。　　Because

there　is　or　is　not　a　name　for　a　thing；　we　cannot　argue　that　the　thing　has

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