Socrates. But, my good friend, did not Homer himself also give Hector his name? Hermogenes. Why do you ask that? Socrates. Because that name seems to me similar to Astyanax, and both names seem to be Greek. For lord ( ἄναξ ) and holder ( ἕκτωρ ) mean nearly the same thing, indicating that they are names of a king; for surely a man is holder of that of which he is lord; for it is clear that he rules it and possesses it and holds it.
 Or does it seem to you that there is nothing in what I am saying, and am I wrong in imagining that I have found a clue to Homer’s opinion about the correctness of names? Hermogenes. No, by Zeus, you are not wrong, in my opinion; I think perhaps you have found a clue. Socrates. It is right, I think, to call a lion’s offspring a lion and a horse’s offspring a horse. I am not speaking of prodigies, such as the birth of some other kind of creature from a horse,
 but of the natural offspring of each species after its kind. If a horse, contrary to nature, should bring forth a calf, the natural offspring of a cow, it should be called a calf, not a colt, nor if any offspring that is not human should be born from a human being, should that other offspring be called a human being; and the same applies to trees and all the rest. Do you not agree? Hermogenes. Yes. Socrates. Good; but keep watch of me, and do not let me trick you; for by the same argument any offspring of a king should be called a king;
 and whether the same meaning is expressed in one set of syllables or another makes no difference; and if a letter is added or subtracted, that does not matter either, so long as the essence of the thing named remains in force and is made plain in the name. Hermogenes. What do you mean? Socrates. Something quite simple. For instance, when we speak of the letters of the alphabet, you know, we speak their names, not merely the letters themselves, except in the case of four, ε, υ, ο, ω . In Plato’s time the names epsilon, ypsilon, omicron, and omega were not yet in vogue. The names used were εἶ, ὖ, οὖ, and ὦ . 
 We make names for all the other vowels and consonants by adding other letters to them; and so long as we include the letter in question and make its force plain, we may properly call it by that name, and that will designate it for us. Take beta, for instance, The addition of e( η ), t( τ ), a( α ) does no harm and does not prevent the whole name from making clear the nature of that letter which the lawgiver wished to designate; he knew so well how to give names to letters. Hermogenes. I think you are right. Socrates. Does not the same reasoning apply to a king?
 A king’s son will probably be a king, a good man’s good, a handsome man’s handsome, and so forth; the offspring of each class will be of the same class, unless some unnatural birth takes place; so they should be called by the same names. But variety in the syllables is admissible, so that names which are the same appear different to the uninitiated, just as the physicians’ drugs, when prepared with various colors and perfumes, seem different to us, though they are the same, but to the physician,
 who considers only their medicinal value, they seem the same, and he is not confused by the additions. So perhaps the man who knows about names considers their value and is not confused if some letter is added, transposed, or subtracted, or even if the force of the name is expressed in entirely different letters. So, for instance, in the names we were just discussing, Astyanax and Hector, none of the letters is the same, except T,
 but nevertheless they have the same meaning. And what letters has Archepolis (ruler of the city) in common with them? Yet it means the same thing; and there are many other names which mean simply king. Others again mean general, such as Agis (leader), Polemarchus (war-lord), and Eupolemus (good warrior); and others indicate physicians, as Iatrocles (famous physician) and Acesimbrotus (healer of mortals); and we might perhaps find many others which differ in syllables and letters, but express the same meaning. Do you think that is true, or not?
 Hermogenes. Certainly. Socrates. To those, then, who are born in accordance with nature the same names should be given. Hermogenes. Yes. Socrates. And how about those who are born contrary to nature as prodigies? For instance, when an impious son is born to a good and pious man, ought he not, as in our former example when a mare brought forth a calf, to have the designation of the class to which he belongs, instead of that of his parent? Hermogenes. Certainly.
 Socrates. Then the impious son of a pious father ought to receive the name of his class. Hermogenes. True. Socrates. Not Theophilus (beloved of God) or Mnesitheus (mindful of God) or anything of that sort; but something of opposite meaning, if names are correct. Hermogenes. Most assuredly, Socrates. Socrates. As the name of Orestes (mountain man) is undoubtedly correct, Hermogenes, whether it was given him by chance or by some poet who indicated by the name the fierceness, rudeness, and mountain-wildness of his nature.
 Hermogenes. So it seems, Socrates. Socrates. And his father’s name also appears to be in accordance with nature. Hermogenes. It seems so. Socrates. Yes, for Agamemnon (admirable for remaining) is one who would resolve to toil to the end and to endure, putting the finish upon his resolution by virtue. And a proof of this is his long retention of the host at Troy and his endurance. So the name Agamemnon denotes that this man is admirable for remaining.
 And so, too, the name of Atreus is likely to be correct; for his murder of Chrysippus and the cruelty of his acts to Thyestes are all damaging and ruinous ( ἀτηρά ) to his virtue. Now the form of his name is slightly deflected and hidden, so that it does not make the man’s nature plain to every one; but to those who understand about names it makes the meaning of Atreus plain enough; for indeed
 in view of his stubbornness ( ἀτειρές ) and fearlessness ( ἄτρεστον ) and ruinous acts ( ἀτηρά ) the name is correctly given to him on every ground. And I think Pelops also has a fitting name; for this name means that he who sees only what is near deserves this designation. Hermogenes. How is that? Socrates. Why it is said of him that in murdering Myrtilus he was quite unable to forecast or foresee the ultimate effects upon his whole race, and all the misery with which it was overwhelmed,
 because he saw only the near at hand and the immediate— that is to say, πέλας (near)—in his eagerness to win by all means the hand of Hippodameia. And any one would think the name of Tantalus was given rightly and in accordance with nature, if the stories about him are true. Hermogenes. What are the stories? Socrates. The many terrible misfortunes that happened to him both in his life, the last of which was the utter overthrow of his country, and in Hades, after his death,
 the balancing ( ταλαντεία ) of the stone above his head, in wonderful agreement with his name; and it seems exactly as if someone who wished to call him most wretched ( ταλάντατον ) disguised the name and said Tantalus instead; in some such way as that chance seems to have affected his name in the legend. Socrates. And his father also, who is said to be Zeus, appears to have a very excellent name, but it is not easy to understand;
 for the name of Zeus is exactly like a sentence; we divide it into two parts, and some of us use one part, others the other; for some call him Zena ( Ζῆνα ), and others Dia ( Δία ); but the two in combination express the nature of the god, which is just what we said a name should be able to do. For certainly no one is so much the author of life ( ζῆν ) for us and all others as the ruler and king of all.
 Thus this god is correctly named, through whom ( δι’ ὅν ) all living beings have the gift of life ( ζῆν ). But, as I say, the name is divided, though it is one name, into the two parts, Dia and Zena . And it might seem, at first hearing, highly irreverent to call him the son of Cronus and reasonable to say that Zeus is the offspring of some great intellect; and so he is, for κόρος (for Κρόνος ) signifies not child, but the purity ( καθαρόν ) and unblemished nature of his mind. And Cronus, according to tradition, is the son of Uranus ; but the upward gaze is rightly called by the name urania ( οὐρανία ),
 looking at the things above ( ὁρῶ τὰ ἄνω ), and the astronomers say, Hermogenes, that from this looking people acquire a pure mind, and Uranus is correctly named. If I remembered the genealogy of Hesiod and the still earlier ancestors of the gods he mentions, I would have gone on examining the correctness of their names until I had made a complete trial whether this wisdom which has suddenly come to me, I know not whence,
 will fail or not. Hermogenes. Indeed, Socrates, you do seem to me to be uttering oracles, exactly like an inspired prophet. Socrates. Yes, Hermogenes, and I am convinced that the inspiration came to me from Euthyphro the Prospaltian. For I was with him and listening to him a long time early this morning. So he must have been inspired, and he not only filled my ears but took possession of my soul with his superhuman wisdom. So I think this is our duty:
 we ought today to make use of this wisdom and finish the investigation of names, but tomorrow, if the rest of you agree, we will conjure it away and purify ourselves, when we have found some one, whether priest or sophist,
 who is skilled in that kind of purifying. Hermogenes. I agree, for I should be very glad to hear the rest of the talk about names. Socrates. Very well. Then since we have outlined a general plan of investigation, where shall we begin, that we may discover whether the names themselves will bear witness that they are not at all distributed at haphazard, but have a certain correctness?
 Now the names of heroes and men might perhaps prove deceptive; for they are often given because they were names of ancestors, and in some cases, as we said in the beginning, they are quite inappropriate; many, too, are given as the expression of a prayer, such as Eutychides (fortunate), Sosias (saviour), Theophilus (beloved of God), and many others. I think we had better disregard such as these; but we are most likely to find the correct names in the nature of the eternal and absolute; for there the names ought to have been given with the greatest care,
 and perhaps some of them were given by a power more divine than is that of men. Hermogenes. I think you are right, Socrates. Socrates. Then is it not proper to begin with the gods and see how the gods are rightly called by that name? Hermogenes. That is reasonable. Socrates. Something of this sort, then, is what I suspect: I think the earliest men in Greece believed only in those gods in whom many foreigners believe today—
 sun, moon, earth, stars, and sky. They saw that all these were always moving in their courses and running, and so they called them gods ( θεούς ) from this running ( θεῖν ) nature; then afterwards, when they gained knowledge of the other gods, they called them all by the same name. Is that likely to be true, or not? Hermogenes. Yes, very likely. Socrates. What shall we consider next?
 Hermogenes. Spirits, obviously. Socrates. Hermogenes, what does the name spirits really mean? See if you think there is anything in what I am going to say. Hermogenes. Go on and say it. Socrates. Do you remember who Hesiod says the spirits are? Hermogenes. I do not recall it. Socrates. Nor that he says a golden race was the first race of men to be born? Hermogenes. Yes, I do know that.