<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><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="400"><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I am listening.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Do you think there is anything which holds and carries the whole nature of the body, so that it lives and moves, except the soul?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> No;  nothing.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Well, and do you not believe the doctrine of Anaxagoras, that it is mind or soul which orders and holds the nature of all things?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I do.
<milestone n="400b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Then there would be an admirable fitness in calling that power which carries and holds (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔχει</foreign>) nature (<foreign xml:lang="grc">φύσιν</foreign>) <foreign xml:lang="grc">φυσέχη</foreign> and this may be refined and pronounced <foreign xml:lang="grc">ψυχή</foreign>.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly;  and I think this is a more scientific explanation than the other.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Yes, it is.  But it seems actually absurd that the name was given with such truth.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Now what shall we say about the next word?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> You mean <q type="emph">body</q> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">σῶμα</foreign>)?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I think this admits of many explanations, if a little, even very little, change is made;  for some say it is the tomb (<foreign xml:lang="grc">σῆμα</foreign>) of the soul,
<milestone n="400c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>their notion being that the soul is buried in the present life;  and again, because by its means the soul gives any signs which it gives, it is for this reason also properly called <gloss>sign</gloss> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">σῆμα</foreign>).  But I think it most likely that the Orphic poets gave this name, with the idea that the soul is undergoing punishment for something;  they think it has the body as an enclosure to keep it safe, like a prison, and this is, as the name itself denotes, the safe (<foreign xml:lang="grc">σῶμα</foreign>) for the soul, until the penalty is paid, and not even a letter needs to be changed.
<milestone n="400d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I think, Socrates, enough has been said about these words;  but might we not consider the names of the gods in the same way in which you were speaking about that of Zeus a few minutes ago, and see what kind of correctness there is in them?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> By Zeus, Hermogenes, we, if we are sensible, must recognize that there is one most excellent kind, since of the gods we know nothing, neither of them nor of their names, whatever they may be, by which they call themselves, for it is clear that they use the true names.  But there is a second kind of correctness,
<milestone n="400e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>that we call them, as is customary in prayers, by whatever names and patronymics are pleasing to them, since we know no other.
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="401"/><milestone n="401a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>Now I think that is an excellent custom.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>