Socrates: My dear Hermogenes, the first imposers of names must surely have been considerable persons; they were philosophers, and had a good deal to say.
Hermogenes: Well, and what of them?
Socrates: They are the men to whom I should attribute the imposition of names. Even in foreign names, if you analyze them, a meaning is still discernible. For example, that which we term οὐσία is by some called ἐσία, and by others again ὠσία. Now that the essence of things should be called ἑστία, which is akin to the first of these (ἐσία = ἑστία), is rational enough. And there is reason in the Athenians calling that ἑστία which participates in οὐσία. For in ancient times we too seem to have said ἐσία for οὐσία, and this you may note to have been the idea of those who appointed that sacrifices should be first offered to ἑστία, which was natural enough if they meant that ἑστία was the essence of things. Those again who read ὠσία seem to have inclined to the opinion of Heracleitus, that all things flow and nothing stands; with them the pushing principle (ὠθοῦν) is the cause and ruling power of all things, and is therefore rightly called ὠσία. Enough of this, which is all that we who know nothing can affirm. Next in order after Hestia we ought to consider Rhea and Cronos, although the name of Cronos has been already discussed. But I dare say that I am talking great nonsense.
Hermogenes: Why, Socrates?
Socrates: My good friend, I have discovered a hive of wisdom.
Hermogenes: Of what nature?
Socrates: Well, rather ridiculous, and yet plausible.
Hermogenes: How plausible?
Socrates: I fancy to myself Heracleitus repeating wise traditions of antiquity as old as the days of Cronos and Rhea, and of which Homer also spoke.
Hermogenes: How do you mean?
Socrates: Heracleitus is supposed to say that all things are in motion and nothing at rest; he compares them to the stream of a river, and says that you cannot go into the same water twice.
Hermogenes: That is true.
Socrates: Well, then, how can we avoid inferring that he who gave the names of Cronos and Rhea to the ancestors of the Gods, agreed pretty much in the doctrine of Heracleitus? Is the giving of the names of streams to both of them purely accidental? Compare the line in which Homer, and, as I believe, Hesiod also, tells of
“Ocean, the origin of Gods, and mother Tethys.”
And again, Orpheus says, that
“The fair river of Ocean was the first to marry, and he espoused his sister Tethys, who was his mother’s daughter.”
You see that this is a remarkable coincidence, and all in the direction of Heracleitus.
Hermogenes: I think that there is something in what you say, Socrates; but I do not understand the meaning of the name Tethys.
Socrates: Well, that is almost self-explained, being only the name of a spring, a little disguised; for that which is strained and filtered (διαττώμενον, ἠθούμενον) may be likened to a spring, and the name Tethys is made up of these two words.
Hermogenes: The idea is ingenious, Socrates.
Socrates: To be sure. But what comes next?—of Zeus we have spoken.
Hermogenes: Yes.
Socrates: Then let us next take his two brothers, Poseidon and Pluto, whether the latter is called by that or by his other name.
Hermogenes: By all means.
Socrates: Poseidon is ποσίδεσμος, the chain of the feet; the original inventor of the name had been stopped by the watery element in his walks, and not allowed to go on, and therefore he called the ruler of this element Poseidon; the ε was probably inserted as an ornament. Yet, perhaps, not so; but the name may have been originally written with a double λ and not with a σ, meaning that the God knew many things (πολλὰ εἰδώς). And perhaps also he being the shaker of the earth, has been named from shaking (σείειν), and then π and δ have been added. Pluto gives wealth (πλοῦτος), and his name means the giver of wealth, which comes out of the earth beneath. People in general appear to imagine that the term Hades is connected with the invisible (ἀειδὲς) and so they are led by their fears to call the God Pluto instead.