21 the Theory of Ideas in the Cratylus J. V. LUCE I He Traditional Version Of

in The Theory of Ideas the Cratylus

J. V. LUCE

I he traditional version of the Platonic theory of Ideas is mainly from the and discussions of abstract derived systematic eloquent thought and supra-sensible reality in the Phaedo and the central books of the Republic. In these dialogues the x.<ùp?cr{.lÓC;of Idea from sensible object, which Aristotle singled out as the distinctive difference between Platonic and Socratic thought about essence, is very marked. Assuming that the Cratylus is to be dated after the shorter dialogues where the influence of Socrates is dominant, but before the Phaedo and Republic, it becomes of interest to try to determine how far the traditional features of the theory can be detected in the Cratylus.1 I shall argue in support of the view that the Cyatylus constitutes an important stage in the development of Plato's thought about the Ideas, 2 but a stage distinctly prior to the position reached in the Phaedo.2 In the belief that the Cratylus dates from a transitional period of Plato's life,3 a period when he was elaborating his own distinctive philosophy against the background of previous speculation and on foundations supplied by Socrates, I shall contend that there is much in the presen- tation of the Ideas in the Cyatylus which is consistent, and nothing which is inconsistent, with such an evolutionary hypothesis. I shall

21 reject any interpretation which proclaims the e18q of the Cyatylus to be as 'separated' as those of the Phaedo and Republic.. Discussion of this problem inevitably centres round the two passages in the Cratylus, 389 a 5-390 e 4 and 439b 10-end, where certain arguments and terminology appear to presuppose the theory of Ideas in its Phaedo-Republic form. I shall refer to these passages as (A) and (B) respectively. At first glance the e180q of shuttle in (A) seems to be on a par with the l8lmL of Bed and Table in Republic 596 b. In Cratylus 389b5 Socrates talks of (xuro 8 Eaicv XEPXLÇand in Republic 597 a of 8 sort xxivq. In (B) the language at 439c «6repov w elvcxl cx'ur6 xa7?ov xon is very similar to that of Phaedo 65 d w elv«1 8ix«iov «6rl § o6ae'v;). Terminology reminiscent of the theory in its fully-fledged form appears also in other scattered passages of the Cratylus.4 But terminology by itself is an unreliable guide. It is not Plato's normal practice to embalm his thought in fixed phrases of unvarying meaning. He proceeds by progressively investing current terms with deeper philosophical meanings. His terminology matures with his thought. This is obviously true of e'180q and the appositional use of In any assessment of the two key Cyatylus passages pre- conceptions based on technical usages in later dialogues must be carefully avoided. We must not assume too readily that close similarity of terminology implies close similarity of thought. The whole context and argument of (A) and (B) must be closely examined, and other relevant passages of the dialogue considered, before we can attempt to decide how closely the metaphysical framework of the Cyatylus approximates to that of the Phaedo and Republic.5

In discussing passage (A) we are not prirnarily concerned with the vexed question whether, and to what extent, Plato recognised Ideas of artefacta.6 If the 181mof Bed in the Republic is not a genuine Idea then