On the Cratylus dialogue, much has been written. However, is it possible to say that the beauty and the intelligence of that Platonic dialogue has been fully explained and justified? First of all, the Cratylus continues to be considered a work that is not fully successful artistically: its very long etimological review has yet to find an explanation that justifies, from a dramatic point of view, such an excessively prolix section. Secondly, the Cratylus is a dialogue that is doctrinally empty. (...) Plato seems to have dedicated an entire work to the issue of the theory of names, only to demonstrate in the end that considering such a question is not in fact useful to the understanding of the truth; to understand the truth, one must look not to language but to the things themselves. This article, other than indicating the status questionis regarding the Cratylus, suggests a new approach which will resolve both the issues raised above. It intends to demonstrate that to formulate an interpretation worthy of Plato from both the speculative and dramatic points of view, one must undertake an ontological and mystagogical reading of the Cratylus, an approach not yet made. The ontological reading complements the anti-ideological interpretations already developed by a number of scholars; the mystagogical reading is explicitly alternative to the esoteric interpretation of the dialogue proposed by Szlezák, the authoritative representative of the Tubingen School. (shrink)