按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
the lovers； and of the other Muses for those who do them honour；
according to the several ways of honouring them of Calliope the eldest
Muse and of Urania who is next to her； for the philosophers； of
whose music the grasshoppers make report to them； for these are the
Muses who are chiefly concerned with heaven and thought； divine as
well as human； and they have the sweetest utterance。 For many reasons；
then； we ought always to talk and not to sleep at mid…day。
Phaedr。 Let us talk。
Soc。 Shall we discuss the rules of writing and speech as we were
proposing？
Phaedr。 Very good。
Soc。 In good speaking should not the mind of the speaker know the
truth of the matter about which he is going to speak？
Phaedr。 And yet； Socrates； I have heard that he who would be an
orator has nothing to do with true justice； but only with that which
is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment； nor with the
truly good or honourable； but only with opinion about them； and that
from opinion comes persuasion； and not from the truth。
Soc。 The words of the wise are not to be set aside； for there is
probably something in them； and therefore the meaning of this saying
is not hastily to be dismissed。
Phaedr。 Very true。
Soc。 Let us put the matter thus：…Suppose that I persuaded you to buy
a horse and go to the wars。 Neither of us knew what a horse was
like； but I knew that you believed a horse to be of tame animals the
one which has the longest ears。
Phaedr。 That would be ridiculous。
Soc。 There is something more ridiculous coming：…Suppose； further；
that in sober earnest I； having persuaded you of this； went and
composed a speech in honour of an ass； whom I entitled a horse
beginning： 〃A noble animal and a most useful possession； especially in
war； and you may get on his back and fight； and he will carry
baggage or anything。〃
Phaedr。 How ridiculous！
Soc。 Ridiculous！ Yes； but is not even a ridiculous friend better
than a cunning enemy？
Phaedr。 Certainly。
Soc。 And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a
horse puts good for evil being himself as ignorant of their true
nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant； and having studied
the notions of the multitude； falsely persuades them not about 〃the
shadow of an ass；〃 which he confounds with a horse； but about good
which he confounds with evily…what will be the harvest which
rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed？
Phaedr。 The reverse of good。
Soc。 But perhaps rhetoric has been getting too roughly handled by
us； and she might answer： What amazing nonsense you are talking！ As if
I forced any man to learn to speak in ignorance of the truth！ Whatever
my advice may be worth； I should have told him to arrive at the
truth first； and then come to me。 At the same time I boldly assert
that mere knowledge of the truth will not give you the art of
persuasion。
Phaedr。 There is reason in the lady's defence of herself。
Soc。 Quite true； if only the other arguments which remain to be
brought up bear her witness that she is an art at all。 But I seem to
hear them arraying themselves on the opposite side； declaring that she
speaks falsely； and that rhetoric is a mere routine and trick； not
an art。 Lo！ a Spartan appears； and says that there never is nor ever
will be a real art of speaking which is divorced from the truth。
Phaedr。 And what are these arguments； Socrates？ Bring them out
that we may examine them。
Soc。 Come out； fair children； and convince Phaedrus； who is the
father of similar beauties； that he will never be able to speak
about anything as he ought to speak unless he have a knowledge of
philosophy。 And let Phaedrus answer you。
Phaedr。 Put the question。
Soc。 Is not rhetoric； taken generally； a universal art of enchanting
the mind by arguments； which is practised not only in courts and
public assemblies； but in private houses also； having to do with all
matters； great as well as small； good and bad alike； and is in all
equally right； and equally to be esteemed…that is what you have heard？
Phaedr。 Nay； not exactly that； I should say rather that I have heard
the art confined to speaking and writing in lawsuits； and to
speaking in public assemblies…not extended farther。
Soc。 Then I suppose that you have only heard of the rhetoric of
Nestor and Odysseus； which they composed in their leisure hours when
at Troy； and never of the rhetoric of Palamedes？
Phaedr。 No more than of Nestor and Odysseus； unless Gorgias is
your Nestor； and Thrasymachus or Theodorus your Odysseus。
Soc。 Perhaps that is my meaning。 But let us leave them。 And do you
tell me； instead； what are plaintiff and defendant doing in a law
court…are they not contending？
Phaedr。 Exactly so。
Soc。 About the just and unjust…that is the matter in dispute？
Phaedr。 Yes。
Soc。 And a professor of the art will make the same thing appear to
the same persons to be at one time just； at another time； if he is
so inclined； to be unjust？
Phaedr。 Exactly。
Soc。 And when he speaks in the assembly； he will make the same
things seem good to the city at one time； and at another time the
reverse of good？
Phaedr。 That is true。
Soc。 Have we not heard of the Eleatic Palamedes （Zeno）； who has an
art of speaking by which he makes the same things appear to his
hearers like and unlike； one and many； at rest and in motion？
Phaedr。 Very true。
Soc。 The art of disputation； then； is not confined to the courts and
the assembly； but is one and the same in every use of language； this
is the art； if there be such an art； which is able to find a
likeness of everything to which a likeness can be found； and draws
into the light of day the likenesses and disguises which are used by
others？
Phaedr。 How do you mean？
Soc。 Let me put the matter thus： When will there be more chance of
deception…when the difference is large or small？
Phaedr。 When the difference is small。
Soc。 And you will be less likely to be discovered in passing by
degrees into the other extreme than when you go all at once？
Phaedr。 Of course。
Soc。 He； then； who would。 deceive others； and not be deceived；
must exactly know the real likenesses and differences of things？
Phaedr。 He must。
Soc。 And if he is ignorant of the true nature of any subject； how
can he detect the greater or less degree of likeness in other things
to that of which by the hypothesis he is ignorant？
Phaedr。 He cannot。
Soc。 And wh