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！
proceed to the other speech； which； as I think； is also suggestive
to students of rhetoric。
Phaedr。 In what way？
Soc。 The two speeches； as you may remember； were unlike…I the one
argued that the lover and the other that the non…lover ought to be
accepted。
Phaedr。 And right manfully。
Soc。 You should rather say 〃madly〃； and madness was the argument
of them； for； as I said； 〃love is a madness。〃
Phaedr。 Yes。
Soc。 And of madness there were two kinds； one produced by human
infirmity； the other was a divine release of the soul from the yoke of
custom and convention。
Phaedr。 True。
Soc。 The divine madness was subdivided into four kinds； prophetic；
initiatory； poetic； erotic； having four gods presiding over them；
the first was the inspiration of Apollo； the second that of
Dionysus； the third that of the Muses； the fourth that of Aphrodite
and Eros。 In the description of the last kind of madness； which was
also said to be the best； we spoke of the affection of love in a
figure； into which we introduced a tolerably credible and possibly
true though partly erring myth； which was also a hymn in honour of
Love； who is your lord and also mine； Phaedrus； and the guardian of
fair children； and to him we sung the hymn in measured and solemn
strain。
Phaedr。 I know that I had great pleasure in listening to you。
Soc。 Let us take this instance and note how the transition was
made from blame to praise。
Phaedr。 What do you mean？
Soc。 I mean to say that the composition was mostly playful。 Yet in
these chance fancies of the hour were involved two principles of which
we should be too glad to have a clearer description if art could
give us one。
Phaedr。 What are they？
Soc。 First； the comprehension of scattered particulars in one
idea； as in our definition of love； which whether true or false
certainly gave clearness and consistency to the discourse； the speaker
should define his several notions and so make his meaning clear。
Phaedr。 What is the other principle； Socrates？
Soc。 The second principle is that of division into species according
to the natural formation； where the joint is； not breaking any part as
a bad carver might。 Just as our two discourses； alike assumed； first
of all； a single form of unreason； and then； as the body which from
being one becomes double and may be divided into a left side and right
side； each having parts right and left of the same name…after this
manner the speaker proceeded to divide the parts of the left side
and did not desist until he found in them an evil or left…handed
love which he justly reviled； and the other discourse leading us to
the madness which lay on the right side； found another love； also
having the same name； but divine； which the speaker held up before
us and applauded and affirmed to be the author of the greatest
benefits。
Phaedr。 Most true。
Soc。 I am myself a great lover of these processes of division and
generalization； they help me to speak and to think。 And if I find
any man who is able to see 〃a One and Many〃 in nature； him I follow；
and 〃walk in his footsteps as if he were a god。〃 And those who have
this art； I have hitherto been in the habit of calling
dialecticians； but God knows whether the name is right or not。 And I
should like to know what name you would give to your or to Lysias'
disciples； and whether this may not be that famous art of rhetoric
which Thrasymachus and others teach and practise？ Skilful speakers
they are； and impart their skill to any who is willing to make kings
of them and to bring gifts to them。
Phaedr。 Yes； they are royal men； but their art is not the same
with the art of those whom you call； and rightly； in my opinion；
dialecticians：…Still we are in the dark about rhetoric。
Soc。 What do you mean？ The remains of it； if there be anything
remaining which can be brought under rules of art； must be a fine
thing； and； at any rate； is not to be despised by you and me。 But
how much is left？
Phaedr。 There is a great deal surely to be found in books of
rhetoric？
Soc。 Yes； thank you for reminding me：…There is the exordium； showing
how the speech should begin； if I remember rightly； that is what you
mean…the niceties of the art？
Phaedr。 Yes。
Soc。 Then follows the statement of facts； and upon that witnesses；
thirdly； proofs； fourthly； probabilities are to come； the great
Byzantian word…maker also speaks； if I am not mistaken； of
confirmation and further confirmation。
Phaedr。 You mean the excellent Theodorus。
Soc。 Yes； and he tells how refutation or further refutation is to be
managed； whether in accusation or defence。 I ought also to mention the
illustrious Parian； Evenus； who first invented insinuations and
indirect praises； and also indirect censures； which according to
some he put into verse to help the memory。 But shall I 〃to dumb
forgetfulness consign〃 Tisias and Gorgias； who are not ignorant that
probability is superior to truth； and who by： force of argument make
the little appear great and the great little； disguise the new in
old fashions and the old in new fashions； and have discovered forms
for everything； either short or going on to infinity。 I remember
Prodicus laughing when I told him of this； he said that he had himself
discovered the true rule of art； which was to be neither long nor
short； but of a convenient length。
Phaedr。 Well done； Prodicus！
Soc。 Then there is Hippias the Elean stranger； who probably agrees
with him。
Phaedr。 Yes。
Soc。 And there is also Polus； who has treasuries of diplasiology；
and gnomology； and eikonology； and who teaches in them the names of
which Licymnius made him a present； they were to give a polish。
Phaedr。 Had not Protagoras something of the same sort？
Soc。 Yes； rules of correct diction and many other fine precepts； for
the 〃sorrows of a poor old man；〃 or any other pathetic case； no one is
better than the Chalcedonian giant； he can put a whole company of
people into a passion and out of one again by his mighty magic； and is
first…rate at inventing or disposing of any sort of calumny on any
grounds or none。 All of them agree in asserting that a speech should
end in a recapitulation； though they do not all agree to use the
same word。
Phaedr。 You mean that there should be a summing up of the
arguments in order to remind the hearers of them。
Soc。 I have now said all that I have to say of the art of
rhetoric： have you anything to add？
Phaedr。 Not much； nothing very important。