Order 1117565: Read Instructions

T H E

D I A L O G U E S O F P L A T 0 T R A N S L A T E D I N T O E N G L I S H

WZTH A N A L Y S E S A N D INTRODUCl'IOiVS

BY

.B. J O W E T T , M.A. I I A S T E R OF B . < L L I O L COLLELE

R E G I U S PROFESSOR OF G R E E K IN THE U N i v m s i r Y OP oxvoxn DOCTOR IS THEOLOGY OK THE L N I V C K S I T Y OF L E I D E N

T H I R D E D I T I O N

R E V I S E D A N D CORRECYZ'D T H R O U G H O U T , W I T H AfAARGlNAL A N A L Y S E S

A N D A N I N D E X O F S U E I E C T S A N D P R O P E R .VAAfES

0 X F 0 R D P R E S S L O N D O N : H U M P H R E Y M I L F O R D

U N I V E R S I T Y

Published 1892

P H A E D R U S .

476 Phacdrus.

&CRATES, PHAEDRUS.

Prodicus. Hippias.

Polus.

Lic ymnius.

Protagoras.

Thrasyma- chus again.

Rhetoric a superficial art.

The insuficiency of rhetoric.

I told him of t h i s ; 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 ! Sac. Then there is Hippias the Elean stranger, who

Phaedr. Yes. Sac. And there is also Polus, who has treasuries of dipla.

siology, 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. H a d not Protagoras something of the same s o r t ? Sac. Yes, rules of correct diction and many other fine pre-

cepts; for the ‘sorrows of a poor old man,’ o r 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 invent- ing 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 d o 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 a r t of rhetoric : have you anything to add ?

Phaedr. Not much ; nothing very impo’rtant. SOC. Leave the unimportant and let us bring the really 268

probably agrees with him.

important question into the light of day, which i s : W h a t power has this art of rhetoric, and w h e n ?

Phaedr. A very great power in public meetings. SOC. It has. But I should like to know whether you have

the same feeling as I have about the rhetoricians? To me there seem to be a great many holes in their web,

Phaedr. Give an example. SOC. I will. Suppose a person to come to your friend

Eryximachus, o r to his father Acumenus, and to say to him : ‘ I know how to apply drugs which shall have either a heating o r a cooling effect, and I can give a vomit and also a purge, and all that sort of thing; and knowing all this, a s I do, I claim to be a physician and to make physicians by

Begin here, with Socrates

47 7 The mere c r i t i c and the true artist. imparting this knowledge to others,’-what do you suppose ph,jws.

Phaedr. They would be sure to ask him whether he knew P ~ * m m that they would s a y ? S o c a h T E S ,

‘to whom’ he would give his medicines, and ‘when,’ and ‘how much.’

SM. And suppose that he were to reply: ‘ N o ; I know nothing of all that ; I expect the patient who consults me to be able to do these things for himself’?

Phaedr. They would say in reply that he is a madman o r a pedant who fancies that he is a physician because he has read something in a book, or has stumbled on a prescription or two, although he has no real understanding of the art of medicine.

SOC. And suppose a person were to come to Sophocles or What Euripides and say that he knows how to make a very long would speech about a small matter, and a short speech about a o r ~ u n - great matter, and also a sorrowful speech, or a terrible, or p i d s s a y threatening speech, or any other kind of speech, and in Esf”,B”iF teaching this fancies that he is teaching the art of tragedy- ? rhetoric?

Phaedr. They too would surely laugh at him if’ he fancies that tragedy is anything but the arranging of these elements in a manner which will be suitable to one another and to the whole.

SOC. But I do not suppose that they would be rude or abusive to him: Would they not treat him a s a musician would a man who thinks that he is a harmonist because he knows how to pitch the highest and lowest note ; happen- ing to meet such an one he would not say to him savagely, ‘Fool, you are mad !’ and harmonious tone of voice, he would answer : ‘ My good say t o him in the most friend, he who would be a harmonist must certainly know courteous this, and yet he may understand nothing of harmony if he . manner and

in the sweet- has not got beyond your stage of knowledge, for YOU only est tone of know the preliminaries of harmony and not harmony itself.’ \Olce, ‘ Y o u

only know Phaedr. Very true. the alpha- SOC. And will not Sophocles say to the display of the bet ofyour

Sophocla

But like a musician, in a gentle Theywould

269 would-be tragedian, that this is not tragedy but the prelimi- art” naries of tragedy? and will not Acumenus say the same of medicine to the would-be physician ?

Phaedr. Quite true. SOC And if Adrastus the mellifluous or Pericles heard of

4is I-’wic/r.s and Jirtn.~~zgovrt.s.

Phaednts. these wonderful arts, brachylogies and eilionologies and all ~ o c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , the hard names which we have been endeavouring to draw PHARDRUP. into the light of day, what would they s a y ? Instead of

losing temper and applying uncomplimentary epithets, a s you and I have been doing, to the authors of such a n imaginary art, their superior wisdom would rather censure us, a s well

w e s h o u l d a s them. ‘ H a v e a little patience, Phaedrus and Socrates, not be too they would s a y ; you should not be in such a passion with hard on the rhetorician those who from some want of dialectical skill a r e unable to fortaching define the nature of rhetoric, and consequently suppose that only part of his art, they have found the a r t in the preliminary conditions of it,

and when these have been taught by them to others, fancy that the whole art of rhetoric has been taught by them ; but a s to using the several instruments of the art effectively, or making the composition a whole,-an application of it such a s this is they regard a s an easy thing which their disciples may make for themselves.’

Phaedr. I quite admit, Socrates, that the art of rhetoric which these men teach and of which they write is such a s you describe-there I agree with you. But I still want to know where and how the true a r t of rhetoric and persuasion is to be acquired.

The perf- SOC. T h e perfection which is required o f t h e finished orator tion of ora- tory is part- is, or rather must be, like the perfection of anything else, ly a gift of partly given by nature, but may also be assisted by art. If it may be you have the natural power and add to it knowledge and improved practice, you will be a distinguished speaker ; if you fall short byart.This in either of these, you will be to that extent defective. But art, how- ever, is not the art, a s far a s there is a n art, of rhetoric does not lie in the the art Of direction of Lysias o r Thrasymachus. Thrasyma- thus, but Phaedr. I n what direction then ? partakasof SOC. I conceive Pericles to have been the most accom- of philoso- plished of rhetoricians. PhY. Phnedr. W h a t of that ?

SOC. All the great arts require discussion and high specula- tion about the truths of nature ; hence come loftiness of 270 thought and completeness of execution. And this, a s I con- ceive, was the quality which, in addition to his natural gifts, Pericles acquired from his intercourse with Anaxagoras whom he happened to know. H e was thus imbued with the

nature. But

the nature

The viytide of tsita&.vk. 4 i9 higher philosophy, and attained the knowledge of Mind ~hacdrrcs. and the negative of Mind, which were favourite themes of socRATe+, Anaxagoras, and applied what suited his purpose to the a r t PHasDRcs~ of speaking.

Phaedr. Explain. SOC. Rhetoric is like medicine. Phaedr. H o w so ? Sod. W h y , because medicine h a s to define t h e nature of

the body and rhetoric of the soul -if we would proceed, not empirically but scientifically, in the o n e case to impart health and strength by giving medicine and food, in the other to implant the conviction o r virtue which you desire, by the right application of words and training.

Phaedr. There, Socrates, I suspect that you a r e right. Svc. And d o you think that you can know the nature of the

soul intelligently without knowing the nature of the whole ? Phaedr. Hippocrates the Asclepiad says that t h e nature

even of the body can only be understood a s a whole'. SOC. Yes, friend, and he was right :-still, we ought not to

be content with the name of Hippocrates, but to examine and see whether his argument agrees with his conception of nature.

Phacdr. I agree. SOC. T h e n consider what truth a s well a s Hippocrates says First there

about this or about any other nature. Ought we not to con- Fi;:,": sider first whether that which we wish to learn and to teach thesoul. is a simple o r multiform thing, and if simple, then to enquire what power it h a s of acting o r being acted upon in relation to other things, and if multiform, then to number t h e forms; and see first in the case of one of them, and then in the case of all of them, what is that power of acting o r being acted upon which makes each and all of them to be what they a r e ?

Phaedr. You may very likely be right, Socrates. SOC. T h e method which proceeds without analysis is like

the groping of a blind man. Yet, surely, h e who is an artist ought not to admit o f a comparison with the blind, o r deaf. T h e rhetorician, who teaches his pupil to speak scientifically, will particularly set forth the nature of that being to which h e addresses his speeches ; and this, I conceive, to be the soul.

1 Cp. Chnmides, 156 C.

480 Phaedt-rrs. Phaedr. Certainly.

PHAEDaus*

The tn4e natu9.e of o r a t o v .

SOC. H i s whole effort is directed to the s o u l ; for in that 271

Phaedr. Yes. SOC. T h e n clearly, Thrasymachus o r any one else who

teaches rhetoric in earnest will give a n exact description of the nature of the s o u l ; which will enable u s to see whether she be single and same, or, like the body, multiform. T h a t is what we should call showing the nature of the soul.

he seeks to produce conviction.

Phaedr. Exactly. Soc. H e will explain, secondly, the mode in which s h e acts Then the

show or is acted upon. by what Phaedr. T r u e . means the soul affects SOC. Thirdly, having classified men and speeches, and or is af- their kinds and affections, and adapted them to o n e another, fectedn and he will tell the reasons of his arrangement, and show why why one SOU^ in one one soul is persuaded by a particular form of argument, and way and another not. another in another.

rhetorician

Phaedr. YOU have hit upon a very good way. SOC. Yes, that is the true and only way in which any sub-

ject can be set forth o r treated by rules of art, whether in speaking or writing. But t h e writers of the present day, a t whose feet you have sat, craftily conceal the nature of the soul which they know quite well. Nor, until they adopt our method of reading and writing, can we admit that they write by rules of a r t ?

Phnedr. W h a t is our method ? SOC. I cannot give you the exact details; but I should like

to tell you generally, a s far as is in my power, how a man ought to proceed according to rules of art.

Phnedr. L e t me hear. Oratoryis SOC. Oratory is the a r t of enchanting t h e soul, add there. the art Of fore he who would be an orator has to learn t h e differences of thesoul, human souls-they a r e so many and of such a nature, and andthere- from them come t h e differences between man and man. fore the Orator Having proceeded thus far in his analysis, h e will next learn the divide speeches into their different classes :--‘Such and such ofhuman persons,’ he will say, ‘ a r e affected by this o r that kind of soulsbyre- speech in this or that way,’ and h e will tell you why. The experience. pupil must have a good theoretical notion of them first, and

enchanting

differences

The so-cadled a r t of Rhetoric.

then he must have experience of them in actual life, and be P ~ U C & ~ W able to follow them with all his senses about him, o r h e will s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , never get beyond the precepts of his masters. But when P n A E u R " ~ . he understands what persons are persuaded by what argu- Knowledgp

2 7 2 ments, and sees t h e person about whom he was speaking in ofjndlvi- the abstract actually before him, and knows that it is he, and dual char- can say t o himself, ' T h i s i s the man o r this is t h e character :Esary who ought to have a certain argument applied to him in o r d e r to the to convince him of a certain opinion ; '-he who knows all rhetorician. this, and knows also when he should speak and when he should refrain, and when h e should use pithy sayings, pathetic appeals, sensational effects, and all the other modes of speech which h e h a s learned ;-when, I say, he knows the times and seasons of all these things, then, and not till then, h e is a perfect master of his a r t ; but if h e fail in any of these points, whether in speaking o r teaching o r writing them, and yet declares that he speaks by rules of art, he who says ' I don't believe you ' has the better of him. Well, the teacher will say, is this, Phaedrus and Socrates, your account of the so-called a r t of rhetoric, o r Pm I to look for another ?

Phaedr. H e must take this, Socrates, for there is no pos- sibility of another, and yet the creation of such an art is not easy.

SOC. Very true ; and therefore let u s consider this matter in every light, and see whether we cannot find a shorter and easier road ; there is no use in taking a long rough round- about way if there be a shorter and easier one. And I wish that you would try and remember whether you have heard from Lysias o r any o n e else anything which might be of service to us,

Phaedr. I f trying would avail, then I might; but at the moment I can think of nothing.

SOC. Suppose I tell you something which somebody who knows told me,

Phaedv. Certainly. SOC. May not ' t h e wolf,' a s t h e proverb says, 'claim a

Phaedr. Do you say what can be said for him. Soc. H e will argue that there is no use in putting a solemn But ' t h e

face o n these matters, o r in going round and round, until YOU ~ ~ ~ ~ Y s VOL. I. i i

hearing '3

48:' Roditst sophisfry.

Phaednis. arrive at first principles ; for, a s I said at first, when the ques- .ksArEs, tion is of justice and good, o r is a question in which men a r e

concerned who are just and good, either by nature o r habit, Of he who would be a skilful rhetorician has no need of truth-

caresabol,t for that in courts of law men literally care nothing about [ r ~ t t l . truth, but only about conviction : and this is based on proba-

bility, to which he who would be a skilful orator should there- fore give his whole attention. And they say also that there are cases in which the actual facts, if they are improbable, ought to be withheld, and only the probabilities should be told either in accusation o r defence, and that always in speaking, the orator should keep probability in view, and say good-bye to the truth. throughout a speech furnishes the whole art.

Phaedr. That is what the professors of rhetoric do actually say, Socrates. I have not forgotten that we have quite briefly touched upon this matter' already; with them the point is all-important.

Does he not define probability to be that which the many think ?

PHAEDWS.

law no one

And the observance of this principle 2 7 3

SOC. I dare say that you are familiar with Tisias.

Phaedr. Certainly, he does. SOC. I believe that he has a clever and ingenious case of

this sort:-He supposes a feeble and valiant man to have assaulted a strong and cowardly one, and to have robbed him of his coat or'of something or other ; he is brought into

-9ccording court, and then Tisias says that both parties should tell lies : either party the coward should say that he was assaulted by more men than should tell one ; the other should prove that they were alone, and should sort which argue thus : ' H o w could a weak man like me have assaulted t h e o t h e r a strong man like him?' T h e complainant will not like to unwilling confess his own cowardice, and will therefore invent some or unable other lie which his adversary will thus gain an opportunity of 'O refuting. And there are other devices of the same kind which

have a place in the system. Am I not right, Phaedrus?

to Tisias,

D lie of a

would be

Phaedr. Certainly. SOC. Bless me, what a wonderfully mysterious a r t is this

which Tisias or some other gentleman, in whatever name or country he rejoices, has discovered. Shall we say a word to him or n o t ?

' Cp. z j g E.

' iVot as pleasers of men, but of God.' 483 Phaedr. W h a t shall we s a y to him ? SOC. Let u s tell him that, before he appeared, you and I kaATEs,

were saying that t h e probability of which he speaks was PHAsDaus. engendered in t h e minds of the many by the likeness of the T$z: truth, and we had j u s t been affirming that h e who knew t h e manshould truth would always know best how to discover the resem- l e a r n t o s a y blances of the truth. I f he h a s anything else to say about the ceptable to art of speaking we should like to hear him ; but if not, we God. This a r e satisfied with o u r own view, that unless a man estimates ~e~~~~~ the various characters of his hearers and is able to divide ofrhetoric all things into classes and to comprehend them under single ideas, he will never be a skilful rhetorician even within the limits of human power. And this skill he will not attain without a great deal of trouble, which a good man ought to undergo, not for the sake of speaking and acting before men, but in o r d e r that h e may be able to say what is acceptable to God and always to act acceptably to H i m a s far a s in him

2 7 4 lies ; for there is a saying of wiser men than ourselves, that a man of sense should not try to please his fellow-servants (at least this should not be his first object) but his good and noble masters ; and therefore if the way i s long and circuitous, marvel not a t this, for, where the end is great, there we may take the longer road, but not for lesser ends such a s yours. Truly, the argument may say, Tisias, that if you do not mind going so far, rhetoric has a fair beginning here.

Phaedr. I think, Socrates, that this is admirable, if only practicable.

SOC. But even to fail in an honourable object is honourable. Phaedr. True. SOC. Enough appears to have been said by u s of a true and

false a r t of speaking. Phaedr. Certainly. SOC. But there is something yet to be said of propriety and

impropriety of writing. Phaedr. Yes. Soc. Do you know how you can speak o r act about rhetoric

Phaedr. No, indeed. SOC. I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true

or not they only know ; although if we had found the truth I i 2

Phaedrm.

what IS ac-

in a manner which will be acceptable to God ? Do you ?

484 Thamus and Theuth.

Phaedrus. %CRATES. PHAEDRUS.

The inge- nuity of the god Theuth. who was theinventor of letters, rebuked by King Thamus, also called Ammon.

ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men ?

Phaedr. Your question needs no answer ; but I wish that you would tell me what you say that you have heard.

SOC. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth ; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt ; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. T o him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved o r disapproved of them. I t would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyp- tians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memoryand for the wit. Thamus replied : 0 most ingenious Theuth, the parent o r inventor of a n art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have ; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness i n the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories ; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. T h e specific which you have dis- covered is a n aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth ; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing ; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing ; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, o r of any other country.

And in this instance, you who are the 275

The written word an im&ge on& of the s j o b z . 48 5 SOC. T h e r e was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that I%ae[irns

oaks first gave prophetic utterances. T h e men of old, unlike sWnArEs, in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they PH*EDRU5. heard t h e t r u t h even from 'oak or rock,' it was enough for T h e s c e p them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is phaed,,,s or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country reprovedby the tale comes.

Phaedr. I acknowledge t h e justice of your r e b u k e ; and I think that the T h e b a n i s right in his view about letters.

SOC. H e would be a very simple person, and quite a b'riting far stranger to the oracles of T h a m u s o r Ammon, who should :zi'-to' leave in writing o r receive in writing any a r t under the idea tion. that the written word would be intelligible o r certain ; o r who deemed that writing was a t all better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters ?

ticism of

Soeratee

Plzaedr. T h a t is most true. SOC. I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfor- Writing IS

tunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have :': P:::' the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they silent ever, preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of not, speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but speech, be if you want to know anything and put a question to one of adaptedto them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they a r e tumbled about anywhere among those who may o r may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not : and, if they a r e maltreated o r abused, they have no parent to protect them ; and they cannot protect o r defend themselves.

indinduals

Phaedr. T h a t again i s most true. soc. Is there not another kind of word o r speech far Butthere

better than this, and having far greater power-a son of the ~1~~~~ 276 same family, but lawfully begotten ? writing

graven on the tablets

Phaedr. W h o m d o you mean, and what is his origin ? soc. 1 mean a n intelligent word graven in the soul of the ofthemilid

learner, which can defend itself, and knows when to speak and when to be silent.

Phaedr. You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which the written word is properly no more than a n image ?

And now may *

SOC. Yes, of course that is what I mean.

486 Recajitzdatioiz in n j p r e .

P A ~ ~ ~ ~ Y U J , I be allowed to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, socRArEa, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and P H A E D ~ L b . which h e wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness plant IVhat man of sense would plant sccds in an artificial garden, to tiring forth fruit or flowers i n eight days, and not in deeper and iuore fitting soil ?

them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when h e sees them in eight days appcar- ing in beauty? at least h e would do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection ?

Phncdr. Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is i n earnest ; he will do the other, a s you say, only in play.

SOC. And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable has less understanding, than thc husbandman, about his own seeds ?

/’/inch,. Certainly not. SOC. ’I’hen he will not seriouslx incline to ‘ w r i t e ’ his

thoughts ‘in water’ with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach thc truth ade. quately to o t h e r s ?

Pllncdv. No, that is not likely. ,Is i i wq- Soc. Xo, that is not likely--in the garden of letters hc will

sow and plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amuse- IlMy pl.111t tii\ f,lir mcnt ; he will write them down a s memorials to be treasured tlioogliih i i i against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any t l l C pardcll

other old nian who is treading the sanie path. H e will rejoice in beholding their tender growth ; and while others are refreshing their souls with banqueting and the like, this will be the pastime in which his days are spent.

I’/zncd~ -4 pastime, Socrates, as noble as the othcr i s ignoble, the pastime of a man who can be amused by serious talk, and can discourse merrily about justice and the like.

Illit /,IF SOC. True, Phaedrus. But nobler far is the serious ,,.ill tie t o pursuit of the dialectician, who, finding a congenial soul, by implant the help of science sows and plants therein words which o w n a n d are able to help themselves and him who planted them, 277 o t h e r l l o t h and a r e not unfruitful, but have in them a seed which

others brought up in different soils render immortal, making the possessors of it happy to t h c utmost extent of human happiness.

t l l l l l : 11e

serious aiin

them in hi>

n;itiires.

The pidgeimvat t~,boii Lysias. 48 i Phaedr. Far nobler, certainly. , l'hnedrus. SOC. And now, Phaedrus, having agreed upon the prcniises socRnrKs,

Phaedr. About what conclusion ? SOC. About Lysias, whom we censured, and his art of

writing, and his discourses, and the rhetorical skill or want of skill which was shown in them-these are the questions which we sought to determine, and they brought us to this point. And I think that we are now pretty well informed about the nature of art and its opposite.

Ptinedr. Yes, I think with you ; but I wish that you would repeat what was said.

SOC. Until a man knows the truth of the several particulars The con- of which he is writing o r speaking, and is able to define them ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , & b t as they are, and having defined them again to divide them IIC able to until they can be no longer divided, and until in like manner &"'e~:l he is able to discern the nature of the soul, and discover the denote tilt: different modes of discourse which a r e adapted to different ~ ~ c ~ ~ > ~ natures, and to arrange and dispose them in such a way that speaking. the simple form of speech may be addressed to the simpler a n d t o d i s - nature, and the complex and composite to the more complex of nature-until h e has accomplished all this, he will be unable those\vholn to handle arguments according to rules of art, a s far as their dressing, nature allows them to be subjected to art, either for the purpose of teaching or persuading ;-such is the view which is implied ,in the whole preceding argument.

Phacdv. Yes, that was our view, certainly. SOC. Secondly, a s to the censure which was passcd on the

speaking o r writing of discourses, and how they might be rightly o r wrongly censured-did not our previous argument show-?

we may decide about the conclusion. P H A f DRCS.

cern the

he is ad-

Phaedv. Show what ? SOC. T h a t whether Lysias or any other writer that ever 'Ihelttgia-

was o r will be, whether private man o r statesman, proposes laws and so becomes the author of a political treatise, fancy- must know ing that there is any great certainty and clearness in his ~~~~~~~ performance, the fact of his so writing is only a disgrace to or injustice. him, whatever men may say. justice and injustice, and good and evil, and not to be able -ro L+,\ to distinguish the dream from the reality, cannot in truth be or to an).

For not to know the nature of f,Td

488 The message Lo Lysias a d Isocraks.

him.

Poets, orators, legislators, if their composi- tions are based on truth, ark worthy to be called philoso- phers.

P ~ ~ Y w . otherwise than disgraceful to him, even though he have the ~ o c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , applause of the whole world. P n ~ D a u s - Phaedr. Certainly. man ig- SOG. But he who thinks that in the written word there is norance of allthese necessarily much which is not serious, and that neither things is a poetry nor prose, spoken o r written, is of any great value, if, disgrace. like the compositions of the rhapsodes, they a r e only recited But if there is any one in o r d e r to be believed, and not with any view to criticism o r 2 7 8 whohas instruction; and who thinks that even the best of writings faith in oral instruction a r e but a reminiscence of what we know, and that only in a n d i n t h e principles of justice and goodness and nobility taught and cence of communicated orally for the sake of instruction and graven ideas,- in the s o d , which is the true way of writing, is there clear- sympathize, ness and perfection and seriousness, and that such principles and pray a r e a man’s own and his legitimate offspring ;--being, in the

rst place, the word which he finds in his own bosom; thatwemay f i become like secondly, the brethren and descendants and relations of his

reminis-

with him we

idea which have been duly implanted by him in t h e souls of others ;-and who cares for them and n o others-this is the right sort of man ; and you and I, Phaedrus, would pray that we may become like him.

Phaedr. T h a t is most assuredly my desire and prayer. SOC. And now the play i s played o u t ; and of rhetoric

enough. Go and tell Lysias that to the fountain and school of the Nymphs we went down, and were bidden by them to convey a message to him and t o other composers of speeches -to H o m e r and other writers of poems, whether set to music or not ; and to Solon and others who have composed writings in the form of political discourses which they would term laws-to all of them we a r e to say that if their compo. sitions a r e based on knowledge of t h e truth, and they can defend o r prove them, when they a r e put to the test, by spoken arguments, which leave their writings poor in corn- parison of them, then they a r e to be called, not only poets, orators, legislators, but are worthy of a higher name, befitting t h e serious pursuit of their life.

Phaedr. W h a t name would you assign t o them 3 SOC. Wise, I may not call them ; for that is a great name

which belongs to God alone,-lovers of wisdom o r philoso. phers is their modest and befitting title.

The prayer at dejadwe. 489 I’haedr. V e r y suitable. Phatdirrs. SOC. And he who cannot rise above his own compilations socurps,

and compositions, which he has been long patching and PHAEDRua piecing, adding some and taking away some, may be justly called poet o r speech-maker o r law-maker.

Phaedr. Certainly.

Phaedr. But there is also a friend of yours who ought not iGeyy SOC. W h o is he ? Phaedr. Isocrates the fair :-What message will you send

Soc. Isocrates is still young, Phaedrus ; but 1 am willing Another

Phaedr. W h a t would you prophesy?

SOC. Now go and tell this to your companion. Give this as

to be forgotten. Lysias.

279 to him, and how shall we describe h i m ?

to hazard a prophecy concerning him.

. message to Isocrate5, which is ex-

SOC. I think that he has a genius which soars above the orations of Lysias, and that his character. is cast in a finer the highest mould. improve as h e grows older, and that all former rhetoricians will be a s children in comparison of him. And I believe that he will not be satisfied with rhetoric, but that there is in him a divine inspiration which will lead him to things higher still. F o r he h a s a n element of philosophy in his nature. T h i s is the message of the gods dwelling in this place, and which I will myself deliver to Isocrates, who i s my delight ; and d o you give the other to Lysias, who is yours.

Phaedr. I will; and now as the heat i s abated let u s depart.

SOC. Should we not offer up a prayer first of all to the local deities?

Phaedr. By all means. SOC. Beloved Pan, and all ye other gods who haunt this

place, give m e beauty in the inward swl; a n d may the outward and inward man be a t one. May I reckon the wise to be the wealthy, and may I have such a quantity of gold a s a temperate man and he only can bear and carry.-Anything more ? T h e prayer, I think, i s enough for me.

Phaedr. Ask the same for me, for friends should have all things in common.

SOC. L e t us go.

My impression of him i s that h e will marvellously Praise.