Phaedrus — Plato

l66 PLATO THE TEACHER to apply drugs which shall have either a heating or a cooling effect, and I can give a vomit and also a purge, and all that sort of thing ; and knowing all this, as I do, I claim to be a physician and a teacher of physic'' — what do you suppose that they would say ? Phcedr, They would be sure to ask him whether he knew " to whom '* he would give them, and ** when,'* and ''how much.

' * Soc, And suppose that he were to reply : ** No ; I know nothing of that ; I expect those whom I have taught all this to do that of themselves. ' ' Fhcedr, They would reply that he is a madman or a pedant who fancies that he is a physician, because he has read something in a book, or has stumbled on a few drugs, although he has no real understanding of the art of medicine. Soc.

And suppose a person were to come to Sophocles or Euripides * and say that he knows how to make a long speech about a small matter, and a short speech about a great matter, and also a sorrowful speech, or a terrible, or threatening speech, or any other kind of speech, and in teaching this fancies that he is teaching the art of tragedy ? Fhcedr.

They too would surely laugh at him if he fancies that tragedy is anything but the arranging of these elements in a manner suitable to one another and to the whole. Soc, But I do not suppose that they would be rude to him or revile him.

Would they not treat him as a musician would treat a man who thinks that he is a harmonist because he knows how to pitch the highest and lowest note ; happening to meet such a one he would not say to him savagely, '* Fool, you are mad ! ** O, no ; he would rather say to him in a gentle and musical tone of voice: **My good friend, he who would be a harmonist must certainly know this, and yet he may understand nothing of harmony if he has not got beyond your stage of knowledge, for you only know the preliminaries of harmony and not harmonies.

' * , Fhcedr, Very true. Soc, And would not Sophocles say to the display of the would-be tragedian, that this was not tragedy but the preliminaries of tragedy, and would not Acumenus say to ••Sophocles (s6fo-kleZj 495-405 B.C.), Euripides (u-rfp'i-dez, 480-406 B.C.^: great Athenian writers of tragedy.

PH.EDRUS 16/ the would-be doctor that this was not medicine but the preliminaries of medicine ? Fhcedr, Very true. Soc, And if Adrastus ^^ the mellifluous or Pericles ® heard of these wonderful arts, brachylogies and eikonologies ^ and all the hard names which we have been endeavoring to draw into the light of day, what would they say ?

Instead of losing temper and applying uncomplimentary epithets, as you and I have been doing to the authors of such an imaginary art, their superior wisdom would rather censure us, as well as them.

Have a little patience, Phsedrus and Socrates, they would say, and don't be angry with those who from some want of dialectical skill are unable to define the nature of rhetoric, and consequently suppose that they have found the art in the preliminary conditions of the art, and when they have taught these to others, fancy that they have been teaching the whole art of rhetoric ; but as to persuasion in detail and unity of composition, that they regard as an easy thing with which their disciples may supply themselves.

Fhcedr. I quite admit, Socrates, that the art of rhetoric which these men teach and of which they write is such as you describe — in that I agree with you. But I still want to know where and how the true art of rhetoric and persuasion is to be acquired. Soc.

The perfection of oratory is, or rather must be, like » the perfection of all things, partly given by nature ; but this 1 is assisted by art, and if you have the natural power you will ; be famous as a rhetorician, if you only add knowledge and practice, and in either you may fall short. But the art, as far as there is an art, of rhetoric does not lie in the direction of, Tisias'* or Thrasymachus. Fhcedr, But in what direction then ?

Soc, I should conceive that Pericles was the most accomplished of rhetoricians. Fhcedr. What of that ? Soc. All the higher arts require much discussion and lofty contemplation of nature ; this is the source of sublimity and A> Adrastus (^-drSs'tus). »* See Protagoras, note 37. »* Brachylogies : brevity in speech or writing. Eikonology': figurative speakinpf. A* Tisias (tfs7-as) : a rhetorician.

1 p. 68perfect comprehensive power. And this, as I conceive, was the quality which, in addition to his natural gifts, Pericles acquired from his happening to know Anaxagoras.** He ' was imbued with the higher philosophy, and attained the knowledge of mind and matter, which was the favorite theme of Anaxagoras, and hence he drew what was applicable to his art. Phcedr, Explain. Soc, Rhetoric is like medicine. Phcedr, How is that?

Soc. Why, because medicine has to define the nature of the body and rhetoric of the soul — if you would proceed, not empirically but scientifically, in the one case to impart health and strength by giving medicine and food, in the other to implant the conviction which you require by the right use of words and principles. Phcedr.

You are probably right in that. [The physician must study the body in whole and part that he may understand its nature and know how it may be affected at different times and in different ways. Just so must the rhetorician study the soul that his efforts may be intel- ' ligent when he seeks to produce conviction in a soul.] Soc.

Then clearly, Thrasymachus or any one else who elaborates a system of rhetoric will give an exact description of the soul ; which he will make to appear either as single and same, or, like the body, multiform. That is what we should call showing the nature of the soul. Phcedr. Exactly. Soc, He wdll next proceed to speak of the instruments by which the soul acts or is affected in any way. Phcedr, True.

Soc, Thirdly, having arranged men and speeches, and their modes and affections in different classes, and fitted them into one another he will point out the connection between them — he will show why one is naturally persuaded by a particular form of argument, and another not. 6* Anaxagoras (Sn-Sks-Sg'o-ras 500 (?)-42o B.C.) :a Greek philosopher; a friend of Pericles; banished from Athens 434 B.C. on charge of atheism.

He attempted to explain nature partly by blindly working material causes, and partly by the occasional intervention of minci. See Phaedo, 97, summary.