Phaedrus — Plato
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
PH^EDRUS 169 Phcedr, That will certainly be a very good way. Soc. Yes, that is the true and only way in which any subject can be set forth or treated by rules of art, whether in speaking or writing. But the writers of the present day, at whose feet you have sat, improperly conceal all this about 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 art. Phadr.
What is our method ? Soc. I cannot give you the exact details ; but I should like to tell you generally, as far as I can, how a man ought to proceed according to the rules of art. Phcedr, Let me hear. Soc.
Oratory is the art of enchanting the soul, and therefore he who would be an orator has to learn the differences of human souls — they are so many and of such a nature, and from them come the differences between man and man — ^he will then proceed to divide speeches into their different classes.
Such and such persons, he will say, are affected by this or that kind of speech in this or that way, and he will tell you why ; he must have a theoretical notion of them first, and then he must see them in action, and be able to follow them with all his senses about him, or he will never get beyond the precepts of his masters.
But when he is able to say what persons are persuaded by what arguments, and recognize the individual about whom he used to theorize as actually pres- ^7^* ent to him, and say to himself, *' This is he and this is '^ the sort of man who ought to have that argument applied to him in order to convince him of this ; *' when he has attained the knowledge of all this, and knows also when he should speak and when he should abstain from speaking, and when he should make use of pithy sayings, pathetic appeals, aggravated effects, and all the other figures of speech ; when, I say, he knows the times and seasons of all these things, then, and not till then, he is perfect and a consummate master of his art ; but if he fail in any of these points, whether in speaking or teach- • ing or writing them, and says that he speaks by rules of art, he who denies this has the better of him.
Well, the teacher will say, is this, Phaedrus and Socrates, your account of the art of rhetoric, or am I to look for another ? Phcedr. He must take this, Socrates, for there is no possip. 170bility of another, and yet the creation of such an art is not easy. [Now some say that this is a long rough road to the art of rhetoric, and that there is a shorter and easier one which ought to be followed. Their argument is like this : Where goodness or justice is the question at issue, the rhetorician has no need of truth. In the law courts, for example, men care nothing about truth, but only about conviction.
Now conviction is based on probability, and facts ought to be withheld. It is the business of either party to invent lies which the other cannot refute. Therefore the orator should say good-by to truth and give Ws whole attention to probability.] These and others like them are the precepts of the doctors of the art. Am I not right, Phaedrus ? Phcedr, Certainly.
Soc, I cannot help feeling that this is a wonderfully mysterious art which Tisias has discovered, or whoever the gentleman was, or whatever his name or country may have been, who was the discoverer. Shall we say a word to him or not ? Phcedr, What shall we say to him ? Soc.
Let us tell him that, before he appeared, you and I were saying that probability was engendered in the minds of the many by the Hkeness of the truth, and were setting forth that he who knew the truth would always know how best to discover the resemblances of the truth.
If he has anything further to say about the art of speaking we should like to hear him ; but if not, we are satisfied with our own view, that unless a man estimates the various characters of his hearers and is able to divide existences into classes and to sum them up in single ideas, he will never be a skillful rhetorician even within the limits of human power.
And this art 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 order that he may be able to say what is acceptable to God and in all things to act acceptably to him as far as in him lies ; for there is a saying of wiser men than our- '^ selves, that a man of sense should not try to please his fellow-servants (at least this should not be his principal object) but his good and noble masters^ so that, if the way is
PHiEDRUS 171 long and circuitous, marvel not at this ; for, where the end is great, there the way may be permitted to be long, but not for lesser ends such as yours. Truly, the argument may say, Tisias, that if you do not mind going so far, rhetoric has a fair beginning in this. Phcedr. I think, Socrates, that this is admirable, if only practicable. Soc. But even to fail in an honorable object is honorable. Phadr, True.
Soc, I think that enough has been said of a true and false art of speaking. Phcedr, Certainly. Soc, But there is something yet to be said of propriety ^' and impropriety of writing. Phcedr, Yes. Soc. Do you know how you can speak or act about rhetoric in a manner which will be acceptable' to God ? Phcedr, No, indeed. Do you ? Soc, I have heard a tradition of antiquity, whether trueor not, antiquity only knows.
If we had the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men? Phcedr, That is a question which 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 was 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 Thamus ® was the king of the whole of Upper Egypt, which is the district surrounding that great city which is called by the Hellenes Egyptian Thebes,'® and they call the god himself Ammon.
To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them ; he went through them, and Thamus inquired about their sev- ** Naucratis (ngu-kr&'tis) : a city in the Delta of Egypt, on a branch of the Nile. »» Theuth (thttth). "Thamus rthi'mus). »• Thebes (tnebz) : the ancient capital of Upper Egypt
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 1.