Dialogues

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 harmony itself.” Phaedrus Very true. Socrates And will not Sophocles say to the display of the would-be tragedian, that this is not tragedy but the preliminaries of tragedy? and will not Acumenus say the same of medicine to the would-be physician? Phaedrus Quite true. Socrates And if Adrastus the mellifluous or Pericles heard of these wonderful arts, brachylogies and eikonologies and all the hard names which we have been endeavouring 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, Phaedrus and Socrates, they would say; you should not be in such a passion 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 it, and when these have been taught by them to others, fancy that the whole art of rhetoric has been taught by them; but as to using the several instruments of the art effectively, or making the composition a whole⁠—an application of it such as this is they regard as an easy thing which their disciples may make for themselves.” Phaedrus I quite admit, Socrates, that the art of rhetoric which these men teach and of which they write is such as you describe⁠—there I agree with you. But I still want to know where and how the true art of rhetoric and persuasion is to be acquired. Socrates The perfection which is required of the finished orator is, or rather must be, like the perfection of anything else; partly given by nature, but may also be assisted by art. If you have the natural power and add to it knowledge and practice, you will be a distinguished speaker; if you fall short in either of these, you will be to that extent defective. But the art, as far as there is an art, of rhetoric does not lie in the direction of Lysias or Thrasymachus. Phaedrus In what direction then? Socrates I conceive Pericles to have been the most accomplished of rhetoricians. Phaedrus What of that? Socrates All the great arts require discussion and high speculation about the truths of nature; hence come loftiness of thought and completeness of execution. And this, as I conceive, was the quality which, in addition to his natural gifts, Pericles acquired from his intercourse with Anaxagoras whom he happened to know. He was thus imbued with the higher philosophy, and attained the knowledge of Mind and the negative of Mind, which were favourite themes of Anaxagoras, and applied what suited his purpose to the art of speaking. Phaedrus Explain. Socrates Rhetoric is like medicine. Phaedrus How so? Socrates Why, because medicine has to define the nature of the body and rhetoric of the soul⁠—if we 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 or virtue which you desire, by the right application of words and training. Phaedrus There, Socrates, I suspect that you are right. Socrates And do you think that you can know the nature of the soul intelligently without knowing the nature of the whole? Phaedrus Hippocrates the Asclepiad says that the nature even of the body can only be understood as a whole.58 Socrates 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. Phaedrus I agree. Socrates Then consider what truth as well as Hippocrates says about this or about any other nature. Ought we not to consider first whether that which we wish to learn and to teach is a simple or multiform thing, and if simple, then to enquire what power it has of acting or being acted upon in relation to other things, and if multiform, then to number the 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 or being acted upon which makes each and all of them to be what they are? Phaedrus You may very likely be right, Socrates. Socrates The method which proceeds without analysis is like the groping of a blind man. Yet, surely, he who is an artist ought not to admit of a comparison with the blind, or deaf. The rhetorician, who teaches his pupil to speak scientifically, will particularly set forth the nature of that being to which he addresses his speeches; and this, I conceive, to be the soul. Phaedrus Certainly. Socrates His whole effort is directed to the soul; for in that he seeks to produce conviction. Phaedrus Yes. Socrates Then clearly, Thrasymachus or anyone else who teaches rhetoric in earnest will give an exact description of the nature of the soul; which will enable us to see whether she be single and same, or, like the body, multiform. That is what we should call showing the nature of the soul. Phaedrus Exactly. Socrates He will explain, secondly, the mode in which she acts or is acted upon. Phaedrus True. Socrates Thirdly, having classified men and speeches, and their kinds and affections, and adapted them to one another, he will tell the reasons of his arrangement, and show why one soul is persuaded by a particular form of argument, and another not. Phaedrus You have hit upon a very good way. Socrates 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, craftily conceal the nature of the soul which they