phaedrus-第10章

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！





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。



　　Soc。　Leave　the　unimportant　and　let　us　bring　the　really　important



question　into　the　light　of　day；　which　is：　What　power　has　this　art　of



rhetoric；　and　when？



　　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；　or



to　his　father　Acumenus；　and　to　say　to　him：　〃I　know　how　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　to　make　physicians　by



imparting　this　knowledge　to　others；〃…what　do　you　suppose　that　they



would　say？



　　Phaedr。　They　would　be　sure　to　ask　him　whether　he　knew　〃to　whom〃　he



would　give　his　medicines；　and　〃when；〃　and　〃how　much。〃



　　Soc。　And　suppose　that　he　were　to　reply：　〃No；　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　or　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　Euripides　and



say　that　he　knows　how　to　make　a　very　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…？



　　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　as　a　musician　would　a　man　who　thinks　that



he　is　a　harmonist　because　he　knows　how　to　pitch　the　highest　and　lowest



notes；　happening　to　meet　such　an　one　he　would　not　say　to　him　savagely；



〃Fool；　you　are　mad！〃　But　like　a　musician；　in　a　gentle　and　harmonious



tone　of　voice；　he　would　answer：　〃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　harmony



itself。〃



　　Phaedr。　Very　true。



　　Soc。　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？



　　Phaedr。　Quite　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　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。〃



　　Phaedr。　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。



　　Soc。　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。



　　Phaedr。　In　what　direction　the