phaedrus-第11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！
Thrasymachus。
Phaedr。 In what direction then？
Soc。 I conceive Pericles to have been the most accomplished of
rhetoricians。
Phaedr。 What of that？
Soc。 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。
Phaedr。 Explain。
Soc。 Rhetoric is like medicine。
Phaedr。 How so？
Soc。 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。
Phaedr。 There； Socrates； I suspect that you are right。
Soc。 And do 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 the nature even of the
body can only be understood as 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。
Phaedr。 I agree。
Soc。 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。 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？
Phaedr。 You may very likely be right； Socrates。
Soc。 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。
Phaedr。 Certainly。
Soc。 His whole effort is directed to the soul； for in that he
seeks to produce conviction。
Phaedr。 Yes。
Soc。 Then clearly； Thrasymachus or any one 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。
Phaedr。 Exactly。
Soc。 He will explain； secondly； the mode in which she acts or is
acted upon。
Phaedr。 True。
Soc。 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。
Phaedr。 You have hit upon 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； 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 art？
Phaedr。 What is our method？
Soc。 I cannot give you the exact details； but I should like to
tell you generally； as far as is in my power； how a man ought to
proceed according to rules of art。
Phaedr。 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。 Having proceeded thus far in his analysis； he
will next 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。 The pupil must have
a good theoretical notion of them first； and then he must have
experience of them in actual life； 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 understands what persons are persuaded by
what arguments； and sees the person about whom he was speaking in
the abstract actually before him； and knows that it is he； and can say
to himself； 〃This is the man or this is the character who ought to
have a certain argument applied to him in order to convince him of a
certain opinion〃； …he who knows all this； and knows also when he
should speak and when he should refrain； and when he should use
pithy sayings； pathetic appeals； sensational effects； and all the
other modes of speech which he has learned；…when； I say； he knows
the times and seasons of all these things； then； and not till then； he
is a perfect master of his art； but if he fail in any of these points；
whether in speaking or teaching or 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； and Socrates； your
account of the so…called art of rhetoric； or am I to look for another？
Phaedr。 He must take this； Socrates for there is no possibility of
another； and yet the creation of such an art is not easy。
Soc。 Very true； and therefore let us 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 or any one else anything which might be of
service to us。
Phaedr。 If 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。
Phaedr。 Certainly。
Soc。 May not 〃the wolf；〃 as the proverb says； claim a hearing〃？
Phaedr。 Do you say what can be said for him。
Soc。 He will argue that is no use in putting a solemn face on
these matters； or in going round and round； until you arrive at
first principles； for； as I said at first； when the question is of
justice and good； or is a question in which men are concerned who
are just and good； either by nature or habit； he who would be a
skilful rhetorician has； no need of truth…for that in courts of law
men literally care nothing about truth； but only about conviction： and
this is based on probability； to which who would be a skilful orator
should therefore 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 or defence； and that always in speaking； the orator
should keep probability in view； and say good…bye to the truth。 And
the observance； of this principle 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。
Soc。 I dare say that you are familiar with Tisias。 Does he not
define probability to be that which the many think？
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 court； and then Tisias says
that both parties should tell lies： the coward should say that he
was assaulted by more men than one； the other should prove that they
were alone； and should argue thus： 〃How could a weak man like me
have assaulted a strong man like him？〃 The complainant will not like
to confess his own cowardice； and will therefore invent some other lie
which his adversary will thus gain an opportunity of refuting。 And
there are other devices of the same kind which have a place in the
system。 Am I not right； Phaedrus？
Phaedr。 Certainly。
Soc。 Bless me； what a wonderfully mysterious art 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 not？
Phaedr。 What shall we say to him？
Soc。 Let us tell him that； before he appeared； you and I were saying
that the probability of which he speaks was engendered in the minds of
the many by the likeness of the truth； and we had just been
affirming that he who knew the truth would always know best how to
discover the resemblances of the truth。 If he has anything else 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 heaters and is able to divide 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 order that he may be able to say what is acceptable
to God and always to act acceptably to Him as far as in him 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 is long and circuitous； marvel not at this； for； where
the end is great； there we may take the longer road； but not for
lesser ends such as yours。 Truly； the argument may say； Tisias； that
if you do not mind going so
