phaedrus-第13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！





flood　to　the　place　of　starting。　His　address　to　the　fair　youth　begins



where　the　lover　would　have　ended。　Am　I　not　right；　sweet　Phaedrus？



　　Phaedr。　Yes；　indeed；　Socrates；　he　does　begin　at　the　end。



　　Soc。　Then　as　to　the　other　topics…are　they　not　thrown　down　anyhow？　Is



there　any　principle　in　them？　Why　should　the　next　topic　follow　next



in　order；　or　any　other　topic？　I　cannot　help　fancying　in　my　ignorance



that　he　wrote　off　boldly　just　what　came　into　his　head；　but　I　dare



say　that　you　would　recognize　a　rhetorical　necessity　in　the



succession　of　the　several　parts　of　the　composition？



　　Phaedr。　You　have　too　good　an　opinion　of　me　if　you　think　that　I



have　any　such　insight　into　his　principles　of　composition。



　　Soc。　At　any　rate；　you　will　allow　that　every　discourse　ought　to　be



a　living　creature；　having　a　body　of　its　own　and　a　head　and　feet；　there



should　be　a　middle；　beginning；　and　end；　adapted　to　one　another　and



to　the　whole？



　　Phaedr。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　Can　this　be　said　of　the　discourse　of　Lysias？　See　whether　you



can　find　any　more　connexion　in　his　words　than　in　the　epitaph　which



is　said　by　some　to　have　been　inscribed　on　the　grave　of　Midas　the



Phrygian。



　　Phaedr。　What　is　there　remarkable　in　the　epitaph？



　　Soc。　It　is　as　follows：…







　　　I　am　a　maiden　of　bronze　and　lie　on　the　tomb　of　Midas；



　　　So　long　as　water　flows　and　tall　trees　grow；



　　　So　long　here　on　this　spot　by　his　sad　tomb　abiding；



　　　I　shall　declare　to　passers…by　that　Midas　sleeps　below。







Now　in　this　rhyme　whether　a　line　comes　first　or　comes　last；　as　you



will　perceive；　makes　no　difference。



　　Phaedr。　You　are　making　fun　of　that　oration　of　ours。



　　Soc。　Well；　I　will　say　no　more　about　your　friend's　speech　lest　I



should　give　offence　to　you；　although　I　think　that　it　might　furnish



many　other　examples　of　what　a　man　ought　rather　to　avoid。　But　I　will



proceed　to　the　other　speech；　which；　as　I　think；　is　also　suggestive



to　students　of　rhetoric。



　　Phaedr。　In　what　way？



　　Soc。　The　two　speeches；　as　you　may　remember；　were　unlike…I　the　one



argued　that　the　lover　and　the　other　that　the　non…lover　ought　to　be



accepted。



　　Phaedr。　And　right　manfully。



　　Soc。　You　should　rather　say　〃madly〃；　and　madness　was　the　argument



of　them；　for；　as　I　said；　〃love　is　a　madness。〃



　　Phaedr。　Yes。



　　Soc。　And　of　madness　there　were　two　kinds；　one　produced　by　human



infirmity；　the　other　was　a　divine　release　of　the　soul　from　the　yoke　of



custom　and　convention。



　　Phaedr。　True。



　　Soc。　The　divine　madness　was　subdivided　into　four　kinds；　prophetic；



initiatory；　poetic；　erotic；　having　four　gods　presiding　over　them；



the　first　was　the　inspiration　of　Apollo；　the　second　that　of



Dionysus；　the　third　that　of　the　Muses；　the　fourth　that　of　Aphrodite



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　eik