phaedrus-第14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！





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　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