                                     360 BC

                                    PHAEDRUS

                                    by Plato

                         translated by Benjamin Jowett

PHAEDRUS

  PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: SOCRATES; PHAEDRUS. Scene: Under a

plane-tree, by the banks of the Ilissus.



  Socrates. My dear Phaedrus, whence come you, and whither are you

going?

  Phaedrus. I come from Lysias the son of Cephalus, and I am going

to take a walk outside the wall, for I have been sitting with him

the whole morning; and our common friend Acumenus tells me that it

is much more refreshing to walk in the open air than to be shut up

in a cloister.

  Soc. There he is right. Lysias then, I suppose, was in the town?

  Phaedr. Yes, he was staying with Epicrates, here at the house of

Morychus; that house which is near the temple of Olympian Zeus.

  Soc. And how did he entertain you? Can I be wrong in supposing

that Lysias gave you a feast of discourse?

  Phaedr. You shall hear, if you can spare time to accompany me.

  Soc. And should I not deem the conversation of you and Lysias "a

thing of higher import," as I may say in the words of Pindar, "than

any business"?

  Phaedr. Will you go on?

  Soc. And will you go on with the narration?

  Phaedr. My tale, Socrates, is one of your sort, for love was the

theme which occupied us -love after a fashion: Lysias has been writing

about a fair youth who was being tempted, but not by a lover; and this

was the point: he ingeniously proved that the non-lover should be

accepted rather than the lover.

  Soc. O that is noble of him! I wish that he would say the poor man

rather than the rich, and the old man rather than the young one;

then he would meet the case of me and of many a man; his words would

be quite refreshing, and he would be a public benefactor. For my part,

I do so long to hear his speech, that if you walk all the way to

Megara, and when you have reached the wall come back, as Herodicus

recommends, without going in, I will keep you company.

  Phaedr. What do you mean, my good Socrates? How can you imagine that

my unpractised memory can do justice to an elaborate work, which the

greatest rhetorician of the age spent a long time in composing.

Indeed, I cannot; I would give a great deal if I could.

  Soc. I believe that I know Phaedrus about as well as I know

myself, and I am very sure that the speech of Lysias was repeated to

him, not once only, but again and again;-he insisted on hearing it

many times over and Lysias was very willing to gratify him; at last,

when nothing else would do, he got hold of the book, and looked at

what he most wanted to see,-this occupied him during the whole

morning; -and then when he was tired with sitting, he went out to take

a walk, not until, by the dog, as I believe, he had simply learned

by heart the entire discourse, unless it was unusually long, and he

went to a place outside the wall that he might practise his lesson.

There he saw a certain lover of discourse who had a similar

weakness;-he saw and rejoiced; now thought he, "I shall have a partner

in my revels." And he invited him to come and walk with him. But

when the lover of discourse begged that he would repeat the tale, he

gave himself airs and said, "No I cannot," as if he were indisposed;

although, if the hearer had refused, he would sooner or later have

been compelled by him to listen whether he would or no. Therefore,

Phaedrus, bid him do at once what he will soon do whether bidden or

not.

  Phaedr. I see that you will not let me off until I speak in some

fashion or other; verily therefore my best plan is to speak as I

best can.

  Soc. A very true remark, that of yours.

  Phaedr. I will do as I say; but believe me, Socrates, I did not

learn the very words-O no; nevertheless I have a general notion of

what he said, and will give you a summary of the points in which the

lover differed from the non-lover. Let me begin at the beginning.

  Soc. Yes, my sweet one; but you must first of all show what you have

in your left hand under your cloak, for that roll, as I suspect, is

the actual discourse. Now, much as I love you, I would not have you

suppose that I am going to have your memory exercised at my expense,

if you have Lysias himself here.

  Phaedr. Enough; I see that I have no hope of practising my art

upon you. But if I am to read, where would you please to sit?

  Soc. Let us turn aside and go by the Ilissus; we will sit down at

some quiet spot.

  Phaedr. I am fortunate in not having my sandals, and as you never

have any, I think that we may go along the brook and cool our feet

in the water; this will be the easiest way, and at midday and in the

summer is far from being unpleasant.

  Soc. Lead on, and look out for a place in which we can sit down.

  Phaedr. Do you see the tallest plane-tree in the distance?

  Soc. Yes.

  Phaedr. There are shade and gentle breezes, and grass on which we

may either sit or lie down.

  Soc. Move forward.

  Phaedr. I should like to know, Socrates, whether the place is not

somewhere here at which Boreas is said to have carried off Orithyia

from the banks of the Ilissus?

  Soc. Such is the tradition.

  Phaedr. And is this the exact spot? The little stream is

delightfully clear and bright; I can fancy that there might be maidens

playing near.

  Soc. I believe that the spot is not exactly here, but about a

quarter of a mile lower down, where you cross to the temple of

Artemis, and there is, I think, some sort of an altar of Boreas at the

place.

  Phaedr. I have never noticed it; but I beseech you to tell me,

Socrates, do you believe this tale?

  Soc. The wise are doubtful, and I should not be singular if, like

them, I too doubted. I might have a rational explanation that Orithyia

was playing with Pharmacia, when a northern gust carried her over

the neighbouring rocks; and this being the manner of her death, she

was said to have been carried away by Boreas. There is a

discrepancy, however, about the locality; according to another version

of the story she was taken from Areopagus, and not from this place.

Now I quite acknowledge that these allegories are very nice, but he is

not to be envied who has to invent them; much labour and ingenuity

will be required of him; and when he has once begun, he must go on and

rehabilitate Hippocentaurs and chimeras dire. Gorgons and winged

steeds flow in apace, and numberless other inconceivable and

portentous natures. And if he is sceptical about them, and would

fain reduce them one after another to the rules of probability, this

sort of crude philosophy will take up a great deal of time. Now I have

no leisure for such enquiries; shall I tell you why? I must first know

myself, as the Delphian inscription says; to be curious about that

which is not my concern, while I am still in ignorance of my own self,

would be ridiculous. And therefore I bid farewell to all this; the

common opinion is enough for me. For, as I was saying, I want to

know not about this, but about myself: am I a monster more complicated

and swollen with passion than the serpent Typho, or a creature of a

gentler and simpler sort, to whom Nature has given a diviner and

lowlier destiny? But let me ask you, friend: have we not reached the

plane-tree to which you were conducting us?

  Phaedr. Yes, this is the tree.

  Soc. By Here, a fair resting-place, full of summer sounds and

scents. Here is this lofty and spreading plane-tree, and the agnus

cast us high and clustering, in the fullest blossom and the greatest

fragrance; and the stream which flows beneath the plane-tree is

deliciously cold to the feet. Judging from the ornaments and images,

this must be a spot sacred to Achelous and the Nymphs. How

delightful is the breeze:-so very sweet; and there is a sound in the

air shrill and summerlike which makes answer to the chorus of the

cicadae. But the greatest charm of all is the grass, like a pillow

gently sloping to the head. My dear Phaedrus, you have been an

admirable guide.

  Phaedr. What an incomprehensible being you are, Socrates: when you

are in the country, as you say, you really are like some stranger

who is led about by a guide. Do you ever cross the border? I rather

think that you never venture even outside the gates.

  Soc. Very true, my good friend; and I hope that you will excuse me

when you hear the reason, which is, that I am a lover of knowledge,

and the men who dwell in the city are my teachers, and not the trees

or the country. Though I do indeed believe that you have found a spell

with which to draw me out of the city into the country, like a

hungry cow before whom a bough or a bunch of fruit is waved. For

only hold up before me in like manner a book, and you may lead me

all round Attica, and over the wide world. And now having arrived, I

intend to lie down, and do you choose any posture in which you can

read best. Begin.

  Phaedr. Listen. You know how matters stand with me; and how, as I

conceive, this affair may be arranged for the advantage of both of us.

And I maintain that I ought not to fail in my suit, because I am not

your lover: for lovers repent of the kindnesses which they have

shown when their passion ceases, but to the non-lovers who are free

and not under any compulsion, no time of repentance ever comes; for

they confer their benefits according to the measure of their

ability, in the way which is most conducive to their own interest.

Then again, lovers consider how by reason of their love they have

neglected their own concerns and rendered service to others: and

when to these benefits conferred they add on the troubles which they

have endured, they think that they have long ago made to the beloved a

very ample return. But the non-lover has no such tormenting

recollections; he has never neglected his affairs or quarrelled with

his relations; he has no troubles to add up or excuse to invent; and

being well rid of all these evils, why should he not freely do what

will gratify the beloved?

  If you say that the lover is more to be esteemed, because his love

is thought to be greater; for he is willing to say and do what is

hateful to other men, in order to please his beloved;-that, if true,

is only a proof that he will prefer any future love to his present,

and will injure his old love at the pleasure of the new. And how, in a

matter of such infinite importance, can a man be right in trusting

himself to one who is afflicted with a malady which no experienced

person would attempt to cure, for the patient himself admits that he

is not in his right mind, and acknowledges that he is wrong in his

mind, but says that he is unable to control himself? And if he came to

his right mind, would he ever imagine that the desires were good which

he conceived when in his wrong mind? Once more, there are many more

non-lovers than lovers; and if you choose the best of the lovers,

you will not have many to choose from; but if from the non-lovers, the

choice will be larger, and you will be far more likely to find among

them a person who is worthy of your friendship. If public opinion be

your dread, and you would avoid reproach, in all probability the

lover, who is always thinking that other men are as emulous of him

as he is of them, will boast to some one of his successes, and make

a show of them openly in the pride of his heart;-he wants others to

know that his labour has not been lost; but the non-lover is more

his own master, and is desirous of solid good, and not of the

opinion of mankind. Again, the lover may be generally noted or seen

following the beloved (this is his regular occupation), and whenever

they are observed to exchange two words they are supposed to meet

about some affair of love either past or in contemplation; but when

non-lovers meet, no one asks the reason why, because people know

that talking to another is natural, whether friendship or mere

pleasure be the motive.

  Once more, if you fear the fickleness of friendship, consider that

in any other case a quarrel might be a mutual calamity; but now,

when you have given up what is most precious to you, you will be the

greater loser, and therefore, you will have more reason in being

afraid of the lover, for his vexations are many, and he is always

fancying that every one is leagued against him. Wherefore also he

debars his beloved from society; he will not have you intimate with

the wealthy, lest they should exceed him in wealth, or with men of

education, lest they should be his superiors in understanding; and

he is equally afraid of anybody's influence who has any other

advantage over himself. If he can persuade you to break with them, you

are left without friend in the world; or if, out of a regard to your

own interest, you have more sense than to comply with his desire,

you will have to quarrel with him. But those who are non-lovers, and

whose success in love is the reward of their merit, will not be

jealous of the companions of their beloved, and will rather hate those

who refuse to be his associates, thinking that their favourite is

slighted by the latter and benefited by the former; for more love than

hatred may be expected to come to him out of his friendship with

others. Many lovers too have loved the person of a youth before they

knew his character or his belongings; so that when their passion has

passed away, there is no knowing whether they will continue to be

his friends; whereas, in the case of non-lovers who were always

friends, the friendship is not lessened by the favours granted; but

the recollection of these remains with them, and is an earnest of good

things to come.

  Further, I say that you are likely to be improved by me, whereas the

lover will spoil you. For they praise your words and actions in a

wrong way; partly, because they are afraid of offending you, and also,

their judgment is weakened by passion. Such are the feats which love

exhibits; he makes things painful to the disappointed which give no

pain to others; he compels the successful lover to praise what ought

not to give him pleasure, and therefore the beloved is to be pitied

rather than envied. But if you listen to me, in the first place, I, in

my intercourse with you, shall not merely regard present enjoyment,

but also future advantage, being not mastered by love, but my own

master; nor for small causes taking violent dislikes, but even when

the cause is great, slowly laying up little wrath-unintentional

offences I shall forgive, and intentional ones I shall try to prevent;

and these are the marks of a friendship which will last.

  Do you think that a lover only can be a firm friend? reflect:-if

this were true, we should set small value on sons, or fathers, or

mothers; nor should we ever have loyal friends, for our love of them

arises not from passion, but from other associations. Further, if we

ought to shower favours on those who are the most eager suitors,-on

that principle, we ought always to do good, not to the most

virtuous, but to the most needy; for they are the persons who will

be most relieved, and will therefore be the most grateful; and when

you make a feast you should invite not your friend, but the beggar and

the empty soul; for they will love you, and attend you, and come about

your doors, and will be the best pleased, and the most grateful, and

will invoke many a blessing on your head. Yet surely you ought not

to be granting favours to those who besiege you with prayer, but to

those who are best able to reward you; nor to the lover only, but to

those who are worthy of love; nor to those who will enjoy the bloom of

your youth, but to those who will share their possessions with you

in age; nor to those who, having succeeded, will glory in their

success to others, but to those who will be modest and tell no

tales; nor to those who care about you for a moment only, but to those

who will continue your friends through life; nor to those who, when

their passion is over, will pick a quarrel with you, but rather to

those who, when the charm of youth has left you, will show their own

virtue. Remember what I have said; and consider yet this further

point: friends admonish the lover under the idea that his way of

life is bad, but no one of his kindred ever yet censured the

non-lover, or thought that he was ill-advised about his own interests.

  "Perhaps you will ask me whether I propose that you should indulge

every non-lover. To which I reply that not even the lover would advise

you to indulge all lovers, for the indiscriminate favour is less

esteemed by the rational recipient, and less easily hidden by him

who would escape the censure of the world. Now love ought to be for

the advantage of both parties, and for the injury of neither.

  "I believe that I have said enough; but if there is anything more

which you desire or which in your opinion needs to be supplied, ask

and I will answer."

  Now, Socrates, what do you think? Is not the discourse excellent,

more especially in the matter of the language?

  Soc. Yes, quite admirable; the effect on me was ravishing. And

this I owe to you, Phaedrus, for I observed you while reading to be in

an ecstasy, and thinking that you are more experienced in these

matters than I am, I followed your example, and, like you, my divine

darling, I became inspired with a phrenzy.

  Phaedr. Indeed, you are pleased to be merry.

  Soc. Do you mean that I am not in earnest?

  Phaedr. Now don't talk in that way, Socrates, but let me have your

real opinion; I adjure you, by Zeus, the god of friendship, to tell me

whether you think that any Hellene could have said more or spoken

better on the same subject.

  Soc. Well, but are you and I expected to praise the sentiments of

the author, or only the clearness, and roundness, and finish, and

tournure of the language? As to the first I willingly submit to your

better judgment, for I am not worthy to form an opinion, having only

attended to the rhetorical manner; and I was doubting whether this

could have been defended even by Lysias himself; I thought, though I

speak under correction, that he repeated himself two or three times,

either from want of words or from want of pains; and also, he appeared

to me ostentatiously to exult in showing how well he could say the

same thing in two or three ways.

  Phaedr. Nonsense, Socrates; what you call repetition was the

especial merit of the speech; for he omitted no topic of which the

subject rightly allowed, and I do not think that any one could have

spoken better or more exhaustively.

  Soc. There I cannot go along with you. Ancient sages, men and women,

who have spoken and written of these things, would rise up in judgment

against me, if out of complaisance I assented to you.

  Phaedr. Who are they, and where did you hear anything better than

this?

  Soc. I am sure that I must have heard; but at this moment I do not

remember from whom; perhaps from Sappho the fair, or Anacreon the

wise; or, possibly, from a prose writer. Why do I say so? Why, because

I perceive that my bosom is full, and that I could make another speech

as good as that of Lysias, and different. Now I am certain that this

is not an invention of my own, who am well aware that I know

nothing, and therefore I can only infer that I have been filled

through the cars, like a pitcher, from the waters of another, though I

have actually forgotten in my stupidity who was my informant.

  Phaedr. That is grand:-but never mind where you beard the

discourse or from whom; let that be a mystery not to be divulged

even at my earnest desire. Only, as you say, promise to make another

and better oration, equal in length and entirely new, on the same

subject; and I, like the nine Archons, will promise to set up a golden

image at Delphi, not only of myself, but of you, and as large as life.

  Soc. You are a dear golden ass if you suppose me to mean that Lysias

has altogether missed the mark, and that I can make a speech from

which all his arguments are to be excluded. The worst of authors

will say something which is to the point. Who, for example, could

speak on this thesis of yours without praising the discretion of the

non-lover and blaming the indiscretion of the lover? These are the

commonplaces of the subject which must come in (for what else is there

to be said?) and must be allowed and excused; the only merit is in the

arrangement of them, for there can be none in the invention; but

when you leave the commonplaces, then there may be some originality.

  Phaedr. I admit that there is reason in what you say, and I too will

be reasonable, and will allow you to start with the premiss that the

lover is more disordered in his wits than the non-lover; if in what

remains you make a longer and better speech than Lysias, and use other

arguments, then I say again, that a statue you shall have of beaten

gold, and take your place by the colossal offerings of the Cypselids

at Olympia.

  Soc. How profoundly in earnest is the lover, because to tease him

I lay a finger upon his love! And so, Phaedrus, you really imagine

that I am going to improve upon the ingenuity of Lysias?

  Phaedr. There I have you as you had me, and you must just speak

"as you best can." Do not let us exchange "tu quoque" as in a farce,

or compel me to say to you as you said to me, "I know Socrates as well

as I know myself, and he was wanting to, speak, but he gave himself

airs." Rather I would have you consider that from this place we stir

not until you have unbosomed yourself of the speech; for here are we

all alone, and I am stronger, remember, and younger than you-Wherefore

perpend, and do not compel me to use violence.

  Soc. But, my sweet Phaedrus, how ridiculous it would be of me to

compete with Lysias in an extempore speech! He is a master in his

art and I am an untaught man.

  Phaedr. You see how matters stand; and therefore let there be no

more pretences; for, indeed, I know the word that is irresistible.

  Soc. Then don't say it.

  Phaedr. Yes, but I will; and my word shall be an oath. "I say, or

rather swear"-but what god will be witness of my oath?-"By this

plane-tree I swear, that unless you repeat the discourse here in the

face of this very plane-tree, I will never tell you another; never let

you have word of another!"

  Soc. Villain I am conquered; the poor lover of discourse has no more

to say.

  Phaedr. Then why are you still at your tricks?

  Soc. I am not going to play tricks now that you have taken the oath,

for I cannot allow myself to be starved.

  Phaedr. Proceed.

  Soc. Shall I tell you what I will do?

  Phaedr. What?

  Soc. I will veil my face and gallop through the discourse as fast as

I can, for if I see you I shall feel ashamed and not know what to say.

  Phaedr. Only go on and you may do anything else which you please.

  Soc. Come, O ye Muses, melodious, as ye are called, whether you have

received this name from the character of your strains, or because

the Melians are a musical race, help, O help me in the tale which my

good friend here desires me to rehearse, in order that his friend whom

he always deemed wise may seem to him to be wiser than ever.

  Once upon a time there was a fair boy, or, more properly speaking, a

youth; he was very fair and had a great many lovers; and there was one

special cunning one, who had persuaded the youth that he did not

love him, but he really loved him all the same; and one day when he

was paying his addresses to him, he used this very argument-that he

ought to accept the non-lover rather than the lover; his words were as

follows:-

  "All good counsel begins in the same way; a man should know what

he is advising about, or his counsel will all come to nought. But

people imagine that they know about the nature of things, when they

don't know about them, and, not having come to an understanding at

first because they think that they know, they end, as might be

expected, in contradicting one another and themselves. Now you and I

must not be guilty of this fundamental error which we condemn in

others; but as our question is whether the lover or non-lover is to be

preferred, let us first of all agree in defining the nature and

power of love, and then, keeping our eyes upon the definition and to

this appealing, let us further enquire whether love brings advantage

or disadvantage.

  "Every one sees that love is a desire, and we know also that

non-lovers desire the beautiful and good. Now in what way is the lover

to be distinguished from the non-lover? Let us note that in every

one of us there are two guiding and ruling principles which lead us

whither they will; one is the natural desire of pleasure, the other is

an acquired opinion which aspires after the best; and these two are

sometimes in harmony and then again at war, and sometimes the one,

sometimes the other conquers. When opinion by the help of reason leads

us to the best, the conquering principle is called temperance; but

when desire, which is devoid of reason, rules in us and drags us to

pleasure, that power of misrule is called excess. Now excess has

many names, and many members, and many forms, and any of these forms

when very marked gives a name, neither honourable nor creditable, to

the bearer of the name. The desire of eating, for example, which

gets the better of the higher reason and the other desires, is

called gluttony, and he who is possessed by it is called a glutton-I

the tyrannical desire of drink, which inclines the possessor of the

desire to drink, has a name which is only too obvious, and there can

be as little doubt by what name any other appetite of the same

family would be called;-it will be the name of that which happens to

be eluminant. And now I think that you will perceive the drift of my

discourse; but as every spoken word is in a manner plainer than the

unspoken, I had better say further that the irrational desire which

overcomes the tendency of opinion towards right, and is led away to

the enjoyment of beauty, and especially of personal beauty, by the

desires which are her own kindred-that supreme desire, I say, which by

leading conquers and by the force of passion is reinforced, from

this very force, receiving a name, is called love."

  And now, dear Phaedrus, I shall pause for an instant to ask

whether you do not think me, as I appear to myself, inspired?

  Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you seem to have a very unusual flow of

words.

  Soc. Listen to me, then, in silence; for surely the place is holy;

so that you must not wonder, if, as I proceed, I appear to be in a

divine fury, for already I am getting into dithyrambics.

  Phaedr. Nothing can be truer.

  Soc. The responsibility rests with you. But hear what follows, and

Perhaps the fit may be averted; all is in their hands above. I will go

on talking to my youth. Listen:

  Thus, my friend, we have declared and defined the nature of the

subject. Keeping the definition in view, let us now enquire what

advantage or disadvantage is likely to ensue from the lover or the

non-lover to him who accepts their advances.

  He who is the victim of his passions and the slave of pleasure

will of course desire to make his beloved as agreeable to himself as

possible. Now to him who has a mind discased anything is agreeable

which is not opposed to him, but that which is equal or superior is

hateful to him, and therefore the lover Will not brook any superiority

or equality on the part of his beloved; he is always employed in

reducing him to inferiority. And the ignorant is the inferior of the

wise, the coward of the brave, the slow of speech of the speaker,

the dull of the clever. These, and not these only, are the mental

defects of the beloved;-defects which, when implanted by nature, are

necessarily a delight to the lover, and when not implanted, he must

contrive to implant them in him, if he would not be deprived of his

fleeting joy. And therefore he cannot help being jealous, and will

debar his beloved from the advantages of society which would make a

man of him, and especially from that society which would have given

him wisdom, and thereby he cannot fail to do him great harm. That is

to say, in his excessive fear lest he should come to be despised in

his eyes he will be compelled to banish from him divine philosophy;

and there is no greater injury which he can inflict upon him than

this. He will contrive that his beloved shall be wholly ignorant,

and in everything shall look to him; he is to be the delight of the

lover's heart, and a curse to himself. Verily, a lover is a profitable

guardian and associate for him in all that relates to his mind.

  Let us next see how his master, whose law of life is pleasure and

not good, will keep and train the body of his servant. Will he not

choose a beloved who is delicate rather than sturdy and strong? One

brought up in shady bowers and not in the bright sun, a stranger to

manly exercises and the sweat of toil, accustomed only to a soft and

luxurious diet, instead of the hues of health having the colours of

paint and ornament, and the rest of a piece?-such a life as any one

can imagine and which I need not detail at length. But I may sum up

all that I have to say in a word, and pass on. Such a person in war,

or in any of the great crises of life, will be the anxiety of his

friends and also of his lover, and certainly not the terror of his

enemies; which nobody can deny.

  And now let us tell what advantage or disadvantage the beloved

will receive from the guardianship and society of his lover in the

matter of his property; this is the next point to be considered. The

lover will be the first to see what, indeed, will be sufficiently

evident to all men, that he desires above all things to deprive his

beloved of his dearest and best and holiest possessions, father,

mother, kindred, friends, of all whom he thinks may be hinderers or

reprovers of their most sweet converse; he will even cast a jealous

eye upon his gold and silver or other property, because these make him

a less easy prey, and when caught less manageable; hence he is of

necessity displeased at his possession of them and rejoices at their

loss; and he would like him to be wifeless, childless, homeless, as

well; and the longer the better, for the longer he is all this, the

longer he will enjoy him.

  There are some soft of animals, such as flatterers, who are

dangerous and, mischievous enough, and yet nature has mingled a

temporary pleasure and grace in their composition. You may say that

a courtesan is hurtful, and disapprove of such creatures and their

practices, and yet for the time they are very pleasant. But the

lover is not only hurtful to his love; he is also an extremely

disagreeable companion. The old proverb says that "birds of a

feather flock together"; I suppose that equality of years inclines

them to the same pleasures, and similarity begets friendship; yet

you may have more than enough even of this; and verily constraint is

always said to be grievous. Now the lover is not only unlike his

beloved, but he forces himself upon him. For he is old and his love is

young, and neither day nor night will he leave him if he can help;

necessity and the sting of desire drive him on, and allure him with

the pleasure which he receives from seeing, hearing, touching,

perceiving him in every way. And therefore he is delighted to fasten

upon him and to minister to him. But what pleasure or consolation

can the beloved be receiving all this time? Must he not feel the

extremity of disgust when he looks at an old shrivelled face and the

remainder to match, which even in a description is disagreeable, and

quite detestable when he is forced into daily contact with his

lover; moreover he is jealously watched and guarded against everything

and everybody, and has to hear misplaced and exaggerated praises of

himself, and censures equally inappropriate, which are intolerable

when the man is sober, and, besides being intolerable, are published

all over the world in all their indelicacy and wearisomeness when he

is drunk.

  And not only while his love continues is he mischievous and

unpleasant, but when his love ceases he becomes a perfidious enemy

of him on whom he showered his oaths and prayers and promises, and yet

could hardly prevail upon him to tolerate the tedium of his company

even from motives of interest. The hour of payment arrives, and now he

is the servant of another master; instead of love and infatuation,

wisdom and temperance are his bosom's lords; but the beloved has not

discovered the change which has taken place in him, when he asks for a

return and recalls to his recollection former sayings and doings; he

believes himself to be speaking to the same person, and the other, not

having the courage to confess the truth, and not knowing how to fulfil

the oaths and promises which he made when under the dominion of folly,

and having now grown wise and temperate, does not want to do as he did

or to be as he was before. And so he runs away and is constrained to

be a defaulter; the oyster-shell has fallen with the other side

uppermost-he changes pursuit into flight, while the other is compelled

to follow him with passion and imprecation not knowing that he ought

never from the first to have accepted a demented lover instead of a

sensible non-lover; and that in making such a choice he was giving

himself up to a faithless, morose, envious, disagreeable being,

hurtful to his estate, hurtful to his bodily health, and still more

hurtful to the cultivation of his mind, than which there neither is

nor ever will be anything more honoured in the eyes both of gods and

men. Consider this, fair youth, and know that in the friendship of the

lover there is no real kindness; he has an appetite and wants to

feed upon you:



    As wolves love lambs so lovers love their loves.



  But I told you so, I am speaking in verse, and therefore I had

better make an end; enough.

  Phaedr. I thought that you were only halfway and were going to

make a similar speech about all the advantages of accepting the

non-lover. Why do you not proceed?

  Soc. Does not your simplicity observe that I have got out of

dithyrambics into heroics, when only uttering a censure on the

lover? And if I am to add the praises of the non-lover, what will

become of me? Do you not perceive that I am already overtaken by the

Nymphs to whom you have mischievously exposed me? And therefore will

only add that the non-lover has all the advantages in which the

lover is accused of being deficient. And now I will say no more; there

has been enough of both of them. Leaving the tale to its fate, I

will cross the river and make the best of my way home, lest a worse

thing be inflicted upon me by you.

  Phaedr. Not yet, Socrates; not until the heat of the day has passed;

do you not see that the hour is almost noon? there is the midday sun

standing still, as people say, in the meridian. Let us rather stay and

talk over what has been said, and then return in the cool.

  Soc. Your love of discourse, Phaedrus, is superhuman, simply

marvellous, and I do not believe that there is any one of your

contemporaries who has either made or in one way or another has

compelled others to make an equal number of speeches. I would except

Simmias the Theban, but all the rest are far behind you. And now, I do

verily believe that you have been the cause of another.

  Phaedr. That is good news. But what do you mean?

  Soc. I mean to say that as I was about to cross the stream the usual

sign was given to me,-that sign which always forbids, but never

bids, me to do anything which I am going to do; and I thought that I

heard a voice saying in my car that I had been guilty of impiety, and.

that I must not go away until I had made an atonement. Now I am a

diviner, though not a very good one, but I have enough religion for my

own use, as you might say of a bad writer-his writing is good enough

for him; and I am beginning to see that I was in error. O my friend,

how prophetic is the human soul! At the time I had a sort of

misgiving, and, like Ibycus, "I was troubled; I feared that I might be

buying honour from men at the price of sinning against the gods."

Now I recognize my error.

  Phaedr. What error?

  Soc. That was a dreadful speech which you brought with you, and

you made me utter one as bad.

  Phaedr. How so?

  Soc. It was foolish, I say,-to a certain extent, impious; can

anything be more dreadful?

  Phaedr. Nothing, if the speech was really such as you describe.

  Soc. Well, and is not Eros the son of Aphrodite, and a god?

  Phaedr. So men say.

  Soc. But that was not acknowledged by Lysias in his speech, nor by

you in that other speech which you by a charm drew from my lips. For

if love be, as he surely is, a divinity, he cannot be evil. Yet this

was the error of both the speeches. There was also a simplicity

about them which was refreshing; having no truth or honesty in them,

nevertheless they pretended to be something, hoping to succeed in

deceiving the manikins of earth and gain celebrity among them.

Wherefore I must have a purgation. And I bethink me of an ancient

purgation of mythological error which was devised, not by Homer, for

he never had the wit to discover why he was blind, but by Stesichorus,

who was a philosopher and knew the reason why; and therefore, when

he lost his eyes, for that was the penalty which was inflicted upon

him for reviling the lovely Helen, he at once purged himself. And

the purgation was a recantation, which began thus,-



  False is that word of mine-the truth is that thou didst not embark

in ships, nor ever go to the walls of Troy;



and when he had completed his poem, which is called "the recantation,"

immediately his sight returned to him. Now I will be wiser than either

Stesichorus or Homer, in that I am going to make my recantation for

reviling love before I suffer; and this I will attempt, not as before,

veiled and ashamed, but with forehead bold and bare.

  Phaedr. Nothing could be more agreeable to me than to hear you say

so.

  Soc. Only think, my good Phaedrus, what an utter want of delicacy

was shown in the two discourses; I mean, in my own and in that which

you recited out of the book. Would not any one who was himself of a

noble and gentle nature, and who loved or ever had loved a nature like

his own, when we tell of the petty causes of lovers' jealousies, and

of their exceeding animosities, and of the injuries which they do to

their beloved, have imagined that our ideas of love were taken from

some haunt of sailors to which good manners were unknown-he would

certainly never have admitted the justice of our censure?

  Phaedr. I dare say not, Socrates.

  Soc. Therefore, because I blush at the thought of this person, and

also because I am afraid of Love himself, I desire to wash the brine

out of my ears with water from the spring; and I would counsel

Lysias not to delay, but to write another discourse, which shall prove

that ceteris paribus the lover ought to be accepted rather than the

non-lover.

  Phaedr. Be assured that he shall. You shall speak the praises of the

lover, and Lysias shall be compelled by me to write another

discourse on the same theme.

  Soc. You will be true to your nature in that, and therefore I

believe you.

  Phaedr. Speak, and fear not.

  Soc. But where is the fair youth whom I was addressing before, and

who ought to listen now; lest, if he hear me not, he should accept a

non-lover before he knows what he is doing?

  Phaedr. He is close at hand, and always at your service.

  Soc. Know then, fair youth, that the former discourse was the word

of Phaedrus, the son of Vain Man, who dwells in the city of Myrrhina

(Myrrhinusius). And this which I am about to utter is the

recantation of Stesichorus the son of Godly Man (Euphemus), who

comes from the town of Desire (Himera), and is to the following

effect: "I told a lie when I said" that the beloved ought to accept

the non-lover when he might have the lover, because the one is sane,

and the other mad. It might be so if madness were simply an evil;

but there is also a madness which is a divine gift, and the source

of the chiefest blessings granted to men. For prophecy is a madness,

and the prophetess at Delphi and the priestesses at Dodona when out of

their senses have conferred great benefits on Hellas, both in public

and private life, but when in their senses few or none. And I might

also tell you how the Sibyl and other inspired persons have given to

many an one many an intimation of the future which has saved them from

falling. But it would be tedious to speak of what every one knows.

  There will be more reason in appealing to the ancient inventors of

names, who would never have connected prophecy (mantike) which

foretells the future and is the noblest of arts, with madness

(manike), or called them both by the same name, if they had deemed

madness to be a disgrace or dishonour;-they must have thought that

there was an inspired madness which was a noble thing; for the two

words, mantike and manike, are really the same, and the letter t is

only a modern and tasteless insertion. And this is confirmed by the

name which was given by them to the rational investigation of

futurity, whether made by the help of birds or of other signs-this,

for as much as it is an art which supplies from the reasoning

faculty mind (nous) and information (istoria) to human thought

(oiesis) they originally termed oionoistike, but the word has been

lately altered and made sonorous by the modern introduction of the

letter Omega (oionoistike and oionistike), and in proportion

prophecy (mantike) is more perfect and august than augury, both in

name and fact, in the same proportion, as the ancients testify, is

madness superior to a sane mind (sophrosune) for the one is only of

human, but the other of divine origin. Again, where plagues and

mightiest woes have bred in certain families, owing to some ancient

blood-guiltiness, there madness has entered with holy prayers and

rites, and by inspired utterances found a way of deliverance for those

who are in need; and he who has part in this gift, and is truly

possessed and duly out of his mind, is by the use of purifications and

mysteries made whole and except from evil, future as well as

present, and has a release from the calamity which was afflicting him.

The third kind is the madness of those who are possessed by the Muses;

which taking hold of a delicate and virgin soul, and there inspiring

frenzy, awakens lyrical and all other numbers; with these adorning the

myriad actions of ancient heroes for the instruction of posterity. But

he who, having no touch of the Muses' madness in his soul, comes to

the door and thinks that he will get into the temple by the help of

art-he, I say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man

disappears and is nowhere when he enters into rivalry with the madman.

  I might tell of many other noble deeds which have sprung from

inspired madness. And therefore, let no one frighten or flutter us

by saying that the temperate friend is to be chosen rather than the

inspired, but let him further show that love is not sent by the gods

for any good to lover or beloved; if he can do so we will allow him to

carry off the palm. And we, on our part, will prove in answer to him

that the madness of love is the greatest of heaven's blessings, and

the proof shall be one which the wise will receive, and the witling

disbelieve. But first of all, let us view the affections and actions

of the soul divine and human, and try to ascertain the truth about

them. The beginning of our proof is as follows:-

  The soul through all her being is immortal, for that which is ever

in motion is immortal; but that which moves another and is moved by

another, in ceasing to move ceases also to live. Only the self-moving,

never leaving self, never ceases to move, and is the fountain and

beginning of motion to all that moves besides. Now, the beginning is

unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the

beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of

something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if

unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were

destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything

out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning. And

therefore the self-moving is the beginning of motion; and this can

neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all

creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion

or birth. But if the self-moving is proved to be immortal, he who

affirms that self-motion is the very idea and essence of the soul will

not be put to confusion. For the body which is moved from without is

soulless; but that which is moved from within has a soul, for such

is the nature of the soul. But if this be true, must not the soul be

the self-moving, and therefore of necessity unbegotten and immortal?

Enough of the soul's immortality.

  Of the nature of the soul, though her true form be ever a theme of

large and more than mortal discourse, let me speak briefly, and in a

figure. And let the figure be composite-a pair of winged horses and

a charioteer. Now the winged horses and the charioteers of the gods

are all of them noble and of noble descent, but those of other races

are mixed; the human charioteer drives his in a pair; and one of

them is noble and of noble breed, and the other is ignoble and of

ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal

of trouble to him. I will endeavour to explain to you in what way

the mortal differs from the immortal creature. The soul in her

totality has the care of inanimate being everywhere, and traverses the

whole heaven in divers forms appearing--when perfect and fully

winged she soars upward, and orders the whole world; whereas the

imperfect soul, losing her wings and drooping in her flight at last

settles on the solid ground-there, finding a home, she receives an

earthly frame which appears to be self-moved, but is really moved by

her power; and this composition of soul and body is called a living

and mortal creature. For immortal no such union can be reasonably

believed to be; although fancy, not having seen nor surely known the

nature of God, may imagine an immortal creature having both a body and

also a soul which are united throughout all time. Let that, however,

be as God wills, and be spoken of acceptably to him. And now let us

ask the reason why the soul loses her wings!

  The wing is the corporeal element which is most akin to the

divine, and which by nature tends to soar aloft and carry that which

gravitates downwards into the upper region, which is the habitation of

the gods. The divine is beauty, wisdom, goodness, and the like; and by

these the wing of the soul is nourished, and grows apace; but when fed

upon evil and foulness and the opposite of good, wastes and falls

away. Zeus, the mighty lord, holding the reins of a winged chariot,

leads the way in heaven, ordering all and taking care of all; and

there follows him the array of gods and demigods, marshalled in eleven

bands; Hestia alone abides at home in the house of heaven; of the rest

they who are reckoned among the princely twelve march in their

appointed order. They see many blessed sights in the inner heaven, and

there are many ways to and fro, along which the blessed gods are

passing, every one doing his own work; he may follow who will and can,

for jealousy has no place in the celestial choir. But when they go

to banquet and festival, then they move up the steep to the top of the

vault of heaven. The chariots of the gods in even poise, obeying the

rein, glide rapidly; but the others labour, for the vicious steed goes

heavily, weighing down the charioteer to the earth when his steed

has not been thoroughly trained:-and this is the hour of agony and

extremest conflict for the soul. For the immortals, when they are at

the end of their course, go forth and stand upon the outside of

heaven, and the revolution of the spheres carries them round, and they

behold the things beyond. But of the heaven which is above the

heavens, what earthly poet ever did or ever will sing worthily? It

is such as I will describe; for I must dare to speak the truth, when

truth is my theme. There abides the very being with which true

knowledge is concerned; the colourless, formless, intangible

essence, visible only to mind, the pilot of the soul. The divine

intelligence, being nurtured upon mind and pure knowledge, and the

intelligence of every soul which is capable of receiving the food

proper to it, rejoices at beholding reality, and once more gazing upon

truth, is replenished and made glad, until the revolution of the

worlds brings her round again to the same place. In the revolution she

beholds justice, and temperance, and knowledge absolute, not in the

form of generation or of relation, which men call existence, but

knowledge absolute in existence absolute; and beholding the other true

existences in like manner, and feasting upon them, she passes down

into the interior of the heavens and returns home; and there the

charioteer putting up his horses at the stall, gives them ambrosia

to eat and nectar to drink.

  Such is the life of the gods; but of other souls, that which follows

God best and is likest to him lifts the head of the charioteer into

the outer world, and is carried round in the revolution, troubled

indeed by the steeds, and with difficulty beholding true being;

while another only rises and falls, and sees, and again fails to see

by reason of the unruliness of the steeds. The rest of the souls are

also longing after the upper world and they all follow, but not

being strong enough they are carried round below the surface,

plunging, treading on one another, each striving to be first; and

there is confusion and perspiration and the extremity of effort; and

many of them are lamed or have their wings broken through the

ill-driving of the charioteers; and all of them after a fruitless

toil, not having attained to the mysteries of true being, go away, and

feed upon opinion. The reason why the souls exhibit this exceeding

eagerness to behold the plain of truth is that pasturage is found

there, which is suited to the highest part of the soul; and the wing

on which the soul soars is nourished with this. And there is a law

of Destiny, that the soul which attains any vision of truth in company

with a god is preserved from harm until the next period, and if

attaining always is always unharmed. But when she is unable to follow,

and fails to behold the truth, and through some ill-hap sinks

beneath the double load of forgetfulness and vice, and her wings

fall from her and she drops to the ground, then the law ordains that

this soul shall at her first birth pass, not into any other animal,

but only into man; and the soul which has seen most of truth shall

come to the birth as a philosopher, or artist, or some musical and

loving nature; that which has seen truth in the second degree shall be

some righteous king or warrior chief; the soul which is of the third

class shall be a politician, or economist, or trader; the fourth shall

be lover of gymnastic toils, or a physician; the fifth shall lead

the life of a prophet or hierophant; to the sixth the character of

poet or some other imitative artist will be assigned; to the seventh

the life of an artisan or husbandman; to the eighth that of a

sophist or demagogue; to the ninth that of a tyrant-all these are

states of probation, in which he who does righteously improves, and he

who does unrighteously, improves, and he who does unrighteously,

deteriorates his lot.

  Ten thousand years must elapse before the soul of each one can

return to the place from whence she came, for she cannot grow her

wings in less; only the soul of a philosopher, guileless and true,

or the soul of a lover, who is not devoid of philosophy, may acquire

wings in the third of the recurring periods of a thousand years; he is

distinguished from the ordinary good man who gains wings in three

thousand years:-and they who choose this life three times in

succession have wings given them, and go away at the end of three

thousand years. But the others receive judgment when they have

completed their first life, and after the judgment they go, some of

them to the houses of correction which are under the earth, and are

punished; others to some place in heaven whither they are lightly

borne by justice, and there they live in a manner worthy of the life

which they led here when in the form of men. And at the end of the

first thousand years the good souls and also the evil souls both

come to draw lots and choose their second life, and they may take

any which they please. The soul of a man may pass into the life of a

beast, or from the beast return again into the man. But the soul which

has never seen the truth will not pass into the human form. For a

man must have intelligence of universals, and be able to proceed

from the many particulars of sense to one conception of reason;-this

is the recollection of those things which our soul once saw while

following God-when regardless of that which we now call being she

raised her head up towards the true being. And therefore the mind of

the philosopher alone has wings; and this is just, for he is always,

according to the measure of his abilities, clinging in recollection to

those things in which God abides, and in beholding which He is what He

is. And he who employs aright these memories is ever being initiated

into perfect mysteries and alone becomes truly perfect. But, as he

forgets earthly interests and is rapt in the divine, the vulgar deem

him mad, and rebuke him; they do not see that he is inspired.

  Thus far I have been speaking of the fourth and last kind of

madness, which is imputed to him who, when he sees the beauty of

earth, is transported with the recollection of the true beauty; he

would like to fly away, but he cannot; he is like a bird fluttering

and looking upward and careless of the world below; and he is

therefore thought to be mad. And I have shown this of all inspirations

to be the noblest and highest and the offspring of the highest to

him who has or shares in it, and that he who loves the beautiful is

called a lover because he partakes of it. For, as has been already

said, every soul of man has in the way of nature beheld true being;

this was the condition of her passing into the form of man. But all

souls do not easily recall the things of the other world; they may

have seen them for a short time only, or they may have been

unfortunate in their earthly lot, and, having had their hearts

turned to unrighteousness through some corrupting influence, they

may have lost the memory of the holy things which once they saw. Few

only retain an adequate remembrance of them; and they, when they

behold here any image of that other world, are rapt in amazement;

but they are ignorant of what this rapture means, because they do

not clearly perceive. For there is no light of justice or temperance

or any of the higher ideas which are precious to souls in the

earthly copies of them: they are seen through a glass dimly; and there

are few who, going to the images, behold in them the realities, and

these only with difficulty. There was a time when with the rest of the

happy band they saw beauty shining in brightness-we philosophers

following in the train of Zeus, others in company with other gods; and

then we beheld the beatific vision and were initiated into a mystery

which may be truly called most blessed, celebrated by us in our

state of innocence, before we had any experience of evils to come,

when we were admitted to the sight of apparitions innocent and

simple and calm and happy, which we beheld shining impure light,

pure ourselves and not yet enshrined in that living tomb which we

carry about, now that we are imprisoned in the body, like an oyster in

his shell. Let me linger over the memory of scenes which have passed

away.

  But of beauty, I repeat again that we saw her there shining in

company with the celestial forms; and coming to earth we find her here

too, shining in clearness through the clearest aperture of sense.

For sight is the most piercing of our bodily senses; though not by

that is wisdom seen; her loveliness would have been transporting if

there had been a visible image of her, and the other ideas, if they

had visible counterparts, would be equally lovely. But this is the

privilege of beauty, that being the loveliest she is also the most

palpable to sight. Now he who is not newly initiated or who has become

corrupted, does not easily rise out of this world to the sight of true

beauty in the other; he looks only at her earthly namesake, and

instead of being awed at the sight of her, he is given over to

pleasure, and like a brutish beast he rushes on to enjoy and beget; he

consorts with wantonness, and is not afraid or ashamed of pursuing

pleasure in violation of nature. But he whose initiation is recent,

and who has been the spectator of many glories in the other world,

is amazed when he sees any one having a godlike face or form, which is

the expression of divine beauty; and at first a shudder runs through

him, and again the old awe steals over him; then looking upon the face

of his beloved as of a god he reverences him, and if he were not

afraid of being thought a downright madman, he would sacrifice to

his beloved as to the image of a god; then while he gazes on him there

is a sort of reaction, and the shudder passes into an unusual heat and

perspiration; for, as he receives the effluence of beauty through

the eyes, the wing moistens and he warms. And as he warms, the parts

out of which the wing grew, and which had been hitherto closed and

rigid, and had prevented the wing from shooting forth, are melted, and

as nourishment streams upon him, the lower end of the wings begins

to swell and grow from the root upwards; and the growth extends

under the whole soul-for once the whole was winged.

  During this process the whole soul is all in a state of ebullition

and effervescence,-which may be compared to the irritation and

uneasiness in the gums at the time of cutting teeth,-bubbles up, and

has a feeling of uneasiness and tickling; but when in like manner

the soul is beginning to grow wings, the beauty of the beloved meets

her eye and she receives the sensible warm motion of particles which

flow towards her, therefore called emotion (imeros), and is

refreshed and warmed by them, and then she ceases from her pain with

joy. But when she is parted from her beloved and her moisture fails,

then the orifices of the passage out of which the wing shoots dry up

and close, and intercept the germ of the wing; which, being shut up

with the emotion, throbbing as with the pulsations of an artery,

pricks the aperture which is nearest, until at length the entire

soul is pierced and maddened and pained, and at the recollection of

beauty is again delighted. And from both of them together the soul

is oppressed at the strangeness of her condition, and is in a great

strait and excitement, and in her madness can neither sleep by night

nor abide in her place by day. And wherever she thinks that she will

behold the beautiful one, thither in her desire she runs. And when she

has seen him, and bathed herself in the waters of beauty, her

constraint is loosened, and she is refreshed, and has no more pangs

and pains; and this is the sweetest of all pleasures at the time,

and is the reason why the soul of the lover will never forsake his

beautiful one, whom he esteems above all; he has forgotten mother

and brethren and companions, and he thinks nothing of the neglect

and loss of his property; the rules and proprieties of life, on

which he formerly prided himself, he now despises, and is ready to

sleep like a servant, wherever he is allowed, as near as he can to his

desired one, who is the object of his worship, and the physician who

can alone assuage the greatness of his pain. And this state, my dear

imaginary youth to whom I am talking, is by men called love, and among

the gods has a name at which you, in your simplicity, may be

inclined to mock; there are two lines in the apocryphal writings of

Homer in which the name occurs. One of them is rather outrageous,

and not altogether metrical. They are as follows:



   Mortals call him fluttering love,

   But the immortals call him winged one,

   Because the growing of wings is a necessity to him.



You may believe this, but not unless you like. At any rate the loves

of lovers and their causes are such as I have described.

  Now the lover who is taken to be the attendant of Zeus is better

able to bear the winged god, and can endure a heavier burden; but

the attendants and companions of Ares, when under the influence of

love, if they fancy that they have been at all wronged, are ready to

kill and put an end to themselves and their beloved. And he who

follows in the train of any other god, while he is unspoiled and the

impression lasts, honours and imitates him, as far as he is able;

and after the manner of his god he behaves in his intercourse with his

beloved and with the rest of the world during the first period of

his earthly existence. Every one chooses his love from the ranks of

beauty according to his character, and this he makes his god, and

fashions and adorns as a sort of image which he is to fall down and

worship. The followers of Zeus desire that their beloved should have a

soul like him; and therefore they seek out some one of a philosophical

and imperial nature, and when they have found him and loved him,

they do all they can to confirm such a nature in him, and if they have

no experience of such a disposition hitherto, they learn of any one

who can teach them, and themselves follow in the same way. And they

have the less difficulty in finding the nature of their own god in

themselves, because they have been compelled to gaze intensely on him;

their recollection clings to him, and they become possessed of him,

and receive from him their character and disposition, so far as man

can participate in God. The qualities of their god they attribute to

the beloved, wherefore they love him all the more, and if, like the

Bacchic Nymphs, they draw inspiration from Zeus, they pour out their

own fountain upon him, wanting to make him as like as possible to

their own god. But those who are the followers of Here seek a royal

love, and when they have found him they do just the same with him; and

in like manner the followers of Apollo, and of every other god walking

in the ways of their god, seek a love who is to be made like him

whom they serve, and when they have found him, they themselves imitate

their god, and persuade their love to do the same, and educate him

into the manner and nature of the god as far as they each can; for

no feelings of envy or jealousy are entertained by them towards

their beloved, but they do their utmost to create in him the

greatest likeness of themselves and of the god whom they honour.

Thus fair and blissful to the beloved is the desire of the inspired

lover, and the initiation of which I speak into the mysteries of

true love, if he be captured by the lover and their purpose is

effected. Now the beloved is taken captive in the following manner:-

  As I said at the beginning of this tale, I divided each soul into

three-two horses and a charioteer; and one of the horses was good

and the other bad: the division may remain, but I have not yet

explained in what the goodness or badness of either consists, and to

that I will proceed. The right-hand horse is upright and cleanly made;

he has a lofty neck and an aquiline nose; his colour is white, and his

eyes dark; he is a lover of honour and modesty and temperance, and the

follower of true glory; he needs no touch of the whip, but is guided

by word and admonition only. The other is a crooked lumbering

animal, put together anyhow; he has a short thick neck; he is

flat-faced and of a dark colour, with grey eyes and blood-red

complexion; the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf,

hardly yielding to whip and spur. Now when the charioteer beholds

the vision of love, and has his whole soul warmed through sense, and

is full of the prickings and ticklings of desire, the obedient

steed, then as always under the government of shame, refrains from

leaping on the beloved; but the other, heedless of the pricks and of

the blows of the whip, plunges and runs away, giving all manner of

trouble to his companion and the charioteer, whom he forces to

approach the beloved and to remember the joys of love. They at first

indignantly oppose him and will not be urged on to do terrible and

unlawful deeds; but at last, when he persists in plaguing them, they

yield and agree to do as he bids them.

  And now they are at the spot and behold the flashing beauty of the

beloved; which when the charioteer sees, his memory is carried to

the true beauty, whom he beholds in company with Modesty like an image

placed upon a holy pedestal. He sees her, but he is afraid and falls

backwards in adoration, and by his fall is compelled to pull back

the reins with such violence as to bring both the steeds on their

haunches, the one willing and unresisting, the unruly one very

unwilling; and when they have gone back a little, the one is

overcome with shame and wonder, and his whole soul is bathed in

perspiration; the other, when the pain is over which the bridle and

the fall had given him, having with difficulty taken breath, is full

of wrath and reproaches, which he heaps upon the charioteer and his

fellow-steed, for want of courage and manhood, declaring that they

have been false to their agreement and guilty of desertion. Again they

refuse, and again he urges them on, and will scarce yield to their

prayer that he would wait until another time. When the appointed

hour comes, they make as if they had forgotten, and he reminds them,

fighting and neighing and dragging them on, until at length he, on the

same thoughts intent, forces them to draw near again. And when they

are near he stoops his head and puts up his tail, and takes the bit in

his teeth. and pulls shamelessly. Then the charioteer is. worse off

than ever; he falls back like a racer at the barrier, and with a still

more violent wrench drags the bit out of the teeth of the wild steed

and covers his abusive tongue and-jaws with blood, and forces his legs

and haunches to the ground and punishes him sorely. And when this

has happened several times and the villain has ceased from his

wanton way, he is tamed and humbled, and follows the will of the

charioteer, and when he sees the beautiful one he is ready to die of

fear. And from that time forward the soul of the lover follows the

beloved in modesty and holy fear.

  And so the beloved who, like a god, has received every true and

loyal service from his lover, not in pretence but in reality, being

also himself of a nature friendly to his admirer, if in former days he

has blushed to own his passion and turned away his lover, because

his youthful companions or others slanderously told him that he

would be disgraced, now as years advance, at the appointed age and

time, is led to receive him into communion. For fate which has

ordained that there shall be no friendship among the evil has also

ordained that there shall ever be friendship among the good. And the

beloved when he has received him into communion and intimacy, is quite

amazed at the good-will of the lover; he recognises that the

inspired friend is worth all other friends or kinsmen; they have

nothing of friendship in them worthy to be compared with his. And when

his feeling continues and he is nearer to him and embraces him, in

gymnastic exercises and at other times of meeting, then the fountain

of that stream, which Zeus when he was in love with Ganymede named

Desire, overflows upon the lover, and some enters into his soul, and

some when he is filled flows out again; and as a breeze or an echo

rebounds from the smooth rocks and returns whence it came, so does the

stream of beauty, passing through the eyes which are the windows of

the soul, come back to the beautiful one; there arriving and

quickening the passages of the wings, watering. them and inclining

them to grow, and filling the soul of the beloved also with love.

And thus he loves, but he knows not what; he does not understand and

cannot explain his own state; he appears to have caught the

infection of blindness from another; the lover is his mirror in whom

he is beholding himself, but he is not aware of this. When he is

with the lover, both cease from their pain, but when he is away then

he longs as he is longed for, and has love's image, love for love

(Anteros) lodging in his breast, which he calls and believes to be not

love but friendship only, and his desire is as the desire of the

other, but weaker; he wants to see him, touch him, kiss him, embrace

him, and probably not long afterwards his desire is accomplished. When

they meet, the wanton steed of the lover has a word to say to the

charioteer; he would like to have a little pleasure in return for many

pains, but the wanton steed of the beloved says not a word, for he

is bursting with passion which he understands not;-he throws his

arms round the lover and embraces him as his dearest friend; and, when

they are side by side, he is not in it state in which he can refuse

the lover anything, if he ask him; although his fellow-steed and the

charioteer oppose him with the arguments of shame and reason.

  After this their happiness depends upon their self-control; if the

better elements of the mind which lead to order and philosophy

prevail, then they pass their life here in happiness and

harmony-masters of themselves and orderly-enslaving the vicious and

emancipating the virtuous elements of the soul; and when the end

comes, they are light and winged for flight, having conquered in one

of the three heavenly or truly Olympian victories; nor can human

discipline or divine inspiration confer any greater blessing on man

than this. If, on the other hand, they leave philosophy and lead the

lower life of ambition, then probably, after wine or in some other

careless hour, the two wanton animals take the two souls when off

their guard and bring them together, and they accomplish that desire

of their hearts which to the many is bliss; and this having once

enjoyed they continue to enjoy, yet rarely because they have not the

approval of the whole soul. They too are dear, but not so dear to

one another as the others, either at the time of their love or

afterwards. They consider that they have given and taken from each

other the most sacred pledges, and they may not break them and fall

into enmity. At last they pass out of the body, unwinged, but eager to

soar, and thus obtain no mean reward of love and madness. For those

who have once begun the heavenward pilgrimage may not go down again to

darkness and the journey beneath the earth, but they live in light

always; happy companions in their pilgrimage, and when the time

comes at which they receive their wings they have the same plumage

because of their love.

  Thus great are the heavenly blessings which the friendship of a

lover will confer upon you, my youth. Whereas the attachment of the

non-lover, which is alloyed with a worldly prudence and has worldly

and niggardly ways of doling out benefits, will breed in your soul

those vulgar qualities which the populace applaud, will send you

bowling round the earth during a period of nine thousand years, and

leave, you a fool in the world below.

  And thus, dear Eros, I have made and paid my recantation, as well

and as fairly as I could; more especially in the matter of the

poetical figures which I was compelled to use, because Phaedrus

would have them. And now forgive the past and accept the present,

and be gracious and merciful to me, and do not in thine anger

deprive me of sight, or take from me the art of love which thou hast

given me, but grant that I may be yet more esteemed in the eyes of the

fair. And if Phaedrus or I myself said anything rude in our first

speeches, blame Lysias, who is the father of the brat, and let us have

no more of his progeny; bid him study philosophy, like his brother

Polemarchus; and then his lover Phaedrus will no longer halt between

two opinions, but will dedicate himself wholly to love and to

philosophical discourses.

  Phaedr. I join in the prayer, Socrates, and say with you, if this be

for my good, may your words come to pass. But why did you make your

second oration so much finer than the first? I wonder why. And I begin

to be afraid that I shall lose conceit of Lysias, and that he will

appear tame in comparison, even if he be willing to put another as

fine and as long as yours into the field, which I doubt. For quite

lately one of your politicians was abusing him on this very account;

and called him a "speech writer" again and again. So that a feeling of

pride may probably induce him to give up writing speeches.

  Soc. What a very amusing notion! But I think, my young man, that you

are much mistaken in your friend if you imagine that he is

frightened at a little noise; and possibly, you think that his

assailant was in earnest?

  Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the

greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing

speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be

called Sophists by posterity.

  Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of

the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be

equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also

a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so

fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And

they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of

gratitude to them.

  Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.

  Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins

with the names of his approvers?

  Phaedr. How so?

  Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate,

the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our

author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his

own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious

composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of

authorship?

  Phaedr. True.

  Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves

the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done

out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then

he and his party are in mourning.

  Phaedr. Very true.

  Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they

value the practice of writing.

  Phaedr. No doubt.

  Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon

or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state,

is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and

does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?

  Phaedr. Very true.

  Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however

ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?

  Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting

a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.

  Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of

writing.

  Phaedr. Certainly not.

  Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

  Phaedr. Clearly.

  Soc. And what is well and what is badly-need we ask Lysias, or any

other poet or orator, who ever wrote or will write either a

political or any other work, in metre or out of metre, poet or prose

writer, to teach us this?

  Phaedr. Need we? For what should a man live if not for the pleasures

of discourse? Surely not for the sake of bodily pleasures, which

almost always have previous pain as a condition of them, and therefore

are rightly called slavish.

  Soc. There is time enough. And I believe that the grasshoppers

chirruping after their manner in the heat of the sun over our heads

are talking to one another and looking down at us. What would they say

if they saw that we, like the many, are not conversing, but slumbering

at mid-day, lulled by their voices, too indolent to think? Would

they not have a right to laugh at us? They might imagine that we

were slaves, who, coming to rest at a place of resort of theirs,

like sheep lie asleep at noon around the well. But if they see us

discoursing, and like Odysseus sailing past them, deaf to their

siren voices, they may perhaps, out of respect, give us of the gifts

which they receive from the gods that they may impart them to men.

  Phaedr. What gifts do you mean? I never heard of any.

  Soc. A lover of music like yourself ought surely to have heard the

story of the grasshoppers, who are said to have been human beings in

an age before the Muses. And when the Muses came and song appeared

they were ravished with delight; and singing always, never thought

of eating and drinking, until at last in their forgetfulness they

died. And now they live again in the grasshoppers; and this is the

return which the Muses make to them-they neither hunger, nor thirst,

but from the hour of their birth are always singing, and never

eating or drinking; and when they die they go and inform the Muses

in heaven who honours them on earth. They win the love of

Terpsichore for the dancers by their report of them; of Erato for

the lovers, and of the other Muses for those who do them honour,

according to the several ways of honouring them of Calliope the eldest

Muse and of Urania who is next to her, for the philosophers, of

whose music the grasshoppers make report to them; for these are the

Muses who are chiefly concerned with heaven and thought, divine as

well as human, and they have the sweetest utterance. For many reasons,

then, we ought always to talk and not to sleep at mid-day.

  Phaedr. Let us talk.

  Soc. Shall we discuss the rules of writing and speech as we were

proposing?

  Phaedr. Very good.

  Soc. In good speaking should not the mind of the speaker know the

truth of the matter about which he is going to speak?

  Phaedr. And yet, Socrates, I have heard that he who would be an

orator has nothing to do with true justice, but only with that which

is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment; nor with the

truly good or honourable, but only with opinion about them, and that

from opinion comes persuasion, and not from the truth.

  Soc. The words of the wise are not to be set aside; for there is

probably something in them; and therefore the meaning of this saying

is not hastily to be dismissed.

  Phaedr. Very true.

  Soc. Let us put the matter thus:-Suppose that I persuaded you to buy

a horse and go to the wars. Neither of us knew what a horse was

like, but I knew that you believed a horse to be of tame animals the

one which has the longest ears.

  Phaedr. That would be ridiculous.

  Soc. There is something more ridiculous coming:-Suppose, further,

that in sober earnest I, having persuaded you of this, went and

composed a speech in honour of an ass, whom I entitled a horse

beginning: "A noble animal and a most useful possession, especially in

war, and you may get on his back and fight, and he will carry

baggage or anything."

  Phaedr. How ridiculous!

  Soc. Ridiculous! Yes; but is not even a ridiculous friend better

than a cunning enemy?

  Phaedr. Certainly.

  Soc. And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a

horse puts good for evil being himself as ignorant of their true

nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied

the notions of the multitude, falsely persuades them not about "the

shadow of an ass," which he confounds with a horse, but about good

which he confounds with evily-what will be the harvest which

rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed?

  Phaedr. The reverse of good.

  Soc. But perhaps rhetoric has been getting too roughly handled by

us, and she might answer: What amazing nonsense you are talking! As if

I forced any man to learn to speak in ignorance of the truth! Whatever

my advice may be worth, I should have told him to arrive at the

truth first, and then come to me. At the same time I boldly assert

that mere knowledge of the truth will not give you the art of

persuasion.

  Phaedr. There is reason in the lady's defence of herself.

  Soc. Quite true; if only the other arguments which remain to be

brought up bear her witness that she is an art at all. But I seem to

hear them arraying themselves on the opposite side, declaring that she

speaks falsely, and that rhetoric is a mere routine and trick, not

an art. Lo! a Spartan appears, and says that there never is nor ever

will be a real art of speaking which is divorced from the truth.

  Phaedr. And what are these arguments, Socrates? Bring them out

that we may examine them.

  Soc. Come out, fair children, and convince Phaedrus, who is the

father of similar beauties, that he will never be able to speak

about anything as he ought to speak unless he have a knowledge of

philosophy. And let Phaedrus answer you.

  Phaedr. Put the question.

  Soc. Is not rhetoric, taken generally, a universal art of enchanting

the mind by arguments; which is practised not only in courts and

public assemblies, but in private houses also, having to do with all

matters, great as well as small, good and bad alike, and is in all

equally right, and equally to be esteemed-that is what you have heard?

  Phaedr. Nay, not exactly that; I should say rather that I have heard

the art confined to speaking and writing in lawsuits, and to

speaking in public assemblies-not extended farther.

  Soc. Then I suppose that you have only heard of the rhetoric of

Nestor and Odysseus, which they composed in their leisure hours when

at Troy, and never of the rhetoric of Palamedes?

  Phaedr. No more than of Nestor and Odysseus, unless Gorgias is

your Nestor, and Thrasymachus or Theodorus your Odysseus.

  Soc. Perhaps that is my meaning. But let us leave them. And do you

tell me, instead, what are plaintiff and defendant doing in a law

court-are they not contending?

  Phaedr. Exactly so.

  Soc. About the just and unjust-that is the matter in dispute?

  Phaedr. Yes.

  Soc. And a professor of the art will make the same thing appear to

the same persons to be at one time just, at another time, if he is

so inclined, to be unjust?

  Phaedr. Exactly.

  Soc. And when he speaks in the assembly, he will make the same

things seem good to the city at one time, and at another time the

reverse of good?

  Phaedr. That is true.

  Soc. Have we not heard of the Eleatic Palamedes (Zeno), who has an

art of speaking by which he makes the same things appear to his

hearers like and unlike, one and many, at rest and in motion?

  Phaedr. Very true.

  Soc. The art of disputation, then, is not confined to the courts and

the assembly, but is one and the same in every use of language; this

is the art, if there be such an art, which is able to find a

likeness of everything to which a likeness can be found, and draws

into the light of day the likenesses and disguises which are used by

others?

  Phaedr. How do you mean?

  Soc. Let me put the matter thus: When will there be more chance of

deception-when the difference is large or small?

  Phaedr. When the difference is small.

  Soc. And you will be less likely to be discovered in passing by

degrees into the other extreme than when you go all at once?

  Phaedr. Of course.

  Soc. He, then, who would. deceive others, and not be deceived,

must exactly know the real likenesses and differences of things?

  Phaedr. He must.

  Soc. And if he is ignorant of the true nature of any subject, how

can he detect the greater or less degree of likeness in other things

to that of which by the hypothesis he is ignorant?

  Phaedr. He cannot.

  Soc. And when men are deceived and their notions are at variance

with realities, it is clear that the error slips in through

resemblances?

  Phaedr. Yes, that is the way.

  Soc. Then he who would be a master of the art must understand the

real nature of everything; or he will never know either how to make

the gradual departure from truth into the opposite of truth which is

effected by the help of resemblances, or how to avoid it?

  Phaedr. He will not.

  Soc. He then, who being ignorant of the truth aims at appearances,

will only attain an art of rhetoric which is ridiculous and is not

an art at all?

  Phaedr. That may be expected.

  Soc. Shall I propose that we look for examples of art and want of

art, according to our notion of them, in the speech of Lysias which

you have in your hand, and in my own speech?

  Phaedr. Nothing could be better; and indeed I think that our

previous argument has been too abstract and-wanting in illustrations.

  Soc. Yes; and the two speeches happen to afford a very good

example of the way in which the speaker who knows the truth may,

without any serious purpose, steal away the hearts of his hearers.

This piece of good-fortune I attribute to the local deities; and

perhaps, the prophets of the Muses who are singing over our heads

may have imparted their inspiration to me. For I do not imagine that I

have any rhetorical art of my own.

  Phaedr. Granted; if you will only please to get on.

  Soc. Suppose that you read me the first words of Lysias' speech.

  Phaedr. "You know how matters stand with me, and how, as I conceive,

they might be arranged for our common interest; and I maintain that

I ought not to fail in my suit, because I am not your lover. For

lovers repent-"

  Soc. Enough:-Now, shall I point out the rhetorical error of those

words?

  Phaedr. Yes.

  Soc. Every one is aware that about some things we are agreed,

whereas about other things we differ.

  Phaedr. I think that I understand you; but will you explain

yourself?

  Soc. When any one speaks of iron and silver, is not the same thing

present in the minds of all?

  Phaedr. Certainly.

  Soc. But when any one speaks of justice and goodness we part company

and are at odds with one another and with ourselves?

  Phaedr. Precisely.

  Soc. Then in some things we agree, but not in others?

  Phaedr. That is true.

  Soc. In which are we more likely to be deceived, and in which has

rhetoric the greater power?

  Phaedr. Clearly, in the uncertain class.

  Soc. Then the rhetorician ought to make a regular division, and

acquire a distinct notion of both classes, as well of that in which

the many err, as of that in which they do not err?

  Phaedr. He who made such a distinction would have an excellent

principle.

  Soc. Yes; and in the next place he must have a keen eye for the

observation of particulars in speaking, and not make a mistake about

the class to which they are to be referred.

  Phaedr. Certainly.

  Soc. Now to which class does love belong-to the debatable or to

the undisputed class?

  Phaedr. To the debatable, clearly; for if not, do you think that

love would have allowed you to say as you did, that he is an evil both

to the lover and the beloved, and also the greatest possible good?

  Soc. Capital. But will you tell me whether I defined love at the

beginning of my speech? for, having been in an ecstasy, I cannot

well remember.

  Phaedr. Yes, indeed; that you did, and no mistake.

  Soc. Then I perceive that the Nymphs of Achelous and Pan the son

of Hermes, who inspired me, were far better rhetoricians than Lysias

the son of Cephalus. Alas! how inferior to them he is! But perhaps I

am mistaken; and Lysias at the commencement of his lover's speech

did insist on our supposing love to be something or other which he

fancied him to be, and according to this model he fashioned and framed

the remainder of his discourse. Suppose we read his beginning over

again:

  Phaedr. If you please; but you will not find what you want.

  Soc, Read, that I may have his exact words.

  Phaedr. "You know how matters stand with and how, as I conceive,

they might be arranged for our common interest; and I maintain I ought

not to fail in my suit because I am not your lover, for lovers

repent of the kindnesses which they have shown, when their love is

over."

  Soc. Here he appears to have done just the reverse of what he ought;

for he has begun at the end, and is swimming on his back through the

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 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

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 far, rhetoric has a fair beginning here.

  Phaedr. I think, Socrates, that this is admirable, if only

practicable.

  Soc. But even to fail in an honourable object is honourable.

  Phaedr. True.

  Soc. Enough appears to have been said by us of a true and false

art of speaking.

  Phaedr. Certainly.

  Soc. But there is something yet to be said of propriety and

impropriety of writing.

  Phaedr. Yes.

  Soc. Do you know how you can speak or act about rhetoric in a manner

which will be acceptable to God?

  Phaedr. No, indeed. Do you?

  Soc. I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not

they only know; although if we had found the truth ourselves, do you

think that we should care much about the opinions of men?

  Phaedr. Your question needs no answer; but I wish that you would

tell me what you say that you have heard.

  Soc. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old

god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is

sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as

arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and

dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those

days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he

dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call

Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him

came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other

Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated

them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some

of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It

would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in

praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters,

This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them

better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit.

Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of

an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his

own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are

the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children

have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have;

for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners'

souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to

the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The

specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to

reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the

semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will

have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will

generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show

of wisdom without the reality.

  Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of

any other country.

  Soc. There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first

gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their

simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth

even from "oak or rock," it was enough for them; whereas you seem to

consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is

and from what country the tale comes.

  Phaedr. I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke; and I think that

the Theban is right in his view about letters.

  Soc. He would be a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the

oracles of Thamus or Ammon, who should leave in writing or receive

in writing any art under the idea that the written word would be

intelligible or certain; or who deemed that writing was at all

better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters?

  Phaedr. That is most true.

  Soc. I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is

unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the

attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a

solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would

imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything

and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one

unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are

tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them,

and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they

are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and

they cannot protect or defend themselves.

  Phaedr. That again is most true.

  Soc. Is there not another kind of word or speech far better than

this, and having far greater power-a son of the same family, but

lawfully begotten?

  Phaedr. Whom do you mean, and what is his origin?

  Soc. I mean an intelligent word graven in the soul of the learner,

which can defend itself, and knows when to speak and when to be

silent.

  Phaedr. You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul,

and of which written word is properly no more than an image?

  Soc. Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed to

ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take

the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in

sober seriousness plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden

of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days

appearing in beauty? at least he would do so, if at all, only for

the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows

in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight

months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?

  Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest;

he will do the other, as you say, only in play.

  Soc. And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and

honourable has less understanding, than the husbandman, about his

own seeds?

  Phaedr. Certainly not.

  Soc. Then he will not seriously incline to "write" his thoughts

"in water" with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak

for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?

  Phaedr. No, that is not likely.

  Soc. No, that is not likely-in the garden of letters he will sow and

plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amusement; he will

write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness

of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the

same path. He will rejoice in beholding their tender growth; and while

others are refreshing their souls with banqueting and the like, this

will be the pastime in which his days are spent.

  Phaedr. A pastime, Socrates, as noble as the other is ignoble, the

pastime of a man who can be amused by serious talk, and can

discourse merrily about justice and the like.

  Soc. True, Phaedrus. But nobler far is the serious pursuit of the

dialectician, who, finding a congenial soul, by the help of science

sows and plants therein words which are able to help themselves and

him who planted them, and are not unfruitful, but have in them a

seed which others brought up in different soils render immortal,

making the possessors of it happy to the utmost extent of human

happiness.

  Phaedr. Far nobler, certainly.

  Soc. And now, Phaedrus, having agreed upon the premises we decide

about the conclusion.

  Phaedr. About what conclusion?

  Soc. About Lysias, whom we censured, and his art of writing, and his

discourses, and the rhetorical skill or want of skill which was

shown in them-these are the questions which we sought to determine,

and they brought us to this point. And I think that we are now

pretty well informed about the nature of art and its opposite.

  Phaedr. Yes, I think with you; but I wish that you would repeat what

was said.

  Soc. Until a man knows the truth of the several particulars of which

he is writing or speaking, and is able to define them as they are, and

having defined them again to divide them until they can be no longer

divided, and until in like manner he is able to discern the nature

of the soul, and discover the different modes of discourse which are

adapted to different natures, and to arrange and dispose them in

such a way that the simple form of speech may be addressed to the

simpler nature, and the complex and composite to the more complex

nature-until he has accomplished all this, he will be unable to handle

arguments according to rules of art, as far as their nature allows

them to be subjected to art, either for the purpose of teaching or

persuading;-such is the view which is implied in the whole preceding

argument.

  Phaedr. Yes, that was our view, certainly.

  Soc. Secondly, as to the censure which was passed on the speaking or

writing of discourses, and how they might be rightly or wrongly

censured-did not our previous argument show?-

  Phaedr. Show what?

  Soc. That whether Lysias or any other writer that ever was or will

be, whether private man or statesman, proposes laws and so becomes the

author of a political treatise, fancying that there is any great

certainty and clearness in his performance, the fact of his so writing

is only a disgrace to him, whatever men may say. For not to know the

nature of justice and injustice, and good and evil, and not to be able

to distinguish the dream from the reality, cannot in truth be

otherwise than disgraceful to him, even though he have the applause of

the whole world.

  Phaedr. Certainly.

  Soc. But he who thinks that in the written word there is necessarily

much which is not serious, and that neither poetry nor prose, spoken

or written, is of any great value, if, like the compositions of the

rhapsodes, they are only recited in order to be believed, and not with

any view to criticism or instruction; and who thinks that even the

best of writings are but a reminiscence of what we know, and that only

in principles of justice and goodness and nobility taught and

communicated orally for the sake of instruction and graven in the

soul, which is the true way of writing, is there clearness and

perfection and seriousness, and that such principles are a man's own

and his legitimate offspring;-being, in the first place, the word

which he finds in his own bosom; secondly, the brethren and

descendants and relations of his others;-and who cares for them and no

others-this is the right sort of man; and you and I, Phaedrus, would

pray that we may become like him.

  Phaedr. That is most assuredly my desire and prayer.

  Soc. And now the play is played out; and of rhetoric enough. Go

and tell Lysias that to the fountain and school of the Nymphs we

went down, and were bidden by them to convey a message to him and to

other composers of speeches-to Homer and other writers of poems,

whether set to music or not; and to Solon and others who have composed

writings in the form of political discourses which they would term

laws-to all of them we are to say that if their compositions are based

on knowledge of the truth, and they can defend or prove them, when

they are put to the test, by spoken arguments, which leave their

writings poor in comparison of them, then they are to be called, not

only poets, orators, legislators, but are worthy of a higher name,

befitting the serious pursuit of their life.

  Phaedr. What name would you assign to them?

  Soc. Wise, I may not call them; for that is a great name which

belongs to God alone,-lovers of wisdom or philosophers is their modest

and befitting title.

  Phaedr. Very suitable.

  Soc. And he who cannot rise above his own compilations and

compositions, which he has been long patching, and piecing, adding

some and taking away some, may be justly called poet or speech-maker

or law-maker.

  Phaedr. Certainly.

  Soc. Now go and tell this to your companion.

  Phaedr. But there is also a friend of yours who ought not to be

forgotten.

  Soc. Who is he?

  Phaedr. Isocrates the fair:-What message will you send to him, and

how shall we describe him?

  Soc. Isocrates is still young, Phaedrus; but I am willing to

hazard a prophecy concerning him.

  Phaedr. What would you prophesy?

  Soc. I think that he has a genius which soars above the orations

of Lysias, and that his character is cast in a finer mould. My

impression of him is that he will marvelously improve as he grows

older, and that all former rhetoricians will be as children in

comparison of him. And I believe that he will not be satisfied with

rhetoric, but that there is in him a divine inspiration which will

lead him to things higher still. For he has an element of philosophy

in his nature. This is the message of the gods dwelling in this place,

and which I will myself deliver to Isocrates, who is my delight; and

do you give the other to Lysias, who is yours.

  Phaedr. I will; and now as the heat is abated let us depart.

  Soc. Should we not offer up a prayer first of all to the local

deities?

  Phaedr. By all means.

  Soc. Beloved Pan, and all ye other gods who haunt this place, give

me beauty in the inward soul; and may the outward and inward man be at

one. May I reckon the wise to be the wealthy, and may I have such a

quantity of gold as a temperate man and he only can bear and

carry.-Anything more? The prayer, I think, is enough for me.

  Phaedr. Ask the same for me, for friends should have all things in

common.

  Soc. Let us go.





                            -THE END-

.



