Phaedrus
Plato (428–347 BC)
Plato's Phaedrus in the Greek text edited by John Burnet, with Harold North Fowler's English translation.
Section 227
Section 228
Section 229
Section 230
Section 231
Section 232
Section 233
Section 234
Section 235
Section 236
Section 237
Section 238
Section 239
Section 240
Section 241
Section 242
Section 243
Section 244
Section 245
Section 246
Section 247
Section 248
Section 249
Section 250
Section 251
Section 252
Section 253
Section 254
Section 255
Section 256
Section 257
Section 258
Section 259
Section 260
Section 261
Section 262
Section 263
Section 264
Section 265
Section 266
Socrates. That of dividing things again by classes, where the natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of a bad carver. As our two discourses just now assumed one common principle, unreason, and then, just as the body, which is one, is naturally divisible into two, right and left, with parts called by the same names, so our two discourses conceived of madness as naturally one principle within us, and one discourse, cutting off the left-hand part, continued to divide this until it found among its parts a sort of left-handed love, which it very justly reviled, but the other discourse, leading us to the right-hand part of madness, found a love having the same name as the first, but divine, which it held up to view and praised as the author of our greatest blessings.
Phaedrus. Very true.
Socrates. Now I myself, Phaedrus, am a lover of these processes of division and bringing together, as aids to speech and thought; and if I think any other man is able to see things that can naturally be collected into one and divided into many, him I follow after and walk in his footsteps as if he were a god.Home. Od. 5.193 ὃ δ’ ἔπειτα μετ’ ἴχνια βαῖνε θεοῖο, and he walked in the footsteps of the god. And whether the name I give to those who can do this is right or wrong, God knows, but I have called them hitherto dialecticians. But tell me now what name to give to those who are taught by you and Lysias, or is this that art of speech by means of which Thrasymachus and the rest have become able speakers themselves, and make others so, if they are willing to pay them royal tribute?
Phaedrus. They are royal men, but not trained in the matters about which you ask. I think you give this method the right name when you call it dialectic; but it seems to me that rhetoric still escapes us.
Socrates. What do you mean? Can there be anything of importance, which is not included in these processes and yet comes under the head of art? Certainly you and I must not neglect it, but must say what it is that remains of rhetoric.
Phaedrus. A great many things remain, Socrates, the things that are written in the books on rhetoric.
Socrates. Thank you for reminding me. You mean that there must be an introduction first, at the beginning of the discourse; these are the things you mean, are they not?—the niceties of the art.
Phaedrus. Yes.
Socrates. And the narrative must come second with the testimony after it, and third the proofs, and fourth the probabilities; and confirmation and further confirmation are mentioned, I believe, by the man from Byzantium, that most excellent artist in words.
Phaedrus. You mean the worthy Theodorus?