Classic Audiobook Collection - Phaedrus by Plato ~ Full Audiobook [philosophy]

Episode Date: June 15, 2024

Phaedrus by Plato audiobook. Genre: philosophy In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates leaves the bustle of Athens for a walk outside the city walls with Phaedrus, a young admirer of speeches and a keen listener for the newest ideas. Beneath the shade of plane trees, their conversation begins with a provocative question about love and quickly expands into a far-reaching examination of the human soul. Through a sequence of vivid arguments and memorable images, Socrates challenges Phaedrus to consider whether persuasion is merely a technique for winning, or a craft that must be guided by truth and knowledge of the listener's character. The dialogue moves between the intoxicating pull of desire, the responsibilities of a lover and a teacher, and the nature of inspiration, including the unsettling possibility that some forms of madness can be gifts rather than defects. As the two men weigh the power of speeches, they also confront a deeper concern: what it means to learn, to remember, and to care for wisdom in a world that increasingly trusts words on a page. Elegant, playful, and demanding, Phaedrus explores love, rhetoric, ethics, and the pursuit of genuine understanding. For ad-free listening try our premium subscription Chapters (Approximate) (00:00:00) Chapter 01 (00:13:32) Chapter 02 (00:28:30) Chapter 03 (00:44:48) Chapter 04 (01:00:27) Chapter 05 (01:14:03) Chapter 06 (01:33:24) Chapter 07 (01:56:33) Chapter 08 (02:15:50) Chapter 09 (02:28:01) Chapter 10 (02:46:40) Chapter 11 (03:00:21) Chapter 12 (03:11:18) Chapter 13 (03:23:09) Chapter 14 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fidrus by Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett, Section 1. Persons of the Dialogue Socrates, Fidress Seen, under a plain tree by the banks of the Elyssus. My dear Fidrus, whence come you, and whither are you going? I come from Lyceus, the son of Kefalus, 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.

There he is right. Lucius, then, I suppose, was in the town. yes he was staying with epicrates here at the house of moricus that house which is near the temple of olympian zeus ah and how did he entertain you can i be wrong in supposing that lucius gave you a feast of discourse you shall hear if you can spare time to accompany me and should i not deem the conversation of you and lucius a thing of higher import as i may say in the words of pindar than any business will you go on and will you go on with the narration my tale socrates is one of your sort for love was the theme which occupied us Love, after a fashion, Lucius 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. Oh, that is noble of him. I wish that he would say the poor man rather than the lover. than the rich, and the old man rather than the young one. Then he would meet the case of me and 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

Magara, and when you have reached the wall, come back. as Herodicus recommends, without going in, I will keep you company. What do you mean, my good Socrates? How can you imagine that my unpracticed memory can do justice to such 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. I believe that I know Fidreus about as well as I know myself,

and I am very sure that the speech of Lucius was repeated to him, not once only, but again and again. He insisted on hearing it many times over, and Lucius 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 district discourse, unless it was unusually long, and he went to a place outside the wall that he might practice 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 heirs, 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, Fiderus, bid him do at once what he soon will do, whether bidden or not. I see that you will not let me off, until I speak in sudden fashion or other. Verily, therefore, my best plan is to speak as I best can. A very true remark, that of yours. I will do as I say. But believe me, Socrates, I did not learn the very words. Oh, 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. Mm, yes, my sweet one, but you must first of all show what. you have in your left hand, under your cloak, for that role, 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 Lucius himself here. 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? Let us turn aside and go by the illisus. We will sit down at some quiet spot. 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. feet in the water. This will be the easiest way, and at midday and in the summer is far from being unpleasant. Lead on, and look out for a place in which we can sit down. Do you see the tallest plane-tree in the distance?

Yes. There are shade and gentle breezes, and grass on which we may either sit or lie down. move forward i should like to know socrates whether the place is not somewhere here at which boreas is said to who carried off orithea from the banks of the elisus such is the tradition and is this the exact spot the little stream is delightfully clear and bright i can fancy that there might be maidens playing near 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 ah i have never noticed it but i beseech you to tell me socrates do you believe this tale the wise are doubtful and i should not be singular if like them i too doubted i might have a rational explanation that orithea was playing with farmakia 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 borias there is a discrepancy however about the locality. According to another version of the story, she was taken from Ariopagus,

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 hippocentors and chimeras dire. Gorgans 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 inquiries. 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 tiffo or a creature of a gentler and simpler and simpler

sort, to whom nature has given a diviner and lolier destiny. But let me ask you, friend, have we not reached the plain-tree to which you were conducting us? Yes, this is the tree. By here a fair resting-place, full of summer sounds and scents. is this lofty and spreading plain-tree, and the Agnos castus, high and clustering, in the fullest blossom and the greatest fragrance. And the stream which flows beneath the plain-tree is deliciously cold to the feet. Judging from the ornaments and images, this must be a spot sacred to Achiloos and the nymphs, and the nymphs,

the nymphs. Oh, how delightful is the breeze, so very sweet. And there is a sound in the air, shrill and summer-like, which makes answer to the chorus of the cicard-eye. But the greatest charm of all is the grass, like a pillow gently sloping to the head. My dear Fydras, you have been an admirable guide. End of Section 1. Recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelmere, Surrey.

Section 2 of Fydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Joet. This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 2 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.

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

you know how matters stand with me and how as i conceived the 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 do 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 excuses 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 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 fixations are many, and he is always fancying that everyone 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 a friend in the world, or if out of 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 real, 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 pity. 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 beseech 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 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. End of Section 2. recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelmere, Surrey. Section 3 of Fydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett.

This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 3 Now, Socrates, what do you think? Is not the discourse, more especially in the matter of the language. Yes, quite admirable. The effect on me was ravishing.

And this I owe to you, Phytras, 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 frenzy indeed you are pleased to be merry do you mean that i am not in earnest 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 Helene could have said more, or spoken better, on the same subject. 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? 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 Lucius 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, insuring how well he could say the same thing in two or three ways.

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 anyone could have spoken better, or more exhaustively. 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 complacence, I assented to you. Who are they? And where did you hear anything better than this?

I am sure that I must have heard, but at this moment I do not remember from whom, perhaps from Afo 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 Lucius, 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 ears, like a picture, from the waters of another, though I have actually forgotten, in my stupidity who was my informant. That is grand, but never mind where you heard the discourse, or from whom. Let that be a mystery not to be divulged even at my earnest division.

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. You are a dear golden ass, if you suppose me to mean that Lucius 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. I admit that there is reason in what you say, and I too will be reasonable, and will allow you to start with the premise 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 Cupsilids at Olympia.

How profoundly in earnest is the lover! because to tease him i lay a finger upon his love and so fidrus you really imagine that i am going to improve upon the ingenuity of lusias there i have you as you had me and you must just speak as you best can do not let us exchange to quackque 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, 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 propend and do not compel me to use violence but my sweet fydras how ridiculous it would be of me to compete with lycius in an extemporary speech he is a master in his eyes and i am an untaught man you see how matters stand and therefore let there be no more pretenses for indeed i know the word that is irresistible then don't say it 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 plain tree i swear that unless you repeat the discourse here in the face of this very plain tree i will never tell you another never let you have word of another villain i am conquered the poor lover of discourse has no more to say then why are you still at your tricks i am not going to play tricks now that you have taken the oath for i cannot allow myself to be starved proceed shall i tell you what i will do what 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

only go on and you may do anything else which you please come o ye muses melodious as ye 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, oh, 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 naught. 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 our 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 inquire whether love brings advantage or disadvantage. Everyone 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 leaders 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. 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. The tyrannical desire of drink, which inclines the possessor of 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 dominant. 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. Erominos, Erros. of Section 3. Recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelmere, Surrey. Section 4 of Fydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Joet. This Librevox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin

Gieson. Section 4. And now, dear Fidress, I shall pause for an instant. Do I ask whether you do not think me, as I appear to myself, inspired. Yes, Socrates, you seem to have a very unusual flow of words. 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 diddyrambics. Nothing can be truer. 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 inquire 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 diseased, 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, 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, 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 anyone 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 evidently ever. 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 homeless as well And the longer the better, for the longer he is all this, the longer he will enjoy him. There are some sort of animals such as flatterers who are dangerous and mischievous enough, and yet nature has mingled at 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, oh, 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 public, are published all over the world in 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 heart 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 bosoms 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 were 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. In a little, illusion to a game in which two parties fled or pursued, according as an oyster-shell which was thrown into the air, fell with the dark or light side uppermost. Translator's footnote, 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 i thought that you were only half-way and we're going to make a similar speech about all the advantages of accepting the non-lover why do you not proceed

does not your simplicity observe that i have got out of dithirambics into heroics when only uttering a censure on the lover and if i am to add to 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 I will only add that the non-lover has all the advantages in which the lover is accused of being deficient. 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. 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. End of Section 4. by Martin Gessen in Hazelmere Surrey.

Section 5 of Fidrus by Plato. Translated by Benjamin Joet This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 5 Your love of discourse, Fidrus, 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 accept Simeas the Theban, but all the rest are far behind you. and now I do verily believe that you have been the cause of another. That is good news, but what do you mean?

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 ear 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.

Oh, my friend, how prophetic is the human soul! At the time I had a sort of misgiving, and like Ibicus, I was troubled, I feared that I might be buying honour from men at the price of sinning against the gods. now i recognise my error what error oh that was a dreadful speech which you brought with you and you made me utter one as bad how so it was foolish i say to a certain extent impious can anything be more dreadful nothing if the speech was really such as you describe well and is not eros the son of aphrodite and a god so men say but that was not acknowledged by lucius 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 mannequins 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 Stessicorus, 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 Stesicorus 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 assured. but with forehead bold and bare. Nothing could be more agreeable to me than to hear you say so. Only think, my good Fydras, 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 anyone, 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. I dare say not, Socrates.

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, I would counsel Lucius not to delay, but to write another discourse, which shall prove that Keteris Paribus the lover ought to be accepted rather than the non-lover. Be assured that he shall. You shall speak the praises of the lover, and Lucius shall be compelled by me to write another discourse on the same theme. you will be true to your nature in that and therefore i believe you speak and fear not

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 he is close at hand and always at your service. Know, then, fair youth, that the former discourse was the word of Fydras, the son of vain man, who dwells in the city of Mirhina, Mirhinos, and this which I am about to utter

is the recantation of Stesicorus, the son of godly man, Eufemos, who comes from the town, of desire, Chimera, 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 was simply an evil, but there is also a madness which is a divine gift, and the

source of the chiefest blessings granted to man. 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 Helas, 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 everyone knows. There will be more reason in appealing to the ancient inventors of names, who would never have

of connected prophecy, Mantike, which foretells the future, and is the noblest of arts, with madness, manigee, 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. the two words, mantike and manikiee are really the same, and the letter, Tao, 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.

forasmuch as it is an art which supplies from the reasoning faculty mind nois and information historia to human thought oiesis they originally termed oiomistike but the word has been lately altered and made sonorous by the modern introduction of the letter oionostike and oionistike and in proportion as 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 sophrosine 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, their 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 exempt 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 their 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 muse's 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. End of Section 5.

Recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelmere, Surrey. Section 6 of Fydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett. This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 6 I might tell of many of many of you. 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 wittling 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, 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 charioteers, the human chariotia 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 diverse 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 god

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, everyone 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 rain, 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 world's 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 existence absolute.

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 likeest 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 unrulyness 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 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 a 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 deteriorates his life he who does unrighteously deteriorates his life 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, guile less 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! The philosopher alone is not subject to judgment, crisis, for he has never lost the vision of truth, 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 likely born 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 and 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 particular

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 a right these men memories, is ever being initiated into perfect mysteries, and alone becomes truly perfect. But as he forgets, earthly interests, and is wrapped in the divine, the vulgar deem him mad, and rebuke him. They do not see that he is inspired.

End of Section 6. Recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelma, Surrey. Section 7 of Vydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Joet. This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 7. 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 wrapped 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 Seuss, 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 in pure 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 he whose initiation is recent and who has been the spectator of many glories in the other world, is amazed when he sees anyone 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.

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 moisons, 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, on melted And as nourishment streams upon him, the lower end of the wing 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 received the sensible warm motion of particles which flow towards her, therefore called emotion, Chimeros, 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 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, 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, or reading Pterothoiton, the movement 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. 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. Everyone 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 someone 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 either too 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 hearer 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 captained.

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'm have not yet explained in what the goodness or badness of either consists, and to that I will now 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 pricking 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 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 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 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. End of Section 7. Recording by Martin Giesen in Hazelmere, Surrey. Section 8 of Fydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Joit. This Librivox recording is in the public domain.

Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 8 And so the beloved, who, like a God, has received every true and loyal service from his lover, not in pretense 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 from 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 goodwill 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 this 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. has love's image, love for love, and terus, 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 as 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 a 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. 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 to 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 heaven, 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 love. 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 Fydras 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 Vydras or myself said anything rude in our first speeches, blame Lucius, who is the father of the brat, and let us have no more of his progeny. Bid him study philosophy, like his brother, Polymarcus, and then his lover, Fydras, will no longer halt between two opinions, but will do dedicate himself wholly to love, and to philosophical discourses. 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 Lucius, 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. 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.

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. You seem to be unconscious, Phyterus, that the sweet elbow of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. Translator's footnote. A proverb like the grapes are sour, applied to pleasures which cannot be had,

meaning sweet things which like the elbow are out of the reach of the mouth. The promised pleasure turns out to be a long and tedious affair. 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 admirer's names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them. what do you mean i do not understand why do you not know that when a politician writes he begins with the names of his approvers how so 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? True. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight. But if the law is rejects. 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. Very true. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.

No doubt. 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? Very true. then do you think that any one of this class however ill-disposed would reproach lucius with being an author not upon your view for according to you he would be casting a slur on his own favourite pursuit mrs borkman any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing Certainly not. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

Clearly, and what is well, and what is badly? Need we ask Lucius, or any other poet orator, who ever wrote or will write, either a political or any other work, in metre or out of metre, poet or poet, poet or prolet, writer, to teach us this. 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.

There is time enough. And I believe that the grasshoppers chirping 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 midday, lulled by their voices, too indolent to think. would they not have the 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 what gifts do you mean i never heard of any

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 honors them on earth. They win the love of Tertzikore for the dancers, by their report of them, of Erato for the lovers, and of the other Muses. 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, or 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 midday. Let us talk! End of Section 8. Recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelmere Surrey. Section 9 of Fydras by Plato.

translated by Benjamin Joet. This Libri-Box recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 9 Hmm. Shall we discuss the rules of writing and speech as we were proposing? Ah, very good. In good speaking, should not the mind of

the speaker know the truth of the matter about which he is going to speak. 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. that from opinion comes persuasion, and not from the truth. 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. Very true.

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. That would be ridiculous. There is something more ridiculous coming. Suppose further, that in sober earnest I, having persuaded you of this when 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. How ridiculous! Ridiculous, yes, but is not even a ridiculous. friend better than a cunning enemy. Certainly, 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 evil what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed

the reverse of good 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. There is reason in the lady's defence of herself. 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. And what are these arguments, Socrates? Bring them out that we may examine them. Come out fair children, and convince Fidrus, 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 Fidreus answer you. Put the question. Is not rhetoric, taken generally, a use of you?

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. may 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 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 palomides no more than of nestor and odysseus unless gorgias is your nestor and thrasimachus or theodorus your odysseus perhaps that is my meaning but let us leave them and do you tell me instead what are plaintive and defendant doing in a

court are they not contending exactly so about the just and unjust that is the matter in dispute yes 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 exactly 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 that is true 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. Very true. 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. How do you mean? Let me put the matter thus. When will there be more chance of deception, when the difference is large or small? When the difference is small? and you will be less likely to be discovered in passing by degrees into the other extreme than when you go all at once.

Of course, he then who would deceive others, and not be deceived, must exactly know the real likenesses and differences of things. He must. 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? He cannot. And when men are deceived, and their notions are at variance with realities, it is clear that the error slips in, through resemblances. Yes, that is the way. 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 affected by the help of resemblances, or how to avoid it. he will not. 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. That may be expected. Shall I propose that we look for examples of art and want of art, according to our notion of them, in the speech. of Lucius, which you have in your hand, and in my own speech.

Nothing could be better, and indeed I think that our previous argument has been too abstract and wanting in illustrations. 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. Granted, if you will only please to get on.

End of Section 9. Recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelmere, Surrey. Section 10 of Fydrus by Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett. this libri-box recording is in the public domain recording by martin gison section ten suppose that you read me the first words of lucius's speech you know how matters stand with me and how as i conceive they might be arranged for our common interest and i maintain the I ought not to fail in my suit, because I am not your lover. For lovers repent. Enough! Now, shall I point out the rhetorical error of those words?

Yes. Everyone is aware that about some things we are agreed, whereas about other things we differ. I think that I understand you, but will you explain yourself. When anyone speaks of iron and silver, is not the same thing present in the minds of all. Certainly. But when anyone speaks of justice and goodness, we part company and are at odds with one another, and with ourselves. Precisely. Then in some things we agree, but not in others. That is true.

In which are we more likely to be deceived, and in which has rhetoric the greater power? Clearly in the uncertain class. 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 he who made such a distinction would have an excellent principle yes and in the next place he must have a keen eye for the observation of particulars in speaking and must not make a mistake about the class to which they are to be referred certainly now to which class does love belong to the debatable or to the undisputed class

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 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 yes indeed that you did and no mistake then i perceive that the nymphs of achilous and pan the son of hermes who inspired me were far better rhetoricians than Lucius, the son of Cephalus, alas, how inferior to them he is. But perhaps I am mistaken, and Lucius 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 if you please but you will not find what you want read that i may have his exact words you know how matters stand with me 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. 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 Fydros? Yes, indeed, Socrates, he does begin at the end. 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, but he wrote off boldly just what came into his head.

But I dare say that you would recognise a rhetorical necessity in the succession of the several parts of the composition. you have too good an opinion of me if you think that i have any such insight into his principles of composition 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. Certainly. Can this be said of the discourse of Lucius? See whether you can find any more connection in his words than in the epitaph which is said by some to have been inscribed on the grave of Midas, the Phrygian. What is there remarkable in the epitaph? 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. You are making fun of that oration of ours. 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 in what way the two speeches as you may remember were unlike the one argued that the lover and the other that the non-lover ought to be accepted and right manfully you should rather say madly and madness was the argument of them, for, as I said, love is a madness.

Yes, 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. True. 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, Fyterus, and the guardian of fair children, and to him we sung the hymn in measured and solemn strain. I know that I had great pleasure in listening to you.

Let us take this instance and note how the transition was made from blame to praise. What do you mean? I mean to say that the composition was mostly playful, yet in these chival. 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 what are they first the comprehension of scattered particulars in one idea as in our definition of love which whether true or false certainly gave clearness and 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. What is the other principle, Socrates? 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 speech 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 before us and applauded and affirmed to be the author of the greatest benefits most true i am myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalisation they help me to speak and to think and if i find any man who is able to see a one and many men 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 lucius's disciples and whether this may not be that famous art of rhetoric which Thrasymachus and others teach and practice. Skillful speakers they are, and impart their skill to any who is willing to make kings of them, and to bring gifts to them. 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. What do you mean?

The remains of it, if there be anything remaining which can be brought under the 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? there is a great deal surely to be found in books of rhetoric 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 yes then follows the statement of facts and upon that which thirdly proofs fourthly probabilities are to come the great byzantian word-maker also speaks if i am not mistaken of confirmation and further confirmation you mean the excellent theodorus 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, Evernus, 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, too dumb forgetfulness consign Tisius 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 is. 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. Well done, prodigus. Then there is Hippias, the Elean stranger, who probably agrees with him.

Yes, and there is also Pallas, who has treasuries of diplasiology and gnomology and iconology. and who teaches in them the names of which Lycumnius made him a present. They were to give a polish. Had not Protagoras something of the same sort? 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 his 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. You mean that there should be a summing up of the arguments in order to remind the hearers of them. I have now said all that I have to say of the art of rhetoric. Have you anything to add? Not much, nothing very important. End of Section 10. Recording by Martin Gieson in Hazelmere, Surrey. Section 11 of Fydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Joit.

This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Geeson. Section 11. 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? A very great power in public meetings. 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.

Give an example. I will. Suppose a person to come to your friend Eric Simachus, 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 problem. 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 they would be sure to ask him whether he knew to whom he would give his medicines and when and how much 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

they would say in reply that he is a madman or a 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 a no real understanding of the art of medicine. 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. 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.

But I do not suppose that they would be rude or abusive to him. him. Would they not treat him as a musician, a man who thinks that he is a harmonist, because he knows how to pitch the highest and lowest note? 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 very true 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 quite true and if adrastus the melifluus or pericles heard of these wonderful

arts, drachylogies and iconologies, 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 phydras 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. 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. 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 Lucius or Thrasymachus. In what direction, then? I conceive Pericles to have been the most accomplished of rhetoricians. What of that?

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 negative of mind which were favourite themes of anaxagoras and applied what suited his purpose to the art of speaking explain rhetoric is like medicine how so 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. There, Socrates, I suspect that you are right. And do you think that you can know the nature of the soul, intelligent? without knowing the nature of the whole. Hippocrates the Asclepiad says that the nature, even of the body, can only be understood as a whole. 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. I agree. 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 inquire what power it has of acting or being acted upon, is a simple 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 the 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 you may very likely be right socrates 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 speech and this I conceive to be the soul. Certainly, his whole effort is directed to the soul, for in that he seeks to produce conviction. Yes. Then clearly Thrasimachus or anyone else who teaches rhetoric in earnest will give an exact description of the nature of the soul, which will enable us to see us to see. 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. Exactly. He will explain, secondly, the mode in which she acts or is acted upon. Two, thirdly, having classified men and speeches, and their kinds are 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. You have hit upon a very good way. Yes, that is, the true and only way, in which any subject can be set forth or treated by the rules of

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? What is our method? 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. Let me hear. End of Section 11. Recording by Martin Gieson, in Hazelmea, Surrey. Section 12 of Vydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Joit. This Librivox recording is in the public domain.

Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 12. Hmm, oratory is the art of enchanting the soul, and therefore he who would be an orator has to learn the different 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 perceived. 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. 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 Still 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 fydras and socrates your account of the so-called art of rhetoric or am i to look for another he must take this socrates for there is no possibility of another and yet the creation of such an art is not easy very true and therefore let us consider at 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, roundabout 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 anyone else, anything which might be of service to us.

if trying would avail then i might but at the moment i can think of nothing suppose i tell you something which somebody who knows told me certainly may not the wolf as the proverb says claim a hearing do you say what can be said for him he will argue that there 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 or good nor is a question in which men are concerned who are just and good either by nature or habit he who would be a skilful rhetorition 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 he 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 goodbye to the truth. And the observation of this principle throughout a speech furnishes the whole art. 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. i dare say that you are familiar with tisias does he not define probability to be that which the many think certainly he does

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 to have robbed his own him of his coat, or of something or other. He is brought into court, and then Tissia 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, Fydras.

Certainly. 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? What shall we say to him? 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. But unless a man estimates the various characters of his hearers, and is able to divide all things into classes, and to comprehend them under single ideas, he will never be a skilful rhetorition, 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, and 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 tis that if you do not mind going so far rhetoric has a fair beginning here i think socrates that this is admirable if only practicable but even to fail in an honourable object is honourable true 12. Recording by Martin Gessen in Hazelmere, Surrey. Section 13 of Fydras by Plato, translated by Benjamin Joet. This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 13.

Enough appears to have been said by us of a true and false art of speaking. Certainly. But there is something yet to be said of propriety and impropriety of writing. Yes. Do you know how you can speak or act about rhetoric in a manner which will be acceptable to God? No, indeed, do you? 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? Your question needs no answer,

but I wish that you would tell me what you say that you have heard. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old, God, whose name was Thuth. 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 drafts and dice. But his great discovery was the use of letters. Now, in those days, the God Thammer, was king of the whole country of Egypt, and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt, which the Helenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the God himself is called them Amon.

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 Thamos inquired 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 Thamos said to Thuth in praise or blame of the various arts, but when they came to letters, this, said, said Theuth will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories. It is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamos 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 learner's souls because they will not use their memories they will trust to the external written character 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 the hearers of many things, and will have learned nothing. They will appear to be omniscient, and will generate. know nothing.

They will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt or of any other country. There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that Oaks first gave prophetic utterances. men of old, unlike in their simplicity, to young philosophy, determined 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. I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke, and I think that the Theban is right in his view about letters.

He would be a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the oracles of Thamos 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. That is most true. I cannot help feeling fibrous 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

humbled 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. That again is most true. 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 whom do you mean and what is his origin 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. You mean the living word of knowledge, which has a soul, and of which the written word is properly

no more than an image. 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 same? 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 if he is in earnest, he sows in fitting soil, and practices husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection. Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest. He will do the other, as you say, only in play. And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable, has less understanding than the husbandman about his own seeds. Certainly not. Then he will not seriously incline to write his thoughts in water with pen and ink,

sewing words which can neither speak for themselves, nor teach the truth adequately to others. No, that is not likely. 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.

A pastime, Socrates, as noble as the other is ignoble, the pastime of a man who can be amused by serious talk, and could discourse merrily about justice. and the like. True, Fydras, but nobler far is the serious pursuit of the dialectician, who finding a congenial soul, by the help of science, soes and plants therein' words which are able to help themselves, and him who planted them, and are not unfruitful, but having 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 far nobler certainly end of section thirteen recording by martin gison in hazelmere surrey section fourteen of phytras by Plato, translated by Benjamin

Joet. This Librivox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Martin Gieson. Section 14. And now, Fydras, having agreed upon the premises, we may decide about the conclusion. About what conclusion? about Lucius, 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 our own. and its opposite. Yes, I think with you, but I wish that you would repeat what was said. 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 yes that was our view certainly 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 show what that whether lucius 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 soul 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 discreet

graceful to him, even though he have the applause of the whole world? Certainly. 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 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 their 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 idea which have been duly implanted by him in the souls of others and who cares for them and know others this is the right sort of man and you and i fydras would pray that we may become like him that is most assuredly my desire and prayer and now the play is played out and of rhetoric enough go and tell lusias 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 bespoken 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. What name would you assign to them? 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. Very suitable. 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. Certainly. Now go and tell this to your companion. But there is also a friend of yours who ought not to be forgotten.

Who is he? Isocrates the fair. What message will you send to him? And how shall we describe him? Isocrates is still young, Fidrus, but I am willing to hazard a prophecy concerning him. What would you prophesy? I think that he has a genius which soars above the orations of Lucius, and that his character is cast in a finer mould. My impression of him is that he will

marvellously 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 to Lucius, who is yours. I will, and now, as the heat is abated, let us depart. Should we not offer up a prayer, first of all, to the local deities? By all means, 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 ask the same for me for friends should have all things in common let us go end of section fourteen recording by martin gison in hazelmea surrey end of phydras by plato translated by Benjamin Jewett.