and　Eros。　In　the　description　of　the　last　kind　of　madness；　which　was
  also　said　to　be　the　best；　we　spoke　of　the　affection　of　love　in　a
  figure；　into　which　we　introduced　a　tolerably　credible　and　possibly
  true　though　partly　erring　myth；　which　was　also　a　hymn　in　honour　of
  Love；　who　is　your　lord　and　also　mine；　Phaedrus；　and　the　guardian　of
  fair　children；　and　to　him　we　sung　the　hymn　in　measured　and　solemn
  strain。
  Phaedr。　I　know　that　I　had　great　pleasure　in　listening　to　you。
  Soc。　Let　us　take　this　instance　and　note　how　the　transition　was
  made　from　blame　to　praise。
  Phaedr。　What　do　you　mean？
  Soc。　I　mean　to　say　that　the　composition　was　mostly　playful。　Yet　in
  these　chance　fancies　of　the　hour　were　involved　two　principles　of　which
  we　should　be　too　glad　to　have　a　clearer　description　if　art　could
  give　us　one。
  Phaedr。　What　are　they？
  Soc。　First；　the　comprehension　of　scattered　particulars　in　one
  idea；　as　in　our　definition　of　love；　which　whether　true　or　false
  certainly　gave　clearness　and　consistency　to　the　discourse；　the　speaker
  should　define　his　several　notions　and　so　make　his　meaning　clear。
  Phaedr。　What　is　the　other　principle；　Socrates？
  Soc。　The　second　principle　is　that　of　division　into　species　according
  to　the　natural　formation；　where　the　joint　is；　not　breaking　any　part　as
  a　bad　carver　might。　Just　as　our　two　discourses；　alike　assumed；　first
  of　all；　a　single　form　of　unreason；　and　then；　as　the　body　which　from
  being　one　becomes　double　and　may　be　divided　into　a　left　side　and　right
  side；　each　having　parts　right　and　left　of　the　same　name…after　this
  manner　the　speaker　proceeded　to　divide　the　parts　of　the　left　side
  and　did　not　desist　until　he　found　in　them　an　evil　or　left…handed
  love　which　he　justly　reviled；　and　the　other　discourse　leading　us　to
  the　madness　which　lay　on　the　right　side；　found　another　love；　also
  having　the　same　name；　but　divine；　which　the　speaker　held　up　before
  us　and　applauded　and　affirmed　to　be　the　author　of　the　greatest
  benefits。
  Phaedr。　Most　true。
  Soc。　I　am　myself　a　great　lover　of　these　processes　of　division　and
  generalization；　they　help　me　to　speak　and　to　think。　And　if　I　find
  any　man　who　is　able　to　see　〃a　One　and　Many〃　in　nature；　him　I　follow；
  and　〃walk　in　his　footsteps　as　if　he　were　a　god。〃　And　those　who　have
  this　art；　I　have　hitherto　been　in　the　habit　of　calling
  dialecticians；　but　God　knows　whether　the　name　is　right　or　not。　And　I
  should　like　to　know　what　name　you　would　give　to　your　or　to　Lysias'
  disciples；　and　whether　this　may　not　be　that　famous　art　of　rhetoric
  which　Thrasymachus　and　others　teach　and　practise？　Skilful　speakers
  they　are；　and　impart　their　skill　to　any　who　is　willing　to　make　kings
  of　them　and　to　bring　gifts　to　them。
  Phaedr。　Yes；　they　are　royal　men；　but　their　art　is　not　the　same
  with　the　art　of　those　whom　you　call；　and　rightly；　in　my　opinion；
  dialecticians：…Still　we　are　in　the　dark　about　rhetoric。
  Soc。　What　do　you　mean？　The　remains　of　it；　if　there　be　anything
  remaining　which　can　be　brought　under　rules　of　art；　must　be　a　fine
  thing；　and；　at　any　rate；　is　not　to　be　despised　by　you　and　me。　But
  how　much　is　left？
  Phaedr。　There　is　a　great　deal　surely　to　be　found　in　books　of
  rhetoric？
  Soc。　Yes；　thank　you　for　reminding　me：…There　is　the　exordium；　showing
  how　the　speech　should　begin；　if　I　remember　rightly；　that　is　what　you
  mean…the　niceties　of　the　art？
  Phaedr。　Yes。
  Soc。　Then　follows　the　statement　of　facts；　and　upon　that　witnesses；
  thirdly；　proofs；　fourthly；　probabilities　are　to　come；　the　great
  Byzantian　word…maker　also　speaks；　if　I　am　not　mistaken；　of
  confirmation　and　further　confirmation。
  Phaedr。　You　mean　the　excellent　Theodorus。
  Soc。　Yes；　and　he　tells　how　refutation　or　further　refutation　is　to　be
  managed；　whether　in　accusation　or　defence。　I　ought　also　to　mention　the
  illustrious　Parian；　Evenus；　who　first　invented　insinuations　and
  indirect　praises；　and　also　indirect　censures；　which　according　to
  some　he　put　into　verse　to　help　the　memory。　But　shall　I　〃to　dumb
  forgetfulness　consign〃　Tisias　and　Gorgias；　who　are　not　ignorant　that
  probability　is　superior　to　truth；　and　who　by：　force　of　argument　make
  the　little　appear　great　and　the　great　little；　disguise　the　new　in
  old　fashions　and　the　old　in　new　fashions；　and　have　discovered　forms
  for　everything；　either　short　or　going　on　to　infinity。　I　remember
  Prodicus　laughing　when　I　told　him　of　this；　he　said　that　he　had　himself
  discovered　the　true　rule　of　art；　which　was　to　be　neither　long　nor
  short；　but　of　a　convenient　length。
  Phaedr。　Well　done；　Prodicus！
  Soc。　Then　there　is　Hippias　the　Elean　stranger；　who　probably　agrees
  with　him。
  Phaedr。　Yes。
  Soc。　And　there　is　also　Polus；　who　has　treasuries　of　diplasiology；
  and　gnomology；　and　eikonology；　and　who　teaches　in　them　the　names　of
  which　Licymnius　made　him　a　present；　they　were　to　give　a　polish。
  Phaedr。　Had　not　Protagoras　something　of　the　same　sort？
  Soc。　Yes；　rules　of　correct　diction　and　many　other　fine　precepts；　for
  the　〃sorrows　of　a　poor　old　man；〃　or　any　other　pathetic　case；　no　one　is
  better　than　the　Chalcedonian　giant；　he　can　put　a　whole　company　of
  people　into　a　passion　and　out　of　one　again　by　his　mighty　magic；　and　is
  first…rate　at　inventing　or　disposing　of　any　sort　of　calumny　on　any
  grounds　or　none。　All　of　them　agree　in　asserting　that　a　speech　should
  end　in　a　recapitulation；　though　they　do　not　all　agree　to　use　the
  same　word。
  Phaedr。　You　mean　that　there　should　be　a　summing　up　of　the
  arguments　in　order　to　remind　the　hearers　of　them。
  Soc。　I　have　now　said　all　that　I　have　to　say　of　the　art　of
  rhetoric：　have　you　anything　to　add？
  Phaedr。　Not　much；　nothing　very　important。
  Soc。　Leave　the　unimportant　and　let　us　bring　the　really　important
  question　into　the　light　of　day；　which　is：　What　power　has　this　art　of
  rhetoric；　and　when？
  Phaedr。　A　very　great　power　in　public　meetings。
  Soc。　It　has。　But　I　should　like　to　know　whether　you　have　the　same
  feeling　as　I　have　about　the　rhetoricians？　To　me　there　seem　to　be　a
  great　many　holes　in　their　web。
  Phaedr。　Give　an　example。
  Soc。　I　will。　Suppose　a　person　to　come　to　your　friend　Eryximachus；　or
  to　his　father　Acumenus；　and　to　say　to　him：　〃I　know　how　to　apply
  drugs　which　shall　have　either　a　heating　or　a　cooling　effect；　and　I　can
  give　a　vomit　and　also　a　purge；　and　all　that　sort　of　thing；　and　knowing
  all　this；　as　I　do；　I　claim　to　be　a　physician　and　to　make　physicians　by
  imparting　this　knowledge　to　others；〃…what　do　you　suppose　that　they
  would　say？
  Phaedr。　They　would　be　sure　to　ask　him　whether　he　knew　〃to　whom〃　he
  would　give　his　medicines；　and　〃when；〃　and　〃how　much。〃
  Soc。　And　suppose　that　he　were　to　reply：　〃No；　I　know　nothing　of　all
  that；　I　expect　the　patient　who　consults　me　to　be　able　to　do　these
  things　for　himself〃？
  Phaedr。　They　would　say　in　reply　that　he　is　a　madman　or　pedant　who
  fancies　that　he　is　a　physician　because　he　has　read　something　in　a
  book；　or　has　stumbled　on　a　prescription　or　two；　although　he　has　no
  real　understanding　of　the　art　of　medicine。
  Soc。　And　suppose　a　person　were　to　come　to　Sophocles　or　Euripides　and
  say　that　he　knows　how　to　make　a　very　long　speech　about　a　small　matter；
  and　a　short　speech　about　a　great　matter；　and　also　a　sorrowful
  speech；　or　a　terrible；　or　threatening　speech；　or　any　other　kind　of
  speech；　and　in　teaching　this　fancies　that　he　is　teaching　the　art　of
  tragedy…？
  Phaedr。　They　too　would　surely　laugh　at　him　if　he　fancies　that
  tragedy　is　anything　but　the　arranging　of　these　elements　in　a　manner
  which　will　be　suitable　to　one　another　and　to　the　whole。
  Soc。　But　I　do　not　suppose　that　they　would　be　rude　or　abusive　to　him：
  Would　they　not　treat　him　as　a　musician　would　a　man　who　thinks　that
  he　is　a　harmonist　because　he　knows　how　to　pitch　the　highest　and　lowest
  notes；　happening　to　meet　such　an　one　he　would　not　say　to　him　savagely；
  〃Fool；　you　are　mad！〃　But　like　a　musician；　in　a　gentle　and　harmonious
  tone　of　voice；　he　would　answer：　〃My　good　friend；　he　who　would　be　a
  harmonist　must　certainly　know　this；　and　yet　he　may　understand
  nothing　of　harmony　if　he　has　not　got　beyond　your　stage　of　knowledge；
  for　you　only　know　the　preliminaries　of　harmony　and　not　harmony
  itself。〃
  Phaedr。　Very　true。
  Soc。　And　will　not　Sophocles　say　to　the　display　of　the　would…be
  tragedian；　that　this　is　not　tragedy　but　the　preliminaries　of
  tragedy？　and　will　not　Acumenus　say　the　same　of　medicine　to