tragedy？　and　will　not　Acumenus　say　the　same　of　medicine　to　the
  would…be　physician？
  Phaedr。　Quite　true。
  Soc。　And　if　Adrastus　the　mellifluous　or　Pericles　heard　of　these
  wonderful　arts；　brachylogies　and　eikonologies　and　all　the　hard　names
  which　we　have　been　endeavouring　to　draw　into　the　light　of　day；　what
  would　they　say？　Instead　of　losing　temper　and　applying
  uncomplimentary　epithets；　as　you　and　I　have　been　doing；　to　the　authors
  of　such　an　imaginary　art；　their　superior　wisdom　would　rather　censure
  us；　as　well　as　them。　〃Have　a　little　patience；　Phaedrus　and　Socrates；
  they　would　say；　you　should　not　be　in　such　a　passion　with　those　who
  from　some　want　of　dialectical　skill　are　unable　to　define　the　nature　of
  rhetoric；　and　consequently　suppose　that　they　have　found　the　art　in　the
  preliminary　conditions　of　it；　and　when　these　have　been　taught　by
  them　to　others；　fancy　that　the　whole　art　of　rhetoric　has　been　taught
  by　them；　but　as　to　using　the　several　instruments　of　the　art
  effectively；　or　making　the　composition　a　whole；…an　application　of　it
  such　as　this　is　they　regard　as　an　easy　thing　which　their　disciples　may
  make　for　themselves。〃
  Phaedr。　I　quite　admit；　Socrates；　that　the　art　of　rhetoric　which
  these　men　teach　and　of　which　they　write　is　such　as　you
  describe…there　I　agree　with　you。　But　I　still　want　to　know　where　and
  how　the　true　art　of　rhetoric　and　persuasion　is　to　be　acquired。
  Soc。　The　perfection　which　is　required　of　the　finished　orator　is；
  or　rather　must　be；　like　the　perfection　of　anything　else；　partly
  given　by　nature；　but　may　also　be　assisted　by　art。　If　you　have　the
  natural　power　and　add　to　it　knowledge　and　practice；　you　will　be　a
  distinguished　speaker；　if　you　fall　short　in　either　of　these；　you
  will　be　to　that　extent　defective。　But　the　art；　as　far　as　there　is　an
  art；　of　rhetoric　does　not　lie　in　the　direction　of　Lysias　or
  Thrasymachus。
  Phaedr。　In　what　direction　then？
  Soc。　I　conceive　Pericles　to　have　been　the　most　accomplished　of
  rhetoricians。
  Phaedr。　What　of　that？
  Soc。　All　the　great　arts　require　discussion　and　high　speculation
  about　the　truths　of　nature；　hence　come　loftiness　of　thought　and
  completeness　of　execution。　And　this；　as　I　conceive；　was　the　quality
  which；　in　addition　to　his　natural　gifts；　Pericles　acquired　from　his
  intercourse　with　Anaxagoras　whom　he　happened　to　know。　He　was　thus
  imbued　with　the　higher　philosophy；　and　attained　the　knowledge　of
  Mind　and　the　negative　of　Mind；　which　were　favourite　themes　of
  Anaxagoras；　and　applied　what　suited　his　purpose　to　the　art　of
  speaking。
  Phaedr。　Explain。
  Soc。　Rhetoric　is　like　medicine。
  Phaedr。　How　so？
  Soc。　Why；　because　medicine　has　to　define　the　nature　of　the　body
  and　rhetoric　of　the　soul…if　we　would　proceed；　not　empirically　but
  scientifically；　in　the　one　case　to　impart　health　and　strength　by
  giving　medicine　and　food　in　the　other　to　implant　the　conviction　or
  virtue　which　you　desire；　by　the　right　application　of　words　and
  training。
  Phaedr。　There；　Socrates；　I　suspect　that　you　are　right。
  Soc。　And　do　you　think　that　you　can　know　the　nature　of　the　soul
  intelligently　without　knowing　the　nature　of　the　whole？
  Phaedr。　Hippocrates　the　Asclepiad　says　that　the　nature　even　of　the
  body　can　only　be　understood　as　a　whole。
  Soc。　Yes；　friend；　and　he　was　right：…still；　we　ought　not　to　be
  content　with　the　name　of　Hippocrates；　but　to　examine　and　see　whether
  his　argument　agrees　with　his　conception　of　nature。
  Phaedr。　I　agree。
  Soc。　Then　consider　what　truth　as　well　as　Hippocrates　says　about　this
  or　about　any　other　nature。　Ought　we　not　to　consider　first　whether　that
  which　we　wish　to　learn　and　to　teach　is　a　simple　or　multiform　thing；
  and　if　simple；　then　to　enquire　what　power　it　has　of　acting　or　being
  acted　upon　in　relation　to　other　things；　and　if　multiform；　then　to
  number　the　forms；　and　see　first　in　the　case　of　one　of　them；　and　then
  in。　case　of　all　of　them；　what　is　that　power　of　acting　or　being　acted
  upon　which　makes　each　and　all　of　them　to　be　what　they　are？
  Phaedr。　You　may　very　likely　be　right；　Socrates。
  Soc。　The　method　which　proceeds　without　analysis　is　like　the
  groping　of　a　blind　man。　Yet；　surely；　he　who　is　an　artist　ought　not
  to　admit　of　a　comparison　with　the　blind；　or　deaf。　The　rhetorician；　who
  teaches　his　pupil　to　speak　scientifically；　will　particularly　set　forth
  the　nature　of　that　being　to　which　he　addresses　his　speeches；　and　this；
  I　conceive；　to　be　the　soul。
  Phaedr。　Certainly。
  Soc。　His　whole　effort　is　directed　to　the　soul；　for　in　that　he
  seeks　to　produce　conviction。
  Phaedr。　Yes。
  Soc。　Then　clearly；　Thrasymachus　or　any　one　else　who　teaches　rhetoric
  in　earnest　will　give　an　exact　description　of　the　nature　of　the　soul；
  which　will　enable　us　to　see　whether　she　be　single　and　same；　or；　like
  the　body；　multiform。　That　is　what　we　should　call　showing　the　nature　of
  the　soul。
  Phaedr。　Exactly。
  Soc。　He　will　explain；　secondly；　the　mode　in　which　she　acts　or　is
  acted　upon。
  Phaedr。　True。
  Soc。　Thirdly；　having　classified　men　and　speeches；　and　their　kinds
  and　affections；　and　adapted　them　to　one　another；　he　will　tell　the
  reasons　of　his　arrangement；　and　show　why　one　soul　is　persuaded　by　a
  particular　form　of　argument；　and　another　not。
  Phaedr。　You　have　hit　upon　a　very　good　way。
  Soc。　Yes；　that　is　the　true　and　only　way　in　which　any　subject　can
  be　set　forth　or　treated　by　rules　of　art；　whether　in　speaking　or
  writing。　But　the　writers　of　the　present　day；　at　whose　feet　you　have
  sat；　craftily；　conceal　the　nature　of　the　soul　which　they　know　quite
  well。　Nor；　until　they　adopt　our　method　of　reading　and　writing；　can
  we　admit　that　they　write　by　rules　of　art？
  Phaedr。　What　is　our　method？
  Soc。　I　cannot　give　you　the　exact　details；　but　I　should　like　to
  tell　you　generally；　as　far　as　is　in　my　power；　how　a　man　ought　to
  proceed　according　to　rules　of　art。
  Phaedr。　Let　me　hear。
  Soc。　Oratory　is　the　art　of　enchanting　the　soul；　and　therefore　he　who
  would　be　an　orator　has　to　learn　the　differences　of　human　souls…they
  are　so　many　and　of　such　a　nature；　and　from　them　come　the　differences
  between　man　and　man。　Having　proceeded　thus　far　in　his　analysis；　he
  will　next　divide　speeches　into　their　different　classes：…〃Such　and　such
  persons；〃　he　will　say；　are　affected　by　this　or　that　kind　of　speech
  in　this　or　that　way；〃　and　he　will　tell　you　why。　The　pupil　must　have
  a　good　theoretical　notion　of　them　first；　and　then　he　must　have
  experience　of　them　in　actual　life；　and　be　able　to　follow　them　with　all
  his　senses　about　him；　or　he　will　never　get　beyond　the　precepts　of
  his　masters。　But　when　he　understands　what　persons　are　persuaded　by
  what　arguments；　and　sees　the　person　about　whom　he　was　speaking　in
  the　abstract　actually　before　him；　and　knows　that　it　is　he；　and　can　say
  to　himself；　〃This　is　the　man　or　this　is　the　character　who　ought　to
  have　a　certain　argument　applied　to　him　in　order　to　convince　him　of　a
  certain　opinion〃；　…he　who　knows　all　this；　and　knows　also　when　he
  should　speak　and　when　he　should　refrain；　and　when　he　should　use
  pithy　sayings；　pathetic　appeals；　sensational　effects；　and　all　the
  other　modes　of　speech　which　he　has　learned；…when；　I　say；　he　knows
  the　times　and　seasons　of　all　these　things；　then；　and　not　till　then；　he
  is　a　perfect　master　of　his　art；　but　if　he　fail　in　any　of　these　points；
  whether　in　speaking　or　teaching　or　writing　them；　and　yet　declares　that
  he　speaks　by　rules　of　art；　he　who　says　〃I　don't　believe　you〃　has　the
  better　of　him。　Well；　the　teacher　will　say；　is　this；　and　Socrates；　your
  account　of　the　so…called　art　of　rhetoric；　or　am　I　to　look　for　another？
  Phaedr。　He　must　take　this；　Socrates　for　there　is　no　possibility　of
  another；　and　yet　the　creation　of　such　an　art　is　not　easy。
  Soc。　Very　true；　and　therefore　let　us　consider　this　matter　in　every
  light；　and　see　whether　we　cannot　find　a　shorter　and　easier　road；　there
  is　no　use　in　taking　a　long　rough　round…about　way　if　there　be　a　shorter
  and　easier　one。　And　I　wish　that　you　would　try　and　remember　whether　you
  have　heard　from　Lysias　or　any　one　else　anything　which　might　be　of
  service　to　us。
  Phaedr。　If　trying　would　avail；　then　I　might；　but　at　the　moment　I　can
  think　of　nothing。
  Soc。　Suppose　I　tell　you　something　which　somebody　who　knows　told　me。
  Phaedr。　Certainly。
  Soc。　May　not　〃the　wolf；〃　as　the　proverb　says；　claim　a　hearing〃？
  Phaedr。　Do　you　say　what　can　be　said　for　him。