the　truth　may　seem　discourteous；　and　I　hesitate　to　answer；　lest　Gorgias　should　imagine　that　I　am　making　fun　of　his　own　profession。　For　whether　or　no　this　is　that　art　of　rhetoric　which　Gorgias　practises　I　really　cannot　tell：…from　what　he　was　just　now　saying；　nothing　appeared　of　what　he　thought　of　his　art；　but　the　rhetoric　which　I　mean　is　a　part　of　a　not　very　creditable　whole。　　　Gor。　A　part　of　what；　Socrates？　Say　what　you　mean；　and　never　mind　me。　　　Soc。　In　my　opinion　then；　Gorgias；　the　whole　of　which　rhetoric　is　a　part　is　not　an　art　at　all；　but　the　habit　of　a　bold　and　ready　wit；　which　knows　how　to　manage　mankind：　this　habit　I　sum　up　under　the　word　〃flattery〃；　and　it　appears　to　me　to　have　many　other　parts；　one　of　which　is　cookery；　which　may　seem　to　be　an　art；　but；　as　I　maintain；　is　only　an　experience　or　routine　and　not　an　art：…another　part　is　rhetoric；　and　the　art　of　attiring　and　sophistry　are　two　others：　thus　there　are　four　branches；　and　four　different　things　answering　to　them。　And　Polus　may　ask；　if　he　likes；　for　he　has　not　as　yet　been　informed；　what　part　of　flattery　is　rhetoric：　he　did　not　see　that　I　had　not　yet　answered　him　when　he　proceeded　to　ask　a　further　question：　Whether　I　do　not　think　rhetoric　a　fine　thing？　But　I　shall　not　tell　him　whether　rhetoric　is　a　fine　thing　or　not；　until　I　have　first　answered；　〃What　is　rhetoric？〃　For　that　would　not　be　right；　Polus；　but　I　shall　be　happy　to　answer；　if　you　will　ask　me；　What　part　of　flattery　is　rhetoric？　　　Pol。　I　will　ask　and　do　you　answer？　What　part　of　flattery　is　rhetoric？　　　Soc。　Will　you　understand　my　answer？　Rhetoric；　according　to　my　view；　is　the　ghost　or　counterfeit　of　a　part　of　politics。　　　Pol。　And　noble　or　ignoble？　　　Soc。　Ignoble；　I　should　say；　if　I　am　compelled　to　answer；　for　I　call　what　is　bad　ignoble：　though　I　doubt　whether　you　understand　what　I　was　saying　before。　　　Gor。　Indeed；　Socrates；　I　cannot　say　that　I　understand　myself。　　　Soc。　I　do　not　wonder；　Gorgias；　for　I　have　not　as　yet　explained　myself；　and　our　friend　Polus；　colt　by　name　and　colt　by　nature；　is　apt　to　run　away。　　　Gor。　Never　mind　him；　but　explain　to　me　what　you　mean　by　saying　that　rhetoric　is　the　counterfeit　of　a　part　of　politics。　　　Soc。　I　will　try；　then；　to　explain　my　notion　of　rhetoric；　and　if　I　am　mistaken；　my　friend　Polus　shall　refute　me。　We　may　assume　the　existence　of　bodies　and　of　souls？　　　Gor。　Of　course。　　　Soc。　You　would　further　admit　that　there　is　a　good　condition　of　either　of　them？　　　Gor。　Yes。　　　Soc。　Which　condition　may　not　be　really　good；　but　good　only　in　appearance？　I　mean　to　say；　that　there　are　many　persons　who　appear　to　be　in　good　health；　and　whom　only　a　physician　or　trainer　will　discern　at　first　sight　not　to　be　in　good　health。　　　Gor。　True。　　　Soc。　And　this　applies　not　only　to　the　body；　but　also　to　the　soul：　in　either　there　may　be　that　which　gives　the　appearance　of　health　and　not　the　reality？　　　Gor。　Yes；　certainly。　　　Soc。　And　now　I　will　endeavour　to　explain　to　you　more　clearly　what　I　mean：　The　soul　and　body　being　two；　have　two　arts　corresponding　to　them：　there　is　the　art　of　politics　attending　on　the　soul；　and　another　art　attending　on　the　body；　of　which　I　know　no　single　name；　but　which　may　be　described　as　having　two　divisions；　one　of　them　gymnastic；　and　the　other　medicine。　And　in　politics　there　is　a　legislative　part；　which　answers　to　gymnastic；　as　justice　does　to　medicine；　and　the　two　parts　run　into　one　another；　justice　having　to　do　with　the　same　subject　as　legislation；　and　medicine　with　the　same　subject　as　gymnastic；　but　with　a　difference。　Now；　seeing　that　there　are　these　four　arts；　two　attending　on　the　body　and　two　on　the　soul　for　their　highest　good；　flattery　knowing；　or　rather　guessing　their　natures；　has　distributed　herself　into　four　shams　or　simulations　of　them；　she　puts　on　the　likeness　of　some　one　or　other　of　them；　and　pretends　to　be　that　which　she　simulates；　and　having　no　regard　for　men's　highest　interests；　is　ever　making　pleasure　the　bait　of　the　unwary；　and　deceiving　them　into　the　belief　that　she　is　of　the　highest　value　to　them。　Cookery　simulates　the　disguise　of　medicine；　and　pretends　to　know　what　food　is　the　best　for　the　body；　and　if　the　physician　and　the　cook　had　to　enter　into　a　competition　in　which　children　were　the　judges；　or　men　who　had　no　more　sense　than　children；　as　to　which　of　them　best　understands　the　goodness　or　badness　of　food；　the　physician　would　be　starved　to　death。　A　flattery　I　deem　this　to　be　and　of　an　ignoble　sort；　Polus；　for　to　you　I　am　now　addressing　myself；　because　it　aims　at　pleasure　without　any　thought　of　the　best。　An　art　I　do　not　call　it；　but　only　an　experience；　because　it　is　unable　to　explain　or　to　give　a　reason　of　the　nature　of　its　own　applications。　And　I　do　not　call　any　irrational　thing　an　art；　but　if　you　dispute　my　words；　I　am　prepared　to　argue　in　defence　of　them。　　　Cookery；　then；　I　maintain　to　be　a　flattery　which　takes　the　form　of　medicine；　and　tiring；　in　like　manner；　is　a　flattery　which　takes　the　form　of　gymnastic；　and　is　knavish；　false；　ignoble；　illiberal；　working　deceitfully　by　the　help　of　lines；　and　colours；　and　enamels；　and　garments；　and　making　men　affect　a　spurious　beauty　to　the　neglect　of　the　true　beauty　which　is　given　by　gymnastic。　　　I　would　rather　not　be　tedious；　and　therefore　I　will　only　say；　after　the　manner　of　the　geometricians　（for　I　think　that　by　this　time　you　will　be　able　to　follow）
  astiring　：　gymnastic　：：　cookery　：　medicine；　or　rather；　　　　　astiring　：　gymnastic　：：　sophistry　：　legislation；　and　　　　　as　cookery　：　medicine　：：　rhetoric　：　justice。
  And　this；　I　say；　is　the　natural　difference　between　the　rhetorician　and　the　sophist；　but　by　reason　of　their　near　connection；　they　are　apt　to　be　jumbled　up　together；　neither　do　they　know　what　to　make　of　themselves；　nor　do　other　men　know　what　to　make　of　them。　For　if　the　body　presided　over　itself；　and　were　not　under　the　guidance　of　the　soul；　and　the　soul　did　not　discern　and　discriminate　between　cookery　and　medicine；　but　the　body　was　made　the　judge　of　them；　and　the　rule　of　judgment　was　the　bodily　delight　which　was　given　by　them；　then　the　word　of　Anaxagoras；　that　word　with　which　you；　friend　Polus；　are　so　well　acquainted；　would　prevail　far　and　wide：　〃Chaos〃　would　come　again；　and　cookery；　health；　and　medicine　would　mingle　in　an　indiscriminate　mass。　And　now　I　have　told　you　my　notion　of　rhetoric；　which　is；　in　relation　to　the　soul；　what　cookery　is　to　the　body。　I　may　have　been　inconsistent　in　making　a　long　speech；　when　I　would　not　allow　you　to　discourse　at　length。　But　I　think　that　I　may　be　excused；　because　you　did　not　understand　me；　and　could　make　no　use　of　my　answer　when　I　spoke　shortly；　and　therefore　I　had　to　enter　into　explanation。　And　if　I　show　an　equal　inability　to　make　use　of　yours；　I　hope　that　you　will　speak　at　equal　length；　but　if　I　am　able　to　understand　you；　let　me　have　the　benefit　of　your　brevity；　as　is　only　fair：　And　now　you　may　do　what　you　please　with　my　answer。　　　Pol。　What　do　you　mean？　do　you　think　that　rhetoric　is　flattery？　　　Soc。　Nay；　I　said　a　part　of　flattery…if　at　your　age；　Polus；　you　cannot　remember；　what　will　you　do　by…and…by；　when　you　get　older？　　　Pol。　And　are　the　good　rhetoricians　meanly　regarded　in　states；　under　the　idea　that　they　are　flatterers？　　　Soc。　Is　that　a　question　or　the　beginning　of　a　speech？　　　Pol。　I　am　asking　a　question。　　　Soc。　Then　my　answer　is；　that　they　are　not　regarded　at　all。　　　Pol。　How　not　regarded？　Have　they　not　very　great　power　in　states？　　　Soc。　Not　if　you　mean　to　say　that　power　is　a　good　to　the　possessor。　　　Pol。　And　that　is　what　I　do　mean　to　say。　　　Soc。　Then；　if　so；　I　think　that　they　have　the　least　power　of　all　the　citizens。　　　Pol。　What！　Are　they　not　like　tyrants？　They　kill　and　despoil　and　exile　any　one　whom　they　please。　　　Soc。　By　the　dog；　Polus；　I　cannot　make　out　at　each　deliverance　of　yours；　whether　you　are　giving　an　opinion　of　your　own；　or　asking　a　question　of　me。　　　Pol。　I　am　asking　a　question　of　you。　　　Soc。　Yes；　my　friend；　but　you　ask　two　questions　at　once。　　　Pol。　How　two　questions？　　　Soc。　Why；　did　you　not　say　just　now　that　the　rhetoricians　are　like　tyrants；　and　that　they　kill　and　despoil　or　exile　any　one　whom　they　please？　　　Pol。　I　did。　　　Soc。　Well　then；　I　say　to　you　that　here　are　two　questions　in　one；　and　I　will　answer　both　of　them。　And　I　tell　you；　Polus；　that　rhetoricians　and　tyrants　have　the　least　possible　power　in　states；　as　I　was　just　now　saying；　for　they　do　literally　nothing　which　they　will；　but　only　what　they　think　best。　　　Pol。　And　is　not　that　a　great　power？　　　Soc。　Polus　has　already　said　the　reverse。　　　Soc。　No；　by　the　great…what　do　you　call　him？…not　you；　for　you　say　that　power　is　a　good　to　him　who　has　the　power。　　　Pol。　I　do。　　　Soc。　And　would　you　maintain　that　if　a　fool　does　what　he　think　best；　this　is　a　good；　and　would　you　call　this　great　power？　　　Pol。　I　should　not。　　　Soc。　Then　you　must　prove　that　the　rhetorician　is　not　a　fool；　and　that　rhetoric　is　an　art　and　not　a　flattery…and　so　you　will　have　refuted　me；　but　if　you　leave　me　unrefuted；　why；　the　rhetoricians　who　do　what　they　think　best　in　states；　and　the　tyrants；　will　have　nothing　upon　which　to　congratulate　themselves；　if　as　you　say；　power　be　indeed　a　good；　admitting　at　the　same　time　that　what　is　done　without　sense　is　an　evil。　　　Pol。　Yes；　I　admit　that。　　　Soc。　How　then　can　the　rhetoricians　or　the　tyrants　have　great　power　in　states；