The dialogues of Plato in five volumes, Vol. 2 (of 5) : $b Translated into English with analyses and introductions
Plato · en
The fallacy of this argument is twofold; for in the first place,
a man may know justice and not be just—here is the old confusion
of the arts and the virtues;—nor can any teacher be
expected to counteract wholly the bent of natural character; and
secondly, a man may have a degree of justice, but not sufficient
to prevent him from ever doing wrong. Polus is naturally
exasperated at the sophism, which he is unable to detect; of
course, he says, the rhetorician, like every one else, will admit
that he knows justice (how can he do otherwise when pressed by
the interrogations of Socrates?), but he thinks that great want of
manners is shown in bringing the argument to such a pass.
Socrates ironically replies, that when old men trip, the young set 462
them on their legs again; and he is quite willing to retract, if he
can be shown to be in error, but upon one condition, which is
that Polus studies brevity. Polus is in great indignation at not
being allowed to use as many words as he pleases in the free
state of Athens. Socrates retorts, that yet harder will be his own
case, if he is compelled to stay and listen to them. After some
altercation they agree (cp. Protag. 338), that Polus shall ask and
Socrates answer.
[Sidenote: _Analysis 464-472._]
‘What is the art of Rhetoric?’ says Polus. Not an art at all,
replies Socrates, but a thing which in your book you affirm to
have created art. Polus asks, ‘What thing?’ and Socrates
answers, An experience or routine of making a sort of delight
or gratification. ‘But is not rhetoric a fine thing?’ I have not
yet told you what rhetoric is. Will you ask me another question—What
is cookery? ‘What is cookery?’ An experience or
routine of making a sort of delight or gratification. Then they
are the same, or rather fall under the same class, and rhetoric 463
has still to be distinguished from cookery. ‘What is rhetoric?’
asks Polus once more. A part of a not very creditable whole,
which may be termed flattery, is the reply. ‘But what part?’ A
shadow of a part of politics. This, as might be expected, is
wholly unintelligible, both to Gorgias and Polus; and, in order 464
to explain his meaning to them, Socrates draws a distinction
between shadows or appearances and realities; e. g. there is real
health of body or soul, and the appearance of them; real arts and
sciences, and the simulations of them. Now the soul and body
have two arts waiting upon them, first the art of politics, which
attends on the soul, having a legislative part and a judicial part;
and another art attending on the body, which has no generic
name, but may also be described as having two divisions, one of
which is medicine and the other gymnastic. Corresponding with
these four arts or sciences there are four shams or simulations of