_Socr._ Come now, if I can, I will explain to you more clearly what I
mean. As there are two subject matters, I say there are two arts: and
that which relates to the soul I call political, but that which relates
to the body I am not able to describe to you off-hand by one name; but
of the culture of the body, which is one, I say there are two divisions,
one gymnastics, the other medicine. But in the political art I lay down
legislation, as corresponding to gymnastics, and the judicial to
medicine. Now these respectively communicate with each other, as being
concerned about the same subject, medicine with gymnastics, and the
judicial art with legislation; yet they in some respect differ from each
other. These then being four, and always taking the best possible care,
the former of the body, and the latter of the soul, flattery perceiving
this, I do not say knowing, but sagaciously guessing it, and having
divided itself fourfold, and having stealthily put on the garb of each
of these divisions, feigns itself to be that which it has put on; and it
is not in the least concerned for what is best; but by means of that
which is most pleasant, captivates and seduces ignorance, so as to
appear to be of great value. 45. Cookery, therefore, puts on the garb of
medicine, and pretends that it knows the aliment best for the body. So
that if a cook and a physician had to contend before boys, or before men
as foolish as boys, which of the two was acquainted with good and bad
aliments, the physician or the cook, the physician would die of hunger.
This, then, I call flattery; and I say that a thing of this kind is
base, Polus, (for I say this to you,) because it looks to what is
agreeable without regard to what is best; and I affirm that it is not an
art, but skill, because it has no knowledge of the things which it
employs, what they severally are in their nature, so that it is unable
to tell the use of each. But I do not call that an art which is a thing
without reason. If you are doubtful about these things, I am willing to
give you a reason for them. The flattery, then, pertaining to cookery,
as I have said, is concealed under medicine; and in the same manner,
under gymnastics, personal decoration, which is mischievous, deceitful,
ignoble, and illiberal, deceiving by means of gestures and colours, by
smoothness and outward appearance; so as to make men put on an
adventitious beauty, and neglect that which is their own, and is
acquired by gymnastics. 46. That I may not, then, be prolix, I wish to
tell you, after the manner of geometricians, (for perhaps you can now
follow me,) that what personal decoration is to gymnastics, that is
cookery to medicine: or rather thus, that what personal decoration is to
gymnastics, that is sophistry to legislation, and that what cookery is
to medicine, that is rhetoric to justice. As I have said, they are thus
different in their nature: but as they are proximate to each other[66],
sophists and rhetoricians are confounded with _legislators and judges_,
and are employed about the same things, and know not what to make of
themselves, nor other men of them. For, if the soul did not preside over
the body, but the body over itself, and cookery and medicine were not
examined into and distinguished by the soul, but the body itself
decided, estimating things by its own gratifications, that tenet of
Anaxagoras would prevail extensively, friend Polus, (for you surely are
acquainted with it,) that is, all things would be confounded together,
things medicinal, and healthy, and pertaining to cookery, being
undistinguished from each other. 47. You have heard, therefore, what I
consider rhetoric to be, corresponding to cookery in the soul, as that
in the body. Perhaps, however, I have acted absurdly, in that, though I
do not allow you to make a long speech, I myself have extended mine to a
great length. But I deserve to be pardoned: for when I spoke briefly you
did not understand me, nor were you able to make use of the answer that
I gave you, but required an explanation. If, therefore, when you answer,
I in my turn shall not know what to make of it, do you also prolong your
discourse: but, if I do know, suffer me to do so; for that is fair. And
now, if you can make any use of this answer, do so.
-----
Footnote 66:
Bekker omits the words σοφισταὶ καὶ ῥήτορες, and Ast suggests δικασταὶ
for σοφισταὶ, in either of which cases the addition of the words in
italics would be unnecessary.
-----
_Pol._ What do you say, then? Does rhetoric appear to you to be
flattery?
_Socr._ I said, indeed, that it was a division of flattery. But do not
you remember, Polus, though so young? What will you do by and by?
_Pol._ Does it seem to you, then, that good rhetoricians are to be
esteemed as vile flatterers in cities?
_Socr._ Do you ask this as a question, or are you beginning an argument?
_Pol._ I ask a question.