Socrates invokes the boy to whom he presented his first speech: Where then is that boy I was talking to (Pou= dh/ moi o9 pai=j pro\j o4n e1legon;)? I want him to hear this too (i3na kai\ tou=to a0kou/sh|); if he doesn’t, he may go ahead and grant favours to the non-lover before we can stop him (kai\ mh\ a0nh/kooj w@n fqa/sh| xarisa/menoj tw~| mh\ e0rw~nti).
Phaedrus: Here
he is right next to you (Ou[toj para/ soi ma/la plhsi/on a0ei\ pa/restin), whenever you want him there (o3tan su\ bou/lh|).
Socrates:
Well then, my beautiful boy, you should understand this (Ou9twsi\ toi/nun,
w} pai= kale/, e0nno/hson)
– that the previous speech belonged to Phaedrus son of Pythocles (w(j o9 me\n pro/teroj
h]n lo/goj Fai/drou tou= Puqokle/ouj), of the deme Myrrhinous (Murrinousi/ou a0ndro/j); while the one I am going to make
belongs to Stesichorus son of Euphemus (o4n de\ me/llw le/gein, Sthsixo/rou tou=
Eu0fh/mou), of Himera (I(merai/ou). It must go like this (lekte/oj de\ w{de): “the story is not true” (o3ti ou0k e1st’ e1tumoj lo/goj), if it says that when the lover is
there for the having one should rather grant favours to the man who is not in
love with you (o4j a2n paro/ntoj e0rastou= tw~| mh\ e0rw~nti ma~llon fh=|
dei=n xari/zesqai), on
the grounds that the one is mad (dio/ti dh\ o9 me\n mai/netai), while the other is sane (o9 de\ swfronei=). That would be rightly said, if it
were a simple truth that madness is an evil (ei0 me\n ga\r h]n a9plou=n to\
mani/an kako\n ei]nai, kalw~j a2n e0le/geto); but as it is (nu=n de/) the greatest of goods come to us through madness (ta\ me/gista tw~n
a0gaqw~n h9mi=n gi/gnetai dia\ mani/aj), provided that it is bestowed by divine gift (qei/a| me/ntoi do/sei
didome/nhj). The prophetess
at Delphi (h3 te ga\r dh\ e0n Delfoi=j profh=tij) and the prophetesses at Dodona (ai3 te e0n
Dwdw&nh| i9e/reiai) achieve
much that is good for Greece when mad, both on a private and on a public level
(manei=sai
me\n polla\ dh\ kai\ kala\ i0di/a| te kai\ dhmosi/a| th\n E(lla/da h0rga/santo), whereas when sane (swfronou=sai de/) they achieve little (baxe/a) or nothing (h2 ou0de/n); and if we speak of the Sibyl (kai\ e0a\n dh\
le/gwmen Si/bulla/n te) and
of others (kai\ a1llouj)
who by means of inspired prophesy foretell many thing to many people and set
them on the right track with respect to the future (o3soi mantikh=|
xrw&menoi e0nqe/w| polla\ dh\ polloi=j prole/gontej ei0j to\ me/llon w!rqwsan), we would spin the story out (mhku/noimen a2n) by saying things that are obvious
to everyone (dh=la panti\ le/gontej). But it is worthwhile to adduce (to/de mh\n a1cion
e0pimartu/rasqai) the point that
among the ancients too (o3ti kai\ tw~n palaiw~n)
those who gave things their names (oi9 ta\ o0no/mata tiqe/menoi) did not regard madness as shameful or a
matter for reproach (ou0k ai0sxro\n h9gou=nto ou0de\ o1neidoj mani/an); otherwise they would not have connected
this very word with the finest of the sciences, that by which the future is
judged, and named it “manic” (ou0 ga\r a2n th=| kallisth=| te/xnh|, h[| to\ me/llon
kri/netai, au0to\ tou=to tou1noma e0mple/kontej manikh\n e0ka/lesan). No, they gave it this name thinking madness
a fine thing, when it comes by divine dispensation (A0ll’ w(j kalou=
o1ntoj, o3tan qei/a| moi/ra| gi/gnetai, ou3tw nomi/santej e1qento); whereas people now crudely throw in the
extra t and call it “mantic” (oi9 de\ nu=n a0peiroka/lwj to\ tau=
e0mba/llontej mantikh\n e0ka/lesan).
So too when the ancients gave a name to the investigation which sane men make
of the future by means of birds and the other signs which they use (e0pei\ kai\ th/n ge
tw~n e0mfro/nwn, zh/thsin tou= me/llontoj dia/ te o0rni/qwn poioume/nwn kai\
tw~n a1llwn shmei/wn), they called it
”oionoistic”, because its proponents in a rational way provide insight and
information for human thinking (a3t’ e0k dianoi/aj
porizome/nwn a0nqrwpi/nh| oi0h/sei nou=n te ka\ i9stori/an, oi0onoi+stikh\n e0pwno/masan); while the modern generation now call it “oiōnistic”,
making it more high-sounding with the long o (h4n nu=n oi0wnistikh\n
tw|~ w> semnu/nontej oi9 ne/oi kalou=sin).
So then the ancients testify to the fact that god-sent madness is a finer thing
than man-made sanity, by the degree that mantic is a more perfect and more valuable
thing than oionistic, both when name is measured against name, and when effect
is measured against effect (o3sw| dh\ ou]n telew&teron kai\ e0ntimo/teron
mantikh\ oi0wnistikh=j, to/ te o1noma tou= o0no/matoj e1rgon t’ e1rgou, to/sw|
ka/llion marturou=sin oi9 palaioi\ mani/an swfrosu/nhj th\n e0k qeou= th=j par’ a0nqrw&pwn gignome/nhj).
But again, in the case of the greatest maladies and sufferings (a0lla\ mh\n no/swn
ge kai\ po/nwn tw~n megi/stwn), which
occur in certain families from some ancient causes of divine anger, madness
comes about in them and acts as interpreter (a4 dh\ palaiw~n e0k mhnima/twn poqe\n
e1n tisi tw~n genw~n h9 mani/a e0ggenome/nh kai\ profhteu/sasa), finding the necessary means of relief (oi[j e1dei
a0pallagh\n hu3reto), by recourse to
prayers and forms of service to the gods (katafugou=sa pro\j qew~n eu0xa/j te kai\ latrei/aj); as a result of which it hits upon secret
rites of purification (o3qen dh\ kaqarmw~n te kai\ teletw~n tuxou=sa) and puts the man who is touched by it out of
danger both for the present and for the future (e0ca/nth e0poi/hse ton e9auth=j
e1xonta pro/j te to\n paro/nta kai\ to\n e1peita xro/non), so finding a release from his present evils
for the one who is rightly maddened and possessed (lu/sin tw~|
o0rqw~j mane/nti te kai\ katasxome/nw| tw~n paro/ntwn kakw~n eu9rome/nh). A third kind of possession and madness
comes from the Muses (tri/th de\ a0po\ Mousw~n katokwxh\ kai\ mani/a): taking a tender (labou=sa a9palh/n), virgin soul (kai\ a1baton yuxh/n), and arousing it to a Bacchic frenzy (e0gei/rousa kai\
e0kbakxeu/ousa) of expression in lyric and other
forms of poetry (kata/ te w)|da\j kai\ kata\ th\n a1llhn poi/hsin) it educates succeeding generations by
glorifying myriad deeds of those of the past (muri/a tw~n pallaiw~n e1rga
kosmou=sa tou\j e0pigignome/nouj paideu/ei);
while the man who arrives at the doors of poetry without madness from the Muses
(o4j
d’ a2n a1neu mani/aj
Mousw~n e0pi\ poihtika\j qura\j a0fi/khtai),
persuaded that expertise will make him a good poet (peisqei\j w(j
a1ra e0k te/xnhj i9kano\j poihth\j e0so/menoj),
both he and his poetry, the poetry of the sane, are eclipsed by that of the mad,
imperfect and unfulfilled (a0telh\j au0to/j te kai\ h9 poi/hsij u9po\ th=j tw~n
mainome/nwn h9 tou= swfronou=ntoj h0fani/sqh).
‘All
these and still more (Tosau/ta me/n soi kai\ e1ti plei/w) are the fine achievements which I am able to
relate to you of madness which comes from the gods (e1xw mani/aj
gignome/nhj a0po\ qew~n le/gein kala\ e1rga).
So let us have no fears about that (w#ste tou=to/ ge au0to\ mh\ fobw&meqa), and let us not be alarmed by any argument that
tries to frighten us into supposing that we should prefer the sane man as friend
to the one who is disturbed (mhde/ tij h9ma=j lo/goj qorubei/tw deditto0menoj w(j
pro\ tou= kekinhme/nou to\n sw&frona dei= proairei=sqai fi/lon); let it carry off the prise of victory only
if it has shown this too (a0lla to/de pro\j e0kei/nw| dei/caj fere/tw ta\ nikhth/ria) – that love is not sent from the gods for
the benefit of the lover and beloved (w(j ou0k e0p’ w)feli/a| o9
e1rwj tw~| e0rw~nti kai\ tw|~ e0rwme/nw| e0k qew~n e0pipe/mpetai). We in turn must prove the reverse (h9mi=n de\
a0podei/kteon au] t’ou0nanti/on),
that such madness is given by the gods to allow us to achieve the greatest good
fortune (w(j e0p’ eu0tuxi/a| th=| megi/sth| para\ qew~n h9
toiau/th mani/a di/dotai); and the proof
will be disbelieved by the clever (h9 de\ dh\ a0po/deicij e1stai deinoi=j
me\n a1pistoj), believed by the wise (sofoi=j de\ pisth/).
No comments:
Post a Comment