Ion
By Plato
Written 380 B.C.E
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
Persons of the Dialogue
SOCRATES
ION
Socrates. Welcome, Ion. Are you
from your native city of
Ion. No, Socrates; but
from
Soc. And do the Epidaurians have contests of rhapsodes
at the festival?
Ion. O yes; and of all
sorts of musical performers.
Soc. And were you one of
the competitors- and did you succeed?
Ion. I obtained the first
prize of all, Socrates.
Soc. Well done; and I hope
that you will do the same for us at the Panathenaea.
Ion. And I
will, please
heaven.
Soc. I often envy the
profession of a rhapsode, Ion; for you
have always to wear fine clothes, and to look as beautiful as you can is a part of your art. Then, again, you are obliged to be
continually in the company of many good poets; and especially
of Homer, who is the best and most divine of them; and to
understand him, and not merely learn his words by rote, is a thing greatly
to be envied. And no man can be a rhapsode who does not understand the meaning of the poet. For the rhapsode ought to interpret the mind of
the poet to his hearers, but how can he interpret him well unless
he knows what he means? All this is greatly to be envied.
Ion. Very true, Socrates;
interpretation has certainly been the most laborious part of
my art; and I believe myself able to speak about Homer better
than any man; and that neither Metrodorus of Lampsacus, nor Stesimbrotus
of Thasos, nor Glaucon, nor
any one else who ever was, had as good ideas about Homer as I
have, or as many.
Soc. I am glad to hear you
say so, Ion; I see that you will not refuse to acquaint me
with them.
Ion. Certainly, Socrates;
and you really ought to hear how exquisitely I render Homer. I
think that the Homeridae should give me a golden crown.
Soc. I shall take an
opportunity of hearing your embellishments of him at some
other time. But just now I should like to ask you a question: Does
your art extend to Hesiod and Archilochus,
or to Homer only?
Ion. To Homer only; he is
in himself quite enough.
Soc. Are there any things
about which Homer and Hesiod agree?
Ion. Yes; in my opinion
there are a good many.
Soc. And can you interpret
better what Homer says, or what Hesiod
says, about these matters in which they agree?
Ion. I can interpret them
equally well, Socrates, where they agree.
Soc. But what about
matters in which they do not agree?- for example, about
divination,
of which both Homer and Hesiod have something to say-
Ion. Very true:
Soc. Would you or a good
prophet be a better interpreter of what these two poets say
about divination, not only when they agree, but when they
disagree?
Ion. A prophet.
Soc. And if you were a
prophet, would you be able to interpret them when they
disagree as well as when they agree?
Ion. Clearly.
Soc. But how did you come
to have this skill about Homer only, and not about Hesiod or the other poets? Does not Homer speak of the same themes which all other poets handle? Is not
war his great argument? and does he not speak of
human society and of intercourse of men, good and bad, skilled
and unskilled, and of the gods conversing with one another and
with mankind, and about what happens in heaven and in the world below, and the generations of gods and heroes? Are not these the
themes of which Homer sings?
Ion. Very true, Socrates.
Soc. And do not the other
poets sing of the same?
Ion. Yes, Socrates; but
not in the same way as Homer.
Soc. What, in a worse way?
Ion. Yes, in a far worse.
Soc. And Homer in a better
way?
Ion. He is incomparably
better.
Soc. And yet surely, my
dear friend Ion, in a discussion about arithmetic, where many people are
speaking, and one speaks better than the rest, there is
somebody who can judge which of them is the good speaker?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And he who judges of
the good will be the same as he who judges of the bad
speakers?
Ion. The same.
Soc. And he will
be the arithmetician?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. Well, and in
discussions about the wholesomeness of food, when many persons
are speaking, and one speaks better than the rest, will he
who recognizes the better speaker be a different person from him who
recognizes the worse, or the same?
Ion. Clearly the same.
Soc. And who is he, and
what is his name?
Ion. The
physician.
Soc. And speaking
generally, in all discussions in which the subject is the
same and many men are speaking, will not he who knows the good
know the bad speaker also? For if he does not know the bad, neither will he know the good when the same topic is being discussed.
Ion. True.
Soc. Is not
the same person skilful in both?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And you say that
Homer and the other poets, such as Hesiod
and Archilochus, speak of the same things, although
not in the same way; but the one speaks well and the other
not so well?
Ion. Yes; and I am right
in saying so.
Soc. And if you knew the
good speaker, you would also know the inferior speakers to be
inferior?
Ion. That is true.
Soc. Then, my dear friend,
can I be mistaken in saying that Ion is equally skilled in
Homer and in other poets, since he himself acknowledges that
the same person will be a good judge of all those who speak of the same things; and that almost all poets do speak of the same things?
Ion. Why
then, Socrates, do I lose attention and go to sleep and have
absolutely no ideas of the least value, when any one speaks of any
other poet; but when Homer is mentioned, I wake up at once and am all attention and have plenty to say?
Soc. The reason, my
friend, is obvious. No one can fail to see that
you speak of Homer without any art or knowledge. If you were able to
speak of him by rules of art, you would have been able to speak of
all other poets; for poetry is a whole.
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And when any one
acquires any other art as a whole, the same may be said of
them. Would you like me to explain my meaning, Ion?
Ion. Yes, indeed,
Socrates; I very much wish that you would: for I love to hear
you wise men talk.
Soc. O that we were wise,
Ion, and that you could truly call us so; but you rhapsodes and actors, and the poets whose verses you sing, are wise; whereas I am a common man, who only speak the truth. For consider
what a very commonplace and trivial thing is this which I have said-
a thing which any man might say: that when a man has acquired a knowledge of a whole art, the enquiry into good and bad is one and the
same. Let
us consider this matter; is not the art of painting a whole?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And there are and
have been many painters good and bad?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And did you ever know
any one who was skilful in pointing out the excellences and
defects of Polygnotus the son of Aglaophon,
but incapable of criticizing other painters; and when the
work of any other painter was produced, went to sleep and was
at a loss, and had no ideas; but when he had to give his
opinion about Polygnotus, or whoever the painter might be, and about him only, woke up and was attentive and had
plenty to say?
Ion. No indeed, I have
never known such a person.
Soc. Or did you ever know
of any one in sculpture, who was skilful in expounding the
merits of Daedalus the son of Metion,
or of Epeius the son of Panopeus, or of Theodorus the Samian, or of any individual sculptor; but
when the works of sculptors in general were produced, was at a loss and went to sleep and had nothing to say?
Ion. No indeed; no more
than the other.
Soc. And if I am not
mistaken, you never met with any one among flute-players or
harp- players or singers to the harp or rhapsodes who was able to discourse of Olympus or Thamyras
or Orpheus, or Phemius the rhapsode of Ithaca, but was at a loss when he came to speak
of Ion of Ephesus, and had no notion of his merits or
defects?
Ion. I cannot deny what
you say, Socrates. Nevertheless I am conscious
in my own self, and the world agrees with me in thinking that
I do speak better and have more to say about Homer than any other man. But I do not speak equally well about others- tell me the
reason of this.
Soc. I perceive, Ion; and
I will proceed to explain to you what I imagine to be the
reason of this. The gift which you possess of speaking
excellently about Homer is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an inspiration; there is a divinity moving you, like that contained in the stone which Euripides calls a magnet, but which is commonly
known as the stone of Heraclea.
This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also imparts to
them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you
may see a number of pieces of iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their
power of suspension from the original stone. In like manner
the Muse first of all inspires men herself; and from these
inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended, who
take the inspiration. For all good poets, epic as
well as lyric, compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed. And as the Corybantian
revellers when they dance are not in
their right mind, so the lyric poets are not in their right mind
when they are composing their beautiful strains: but when falling under the
power of music and metre they are inspired and possessed; like Bacchic maidens who draw milk and honey from the rivers
when they are under the influence of Dionysus but not
when they are in their right mind. And the soul of the lyric poet does the
same, as they themselves say; for they tell us that they
bring songs from honeyed fountains, culling them out of the
gardens and dells of the Muses; they, like the
bees, winging their way from flower to flower. And this is true. For the
poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and
there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of
his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable
to utter his oracles.
Many are the noble words in which poets speak concerning the actions of men; but like yourself when speaking about Homer, they do not
speak of them by any rules of art: they are simply inspired
to utter that to which the Muse impels them, and that only;
and when inspired, one of them will make dithyrambs, another
hymns of praise, another choral strains, another epic or
iambic verses- and he who is good at one is not good any other
kind of verse: for not by art does the poet sing, but by power
divine. Had he learned by rules of art, he would have known how to
speak not of one theme only, but of all; and
therefore God takes away the minds of poets, and uses them as
his ministers, as he also uses diviners and holy prophets, in
order that we who hear them may know them to be speaking not of themselves who utter these priceless words in a state of unconsciousness,
but that God himself is the speaker, and that through them he
is conversing with us. And Tynnichus the Chalcidian affords a striking instance of what I am saying: he wrote nothing that any one would care to remember
but the famous paean which; in every one's mouth, one of
the finest poems ever written, simply an invention of the
Muses, as he himself says. For in this way, the God
would seem to indicate to us and not allow us to doubt that these
beautiful poems are not human, or the work of man, but divine and the work of God; and that the poets are only the interpreters of the
Gods by whom they are severally possessed. Was not
this the lesson which the God intended to teach when by the
mouth of the worst of poets he sang the best of songs? Am I not right, Ion?
Ion. Yes, indeed,
Socrates, I feel that you are; for your words touch my soul,
and I am persuaded that good poets by a divine inspiration interpret the things of the Gods to us.
Soc. And you rhapsodists are
the interpreters of the poets?
Ion. There again you are
right.
Soc. Then you are the
interpreters of interpreters?
Ion. Precisely.
Soc. I wish you would
frankly tell me, Ion, what I am going to ask of you: When you
produce the greatest effect upon the audience in the
recitation of some striking passage, such as the apparition of Odysseus leaping forth on the floor, recognized by the suitors and
casting his arrows at his feet, or the description of
Achilles rushing at Hector, or the sorrows of Andromache, Hecuba, or Priam,- are you in your right mind? Are you
not carried out of yourself, and
does not your soul in an ecstasy seem to be among
the persons or places of which you are speaking, whether they are in Ithaca or in Troy or whatever may be the scene of the poem?
Ion. That proof strikes
home to me, Socrates. For I must frankly confess
that at the tale of pity, my eyes are filled with tears, and
when I speak of horrors, my hair stands on end and my heart throbs.
Soc. Well, Ion, and what
are we to say of a man who at a sacrifice or festival,
when he is dressed in holiday attire and has golden crowns
upon his head, of which nobody has robbed him, appears sweeping or
panic-stricken in the presence of more than twenty thousand friendly faces, when there is no one despoiling or wronging him;- is he in
his right mind or is he not?
Ion. No indeed, Socrates, I must
say that, strictly speaking, he is not in his right mind.
Soc. And are you aware
that you produce similar effects on most spectators?
Ion. Only too well; for I
look down upon them from the stage, and behold the various
emotions of pity, wonder, sternness, stamped upon their
countenances when I am speaking: and I am obliged to give my very best attention to them; for if I make them cry I myself shall laugh,
and if I make them laugh I myself shall cry when the time of
payment arrives.
Soc. Do you
know that the spectator is the last of the rings which, as I am saying, receive
the power of the original magnet from one another? The rhapsode like yourself and the actor are intermediate
links, and the poet himself is the first of them. Through
all these the God sways the souls of men in any direction
which he pleases, and makes one man hang down from another.
Thus there is a vast chain of dancers and masters and undermasters of choruses, who are suspended, as if from the
stone, at the side of the rings which hang down from the
Muse. And
every poet has some Muse from whom he is suspended, and by
whom he is said to be possessed, which is nearly the same
thing; for he is taken hold of. And from these first rings, which are
the poets, depend others, some deriving their inspiration from
Orpheus, others from Musaeus; but the greater number
are possessed and held by Homer. Of whom, Ion, you are one, and
are possessed by Homer; and when any one repeats the words of
another poet you go to sleep, and know not what to say; but
when any one recites a strain of Homer you wake up in a
moment, and your soul leaps within you, and you have plenty to say;
for not by art or knowledge about Homer do you say what you say, but by divine inspiration and by possession; just as the Corybantian revellers too have a quick perception of that strain only which is
appropriated to the God by whom they are possessed, and have
plenty of dances and words for that, but take no heed of any
other. And you, Ion, when the name of Homer is
mentioned have plenty to say, and have nothing to say of others. You
ask, "Why is this?" The answer is that you praise Homer not by
art but by divine inspiration.
Ion. That is good,
Socrates; and yet I doubt whether you will ever have
eloquence enough to persuade me that I praise Homer only when
I am mad and possessed; and if you could hear me speak of him I am sure you would never think this to be the case.
Soc. I should like very
much to hear you, but not until you have answered a question
which I have to ask. On what part of Homer do
you speak well?- not surely about every part.
Ion. There is no part,
Socrates, about which I do not speak well of that I can
assure you.
Soc. Surely not about
things in Homer of which you have no knowledge?
Ion. And what is there in
Homer of which I have no knowledge?
Soc. Why, does not Homer
speak in many passages about arts? For example, about
driving; if I can only remember the lines I will repeat them.
Ion. I remember, and will
repeat them.
Soc. Tell me then, what
Nestor says to Antilochus, his son, where
he bids him be careful of the turn at the horse-race in honour
of Patroclus.
Ion. He says:
Bend gently in the polished chariot to the left of them, and urge the horse on the right hand with whip and voice; and slacken the
rein. And when you are at the goal, let the left horse draw
near, yet so that the nave of the well-wrought wheel may not
even seem to touch the extremity; and avoid catching the
stone.
Soc. Enough. Now, Ion,
will the charioteer or the physician be the better judge of
the propriety of these lines?
Ion. The charioteer,
clearly.
Soc. And will the
reason be that this is his art, or will there be any other reason?
Ion. No, that
will be the reason.
Soc. And
every art is appointed by God to have knowledge of a certain
work; for
that which we know by the art of the pilot we do not know by
the art of medicine?
Ion. Certainly not.
Soc. Nor do we know by the
art of the carpenter that which we know by the art of
medicine?
Ion. Certainly not.
Soc. And this
is true of all the arts;- that which we know with one
art we do not know with the other? But let me ask a prior question: You
admit that there are differences of arts?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. You would argue, as I
should, that when one art is of one kind of knowledge
and another of another, they are different?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. Yes, surely; for if
the subject of knowledge were the same, there would be no
meaning in saying that the arts were different,- if they
both gave the same knowledge. For example, I know that here are five
fingers, and you know the same. And if I were to ask whether I and you became acquainted with this fact by the help of the same art
of arithmetic, you would acknowledge that we did?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. Tell me, then, what I
was intending to ask you- whether this holds
universally?
Must the same art have the same subject of knowledge, and
different arts other subjects of knowledge?
Ion. That is my opinion,
Socrates.
Soc. Then he
who has no knowledge of a particular art will have no right
judgment of the sayings and doings of that art?
Ion. Very true.
Soc. Then which will be a
better judge of the lines which you were reciting from Homer,
you or the charioteer?
Ion. The charioteer.
Soc. Why, yes, because you
are a rhapsode and not a charioteer.
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And the art of the rhapsode is different from that of the
charioteer?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And if a different
knowledge, then a knowledge of different matters?
Ion. True.
Soc. You know the passage
in which Hecamede, the concubine of
Nestor, is described as giving to the wounded Machaon
a posset, as he says,
Made with Pramnian wine; and she grated cheese of
goat's milk with a grater of bronze, and at his side placed
an onion which gives a relish to drink. Now would you say
that the art of the rhapsode or the art of medicine was better able to judge of the propriety of these lines?
Ion. The art of medicine.
Soc. And when Homer says,
And she descended into the deep like a leaden plummet, which, set in the horn of ox that ranges in the fields, rushes along
carrying death among the ravenous fishes,- will the art of
the fisherman or of the rhapsode be
better able to judge whether these lines are rightly expressed or not?
Ion. Clearly, Socrates,
the art of the fisherman.
Soc. Come now, suppose
that you were to say to me: "Since you, Socrates, are
able to assign different passages in Homer to their corresponding
arts, I wish that you would tell me what are the passages of
which the excellence ought to be judged by the prophet and prophetic art"; and you will see how readily and truly I shall answer
you. For there are many such passages, particularly in the
Odyssey; as, for example, the passage in which Theoclymenus the prophet of the house of Melampus says to the suitors:-
Wretched men! what is happening to you? Your heads and your faces and your limbs underneath are shrouded in night; and the voice
of lamentation bursts forth, and your cheeks are wet with
tears. And the vestibule is full, and the court is full, of
ghosts descending into the darkness of Erebus, and the sun
has perished out of heaven, and an evil mist is spread abroad.
And there are many such passages in the Iliad also; as for example in the description of the battle near the rampart, where he says:-
As they were eager to pass the ditch, there came to them an omen: a soaring eagle, holding back the people on the left, bore a
huge bloody dragon in his talons, still living and panting;
nor had he yet resigned the strife, for he bent back and
smote the bird which carried him on the breast by the neck,
and he in pain let him fall from him to the ground into the
midst of the multitude. And the eagle, with a cry, was borne afar on the wings of the wind.
These are the sort of things which I should say that the prophet ought
to consider and determine.
Ion. And you are quite
right, Socrates, in saying so.
Soc. Yes, Ion, and you are
right also. And as I have selected from the Iliad and Odyssey
for you passages which describe the office of the prophet and
the physician and the fisherman, do you, who know Homer so
much better than I do, Ion, select for me passages which relate to the rhapsode and the rhapsode's
art, and which the rhapsode ought to examine and judge of better than other men.
Ion. All passages, I
should say, Socrates.
Soc. Not all, Ion, surely.
Have you already forgotten what you were saying? A rhapsode ought to have a better memory.
Ion. Why, what am I
forgetting?
Soc. Do you not remember
that you declared the art of the rhapsode
to be different from the art of the charioteer?
Ion. Yes, I remember.
Soc. And you admitted that
being different they would have different subjects of
knowledge?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. Then upon your own
showing the rhapsode, and the art of
the rhapsode, will not know everything?
Ion. I should exclude
certain things, Socrates.
Soc. You mean to say that
you would exclude pretty much the subjects of the other arts.
As he does not know all of them, which of them will he know?
Ion. He will know what a
man and what a woman ought to say, and what a freeman and
what a slave ought to say, and what a ruler and what a
subject.
Soc. Do you mean that a rhapsode will know better than the pilot
what the ruler of a sea-tossed vessel ought to say?
Ion. No; the pilot will
know best.
Soc. Or will the rhapsode know better than the physician what
the ruler of a sick man ought to say?
Ion. He will not.
Soc. But he will know what
a slave ought to say?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. Suppose the slave to
be a cowherd; the rhapsode will know
better than the cowherd what he ought to say in order to soothe the infuriated cows?
Ion. No, he will not.
Soc. But he will know what
a spinning-woman ought to say about the working of wool?
Ion. No.
Soc. At any rate he will
know what a general ought to say when exhorting his soldiers?
Ion. Yes, that is the sort
of thing which the rhapsode will be
sure to know.
Soc. Well, but is the art
of the rhapsode the art of the general?
Ion. I am sure that I
should know what a general ought to say.
Soc. Why, yes, Ion,
because you may possibly have a knowledge of the art of the
general as well as of the rhapsode; and you may also have a knowledge of horsemanship as well as of the lyre: and
then you would know when horses were well or ill managed. But
suppose I were to ask you: By the help of which art, Ion, do
you know whether horses are well managed, by your skill as a
horseman or as a performer on the lyre- what would you answer?
Ion. I should reply, by my
skill as a horseman.
Soc. And if you judged of
performers on the lyre, you would admit that you judged of
them as a performer on the lyre, and not as a horseman?
Ion. Yes.
Soc. And in judging of the
general's art, do you judge of it as a general or a rhapsode?
Ion. To me there appears
to be no difference between them.
Soc. What do you mean? Do
you mean to say that the art of the rhapsode
and of the general is the same?
Ion. Yes, one and the
same.
Soc. Then he who is a good
rhapsode is also a good general?
Ion. Certainly, Socrates.
Soc. And he who is a good
general is also a good rhapsode?
Ion. No; I do not say
that.
Soc. But you do say that he
who is a good rhapsode is also a
good general.
Ion. Certainly.
Soc. And you are the best
of Hellenic rhapsodes?
Ion. Far the best,
Socrates.
Soc. And are you the best
general, Ion?
Ion. To be sure, Socrates;
and Homer was my master.
Soc. But then, Ion, what in
the name of goodness can be the reason why you, who are the
best of generals as well as the best of rhapsodes
in all Hellas, go about as a rhapsode when you might
be a general? Do you think that the Hellenes want a rhapsode with his golden crown, and do
not want a general?
Ion. Why, Socrates, the
reason is, that my countrymen, the Ephesians, are the
servants and soldiers of Athens, and do not need a general; and
you and Sparta are not likely to have me, for you think that you have enough generals of your own.
Soc. My good Ion, did you
never hear of Apollodorus of Cyzicus?
Ion. Who may he be?
Soc. One who, though a
foreigner, has often been chosen their general by the
Athenians: and there is Phanosthenes of Andros, and Heraclides
of Clazomenae, whom they have also appointed to the
command of their armies and to other offices, although
aliens, after they had shown their merit. And will they not
choose Ion the Ephesian to be their general, and honour him, if he prove himself
worthy? Were not the Ephesians originally Athenians, and
Ephesus is no mean city? But, indeed, Ion, if you are correct in
saying that by art and knowledge you are able to praise Homer, you do not deal fairly with me, and after all your professions of
knowing many, glorious things about Homer, and promises that
you would exhibit them, you are only a deceiver, and so far from
exhibiting the art of which you are a master, will not, even
after my repeated entreaties, explain to me the nature of it.
You have literally as many forms as Proteus; and now you go all manner of
ways, twisting and turning, and, like Proteus, become all
manner of people at once, and at last slip away from me in the disguise of a general, in order that you may escape exhibiting your
Homeric lore. And if you have art, then, as I was saying, in
falsifying your promise that you would exhibit Homer, you are
not dealing fairly with me. But if, as I believe, you have no
art, but speak all these beautiful words about Homer
unconsciously under his inspiring influence, then I acquit you of dishonesty, and shall only say that you are inspired. Which do
you prefer to be thought, dishonest or inspired?
Ion. There is
a great difference, Socrates, between the two alternatives; and
inspiration is by far the nobler.
Soc. Then, Ion, I shall
assume the nobler alternative; and attribute to you in your
praises of Homer inspiration, and not art.
THE END
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.geocities.com/praisethebuddha/readings/plato/ion.html
Published
on internet:
Revised:
Information
on the web site is given in good faith about a certain spiritual way of life,
irrespective of any specific religion, in the belief that the information is
not misused, misjudged or misunderstood. Persons using this information for
whatever purpose must rely on their own skill, intelligence and judgment in its
application. The webmaster does not accept any liability for harm or damage
resulting from advice given in good faith on this website.
Back to
Readings Main Page Index
Back to Praise the
Buddha Homepage Index
A Mini
Homepage Index
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“Thou
belongest to That
Which Is Undying,
and not merely to time alone,” murmured the Sphinx, breaking its
muteness at last. “Thou art eternal,
and not merely
of the vanishing flesh. The
soul in man cannot be killed, cannot
die. It waits, shroud-wrapped,
in thy heart, as I waited, sand-wrapped, in
thy world. Know thyself, O mortal! For there is One within thee,
as in all men, that comes and stands at the bar and bears witness that there IS a God!”
(Reference: Brunton, Paul. (1962) A Search in Secret
Amen