Gorgias

Soc.

And what of choral productions and dithyrambic compositions? Are they not manifestly, in your view, of the same kind? Or do you suppose Cinesias,[*](A dithyrambic poet whose extravagant style was ridiculed by Aristophanes (Aristoph. Frogs 153; Aristoph. Cl. 333; Aristoph. Birds 1379).) son of Meles, cares a jot about trying to say things of a sort that might be improving to his audience, or only what is likely to gratify the crowd of spectators?

Call.

Clearly the latter is the case, Socrates, with Cinesias.

Soc.

And what of his father Meles? Did he ever strike you as looking to what was best in his minstrelsy? Or did he, perhaps, not even make the pleasantest his aim? For his singing used to be a pain to the audience. But consider now: do you not think that all minstrelsy and composing of dithyrambs have been invented for the sake of pleasure?

Call.

I do.

Soc.

Then what of the purpose that has inspired our stately and wonderful tragic poetry? Are her endeavor and purpose, to your mind, merely for the gratification of the spectators, or does she strive hard, if there be anything pleasant and gratifying, but bad for them, to leave that unsaid, and if there be anything unpleasant, but beneficial, both to speak and sing that, whether they enjoy it or not? To which of these two aims, think you, is tragic poetry devoted ?

Call.

It is quite obvious, in her case, Socrates, that she is bent rather upon pleasure and the gratification of the spectators.

Soc.

Well now, that kind of thing, Callicles, did we say just now, is flattery ?

Call.

Certainly.

Soc.

Pray then, if we strip any kind of poetry of its melody, its rhythm and its meter, we get mere speeches as the residue, do we not?

Call.

That must be so.

Soc.

And those speeches are spoken to a great crowd of people?

Call.

Yes.

Soc.

Hence poetry is a kind of public speaking.

Call.

Apparently.

Soc.

Then it must be a rhetorical public speaking or do you not think that the poets use rhetoric in the theaters?

Call.

Yes, I do.

Soc.

So now we have found a kind of rhetoric addressed to such a public as is compounded of children and women and men, and slaves as well as free; an art that we do not quite approve of, since we call it a flattering one.

Call.

To be sure.

Soc.

Very well; but now, the rhetoric addressed to the Athenian people, or to the other assemblies of freemen in the various cities—what can we make of that? Do the orators strike you as speaking always with a view to what is best, with the single aim of making the citizens as good as possible by their speeches, or are they, like the poets, set on gratifying the citizens, and do they, sacrificing the common weal to their own personal interest, behave to these assemblies as to children, trying merely to gratify them, nor care a jot whether they will be better or worse in consequence?