Ion [2]
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
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