Socrates thought is that a rhapsode speaks not from knowledge but from inspiration, his thoughts being ?breathed into? him without the use of his own understanding at all. Using the analogy of a magnet, with the power to draw one rhapsode ring to itself, and through that another, and another, Socrates says that Homer himself had no knowledge of his own writing his poetry, but was divinely possessed. Every rhapsodes are also divinely possessed both when they recite poetry and when they speak. Their work, is the product of the gods working throught them, not of any human intelligence and skill.
Socrates demonstrates to Ion that rhapsodes have no knowledge. Socrates tells Ion that if his ability came by mastery, he would be able to speak about all the other poets as well. The whole of any other subject won?t have same discipline throughout and this goes for every subject that can be mastered. It?s a divine power that moves Ion, as a ?Magnetic? stone moves iron rings. This stone not only pulls those rings, if they?re iron, it also puts power in the rings, so that they in turn can do just what the stone does, pull other rings, so that there?s sometimes a very long chain of iron pieces and rings hanging from one another. And the power in all of them depends on this stone. None of the epic poets, if they?re good, are masters of their subject; they are inspired, possessed, and that is how thy utter all those beautiful poems.
Socrates has several examples and argument to prove his point of view. Like he said for a poet is an airy thing, winged and holy, and he is not able to make poetry until he becomes inspired and goes out of his mind and his intellect is no longer in him. As long as a human being has his intellect in his possession he will always lack the power to make poetry or sing prophecy. So it?s not by mastery, it?s by a divine gift.
The spectator is the last ring, the middle ring is Ion, the rhapsode or actor, and the first one is the poet himself. The god pulls people?s souls throught all these wherever he want, looping the power down from one to another. So if Ion tell a sad story, his eyes are full of tears and when he tell a story that?s frightening, or awful, his hair stands on end with fear and his heart jumps and same effects on most of his spectators too. Ion is possessed from Homer when he tells Homer?s story. And when anyone sings the work of another poet, Ion is asleep and lost about what to say; but when any song of Homer is sounded, Ion is immediately awake, his soul is dancing, and he have plenty to say. It?s like Corybantes, who have sharp ears only for the specific song that belongs to whatever god possesses them; they have plenty of words and movements to go with that song; but they are quite lost if music is different.
Socrates says; what we learn by mastering one proferrion we won?t learn by mastering another. Knowledge [involved in one case] deals with different subjects from the knowledge [in another case], then that one is a different profession from the other. A person who has not mastered a given profession will not be a good judge of the things, which belong to that profession, whether they are things said or things done. For example, rhapsode?s profession is different from the charioteer?s, then its knowledge is of different subjects.So a rhapsode?s profession, on your view, will not know everything, and neither will a rhapsode.therefore, a rhapsode it?s as someone divine, and not as master of a profession, Ion is just a singer of Homer?s praises.
Ion as rhapsode, a reciter of Homer, and despite his talent for dramatics, intonation, and voice inflection the seemingly necessary vocal tools of a recite his knowledge and understanding of Homer, specifically in terms of those various arts, fails to extend beyond his ability to memorize the epic poem. This becomes important when one considers the role of such rhapsodes in Greece, as interpreters of Homer, and in that capacity, as, essentially rewriters of the text. The danger apparent here, Socrates asserts, is in that the interpretation of Homer, conducted by a rhapsode, is a product entirely of ignorance.
I believe there are problems inherent in this situation emerging out of an audience rom bad. Further, if one choosesinability to recognize distinctions between interpretations based on content and on dramatics in order to further create that dynamic where a choice is made in order to recognize good, one must differentiate good f good based upon false information or an ill presentation of that dynamic needed for choice, good may be bad, or good may the only option available. The danger, of course, lies within that situation where the false interpretation of a story is witnessed as fantastic by an audience, and recorded as such. Socrates fears this state of practice. He, as does Homer, works within the realm of the spoken word, and while dramatics and adornment may mark the popularity of the rhapsode, neither is any indication of a correct, or even valid, interpretation of any art expressed in Homer poems, particularly that art of telling a story, where the telling becomes at once a theatrical presentation, and an interpretation.
Bibliography
Text Analysis of Text #1: PLATP, ION