Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Books, poems, drama…

Euthyphro by Plato

Adobe PDF icon
Euthyphro by Plato - Full Text Free Book
File size: 0.1 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

This etext was prepared by Sue Asscher

EUTHYPHRO

Plato

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

INTRODUCTION.

In the Meno, Anytus had parted from Socrates with the significant words:
'That in any city, and particularly in the city of Athens, it is easier to
do men harm than to do them good;' and Socrates was anticipating another
opportunity of talking with him. In the Euthyphro, Socrates is awaiting
his trial for impiety. But before the trial begins, Plato would like to
put the world on their trial, and convince them of ignorance in that very
matter touching which Socrates is accused. An incident which may perhaps
really have occurred in the family of Euthyphro, a learned Athenian diviner
and soothsayer, furnishes the occasion of the discussion.

This Euthyphro and Socrates are represented as meeting in the porch of the
King Archon. (Compare Theaet.) Both have legal business in hand.
Socrates is defendant in a suit for impiety which Meletus has brought
against him (it is remarked by the way that he is not a likely man himself
to have brought a suit against another); and Euthyphro too is plaintiff in
an action for murder, which he has brought against his own father. The
latter has originated in the following manner:--A poor dependant of the
family had slain one of their domestic slaves in Naxos. The guilty person
was bound and thrown into a ditch by the command of Euthyphro's father, who
sent to the interpreters of religion at Athens to ask what should be done
with him. Before the messenger came back the criminal had died from hunger
and exposure.

This is the origin of the charge of murder which Euthyphro brings against
his father. Socrates is confident that before he could have undertaken the
responsibility of such a prosecution, he must have been perfectly informed
of the nature of piety and impiety; and as he is going to be tried for
impiety himself, he thinks that he cannot do better than learn of Euthyphro
(who will be admitted by everybody, including the judges, to be an
unimpeachable authority) what piety is, and what is impiety. What then is
piety?

Euthyphro, who, in the abundance of his knowledge, is very willing to
undertake all the responsibility, replies: That piety is doing as I do,
prosecuting your father (if he is guilty) on a charge of murder; doing as
the gods do--as Zeus did to Cronos, and Cronos to Uranus.

Socrates has a dislike to these tales of mythology, and he fancies that
this dislike of his may be the reason why he is charged with impiety. 'Are
they really true?' 'Yes, they are;' and Euthyphro will gladly tell
Socrates some more of them. But Socrates would like first of all to have a
more satisfactory answer to the question, 'What is piety?' 'Doing as I do,
charging a father with murder,' may be a single instance of piety, but can
hardly be regarded as a general definition.

Euthyphro replies, that 'Piety is what is dear to the gods, and impiety is
what is not dear to them.' But may there not be differences of opinion, as
among men, so also among the gods? Especially, about good and evil, which
have no fixed rule; and these are precisely the sort of differences which
give rise to quarrels. And therefore what may be dear to one god may not
be dear to another, and the same action may be both pious and impious; e.g.
your chastisement of your father, Euthyphro, may be dear or pleasing to
Zeus (who inflicted a similar chastisement on his own father), but not
equally pleasing to Cronos or Uranus (who suffered at the hands of their
sons).

Euthyphro answers that there is no difference of opinion, either among gods
or men, as to the propriety of punishing a murderer. Yes, rejoins
Socrates, when they know him to be a murderer; but you are assuming the
point at issue. If all the circumstances of the case are considered, are
you able to show that your father was guilty of murder, or that all the
gods are agreed in approving of our prosecution of him? And must you not
allow that what is hated by one god may be liked by another? Waiving this
last, however, Socrates proposes to amend the definition, and say that
'what all the gods love is pious, and what they all hate is impious.' To
this Euthyphro agrees.

Socrates proceeds to analyze the new form of the definition. He shows that
in other cases the act precedes the state; e.g. the act of being carried,
loved, etc. precedes the state of being carried, loved, etc., and therefore
that which is dear to the gods is dear to the gods because it is first
loved of them, not loved of them because it is dear to them. But the pious
or holy is loved by the gods because it is pious or holy, which is
equivalent to saying, that it is loved by them because it is dear to them.
Here then appears to be a contradiction,--Euthyphro has been giving an
attribute or accident of piety only, and not the essence. Euthyphro
acknowledges himself that his explanations seem to walk away or go round in
a circle, like the moving figures of Daedalus, the ancestor of Socrates,
who has communicated his art to his descendants.

Socrates, who is desirous of stimulating the indolent intelligence of
Euthyphro, raises the question in another manner: 'Is all the pious just?'
'Yes.' 'Is all the just pious?' 'No.' 'Then what part of justice is
piety?' Euthyphro replies that piety is that part of justice which
'attends' to the gods, as there is another part of justice which 'attends'
to men. But what is the meaning of 'attending' to the gods? The word
'attending,' when applied to dogs, horses, and men, implies that in some
way they are made better. But how do pious or holy acts make the gods any
better? Euthyphro explains that he means by pious acts, acts of service or
ministration. Yes; but the ministrations of the husbandman, the physician,
and the builder have an end. To what end do we serve the gods, and what do
we help them to accomplish? Euthyphro replies, that all these difficult
questions cannot be resolved in a short time; and he would rather say
simply that piety is knowing how to please the gods in word and deed, by
prayers and sacrifices. In other words, says Socrates, piety is 'a science
of asking and giving'--asking what we want and giving what they want; in
short, a mode of doing business between gods and men. But although they
are the givers of all good, how can we give them any good in return? 'Nay,
but we give them honour.' Then we give them not what is beneficial, but
what is pleasing or dear to them; and this is the point which has been
already disproved.

Socrates, although weary of the subterfuges and evasions of Euthyphro,
remains unshaken in his conviction that he must know the nature of piety,
or he would never have prosecuted his old father. He is still hoping that
he will condescend to instruct him. But Euthyphro is in a hurry and cannot
stay. And Socrates' last hope of knowing the nature of piety before he is
prosecuted for impiety has disappeared. As in the Euthydemus the irony is
carried on to the end.

The Euthyphro is manifestly designed to contrast the real nature of piety
and impiety with the popular conceptions of them. But when the popular
conceptions of them have been overthrown, Socrates does not offer any
definition of his own: as in the Laches and Lysis, he prepares the way for
an answer to the question which he has raised; but true to his own
character, refuses to answer himself.

Euthyphro is a religionist, and is elsewhere spoken of, if he be the same
person, as the author of a philosophy of names, by whose 'prancing steeds'
Socrates in the Cratylus is carried away. He has the conceit and self-
confidence of a Sophist; no doubt that he is right in prosecuting his
father has ever entered into his mind. Like a Sophist too, he is incapable
either of framing a general definition or of following the course of an
argument. His wrong-headedness, one-sidedness, narrowness, positiveness,
are characteristic of his priestly office. His failure to apprehend an
argument may be compared to a similar defect which is observable in the
rhapsode Ion. But he is not a bad man, and he is friendly to Socrates,
whose familiar sign he recognizes with interest. Though unable to follow
him he is very willing to be led by him, and eagerly catches at any
suggestion which saves him from the trouble of thinking. Moreover he is
the enemy of Meletus, who, as he says, is availing himself of the popular
dislike to innovations in religion in order to injure Socrates; at the same
time he is amusingly confident that he has weapons in his own armoury which
would be more than a match for him. He is quite sincere in his prosecution
of his father, who has accidentally been guilty of homicide, and is not
wholly free from blame. To purge away the crime appears to him in the
light of a duty, whoever may be the criminal.

Thus begins the contrast between the religion of the letter, or of the
narrow and unenlightened conscience, and the higher notion of religion
which Socrates vainly endeavours to elicit from him. 'Piety is doing as I
do' is the idea of religion which first occurs to him, and to many others
who do not say what they think with equal frankness. For men are not
easily persuaded that any other religion is better than their own; or that
other nations, e.g. the Greeks in the time of Socrates, were equally
serious in their religious beliefs and difficulties. The chief difference
between us and them is, that they were slowly learning what we are in
process of forgetting. Greek mythology hardly admitted of the distinction
between accidental homicide and murder: that the pollution of blood was
the same in both cases is also the feeling of the Athenian diviner. He had
not as yet learned the lesson, which philosophy was teaching, that Homer
and Hesiod, if not banished from the state, or whipped out of the assembly,
as Heracleitus more rudely proposed, at any rate were not to be appealed to
as authorities in religion; and he is ready to defend his conduct by the
examples of the gods. These are the very tales which Socrates cannot
abide; and his dislike of them, as he suspects, has branded him with the
reputation of impiety. Here is one answer to the question, 'Why Socrates
was put to death,' suggested by the way. Another is conveyed in the words,
'The Athenians do not care about any man being thought wise until he begins
to make other men wise; and then for some reason or other they are angry:'
which may be said to be the rule of popular toleration in most other
countries, and not at Athens only. In the course of the argument Socrates
remarks that the controversial nature of morals and religion arises out of
the difficulty of verifying them. There is no measure or standard to which
they can be referred.

The next definition, 'Piety is that which is loved of the gods,' is
shipwrecked on a refined distinction between the state and the act,
corresponding respectively to the adjective (philon) and the participle
(philoumenon), or rather perhaps to the participle and the verb
(philoumenon and phileitai). The act is prior to the state (as in
Aristotle the energeia precedes the dunamis); and the state of being loved
is preceded by the act of being loved. But piety or holiness is preceded
by the act of being pious, not by the act of being loved; and therefore
piety and the state of being loved are different. Through such subtleties
of dialectic Socrates is working his way into a deeper region of thought
and feeling. He means to say that the words 'loved of the gods' express an
attribute only, and not the essence of piety.

Then follows the third and last definition, 'Piety is a part of justice.'
Thus far Socrates has proceeded in placing religion on a moral foundation.
He is seeking to realize the harmony of religion and morality, which the
great poets Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Pindar had unconsciously anticipated,
and which is the universal want of all men. To this the soothsayer adds
the ceremonial element, 'attending upon the gods.' When further
interrogated by Socrates as to the nature of this 'attention to the gods,'
he replies, that piety is an affair of business, a science of giving and
asking, and the like. Socrates points out the anthropomorphism of these
notions, (compare Symp.; Republic; Politicus.) But when we expect him to
go on and show that the true service of the gods is the service of the
spirit and the co-operation with them in all things true and good, he stops
short; this was a lesson which the soothsayer could not have been made to
understand, and which every one must learn for himself.

There seem to be altogether three aims or interests in this little
Dialogue: (1) the dialectical development of the idea of piety; (2) the
antithesis of true and false religion, which is carried to a certain extent
only; (3) the defence of Socrates.

The subtle connection with the Apology and the Crito; the holding back of
the conclusion, as in the Charmides, Lysis, Laches, Protagoras, and other
Dialogues; the deep insight into the religious world; the dramatic power
and play of the two characters; the inimitable irony, are reasons for
believing that the Euthyphro is a genuine Platonic writing. The spirit in
which the popular representations of mythology are denounced recalls
Republic II. The virtue of piety has been already mentioned as one of five
in the Protagoras, but is not reckoned among the four cardinal virtues of
Republic IV. The figure of Daedalus has occurred in the Meno; that of
Proteus in the Euthydemus and Io. The kingly science has already appeared
in the Euthydemus, and will reappear in the Republic and Statesman. But
neither from these nor any other indications of similarity or difference,
and still less from arguments respecting the suitableness of this little
work to aid Socrates at the time of his trial or the reverse, can any
evidence of the date be obtained.

EUTHYPHRO

by

Plato

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: Socrates, Euthyphro.

SCENE: The Porch of the King Archon.

EUTHYPHRO: Why have you left the Lyceum, Socrates? and what are you doing
in the Porch of the King Archon? Surely you cannot be concerned in a suit
before the King, like myself?

SOCRATES: Not in a suit, Euthyphro; impeachment is the word which the
Athenians use.

EUTHYPHRO: What! I suppose that some one has been prosecuting you, for I
cannot believe that you are the prosecutor of another.

SOCRATES: Certainly not.

EUTHYPHRO: Then some one else has been prosecuting you?

SOCRATES: Yes.

EUTHYPHRO: And who is he?

SOCRATES: A young man who is little known, Euthyphro; and I hardly know
him: his name is Meletus, and he is of the deme of Pitthis. Perhaps you
may remember his appearance; he has a beak, and long straight hair, and a
beard which is ill grown.

EUTHYPHRO: No, I do not remember him, Socrates. But what is the charge
which he brings against you?

SOCRATES: What is the charge? Well, a very serious charge, which shows a
good deal of character in the young man, and for which he is certainly not
to be despised. He says he knows how the youth are corrupted and who are
their corruptors. I fancy that he must be a wise man, and seeing that I am
the reverse of a wise man, he has found me out, and is going to accuse me
of corrupting his young friends. And of this our mother the state is to be
the judge. Of all our political men he is the only one who seems to me to
begin in the right way, with the cultivation of virtue in youth; like a
good husbandman, he makes the young shoots his first care, and clears away
us who are the destroyers of them. This is only the first step; he will
afterwards attend to the elder branches; and if he goes on as he has begun,
he will be a very great public benefactor.

EUTHYPHRO: I hope that he may; but I rather fear, Socrates, that the
opposite will turn out to be the truth. My opinion is that in attacking
you he is simply aiming a blow at the foundation of the state. But in what
way does he say that you corrupt the young?

SOCRATES: He brings a wonderful accusation against me, which at first
hearing excites surprise: he says that I am a poet or maker of gods, and
that I invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones; this is the
ground of his indictment.

EUTHYPHRO: I understand, Socrates; he means to attack you about the
familiar sign which occasionally, as you say, comes to you. He thinks that
you are a neologian, and he is going to have you up before the court for
this. He knows that such a charge is readily received by the world, as I
myself know too well; for when I speak in the assembly about divine things,
and foretell the future to them, they laugh at me and think me a madman.
Yet every word that I say is true. But they are jealous of us all; and we
must be brave and go at them.

SOCRATES: Their laughter, friend Euthyphro, is not a matter of much
consequence. For a man may be thought wise; but the Athenians, I suspect,
do not much trouble themselves about him until he begins to impart his
wisdom to others, and then for some reason or other, perhaps, as you say,
from jealousy, they are angry.

EUTHYPHRO: I am never likely to try their temper in this way.

SOCRATES: I dare say not, for you are reserved in your behaviour, and
seldom impart your wisdom. But I have a benevolent habit of pouring out
myself to everybody, and would even pay for a listener, and I am afraid
that the Athenians may think me too talkative. Now if, as I was saying,
they would only laugh at me, as you say that they laugh at you, the time
might pass gaily enough in the court; but perhaps they may be in earnest,
and then what the end will be you soothsayers only can predict.

EUTHYPHRO: I dare say that the affair will end in nothing, Socrates, and
that you will win your cause; and I think that I shall win my own.

SOCRATES: And what is your suit, Euthyphro? are you the pursuer or the
defendant?

EUTHYPHRO: I am the pursuer.

SOCRATES: Of whom?

EUTHYPHRO: You will think me mad when I tell you.

SOCRATES: Why, has the fugitive wings?

EUTHYPHRO: Nay, he is not very volatile at his time of life.

SOCRATES: Who is he?

EUTHYPHRO: My father.

SOCRATES: Your father! my good man?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: And of what is he accused?

EUTHYPHRO: Of murder, Socrates.

SOCRATES: By the powers, Euthyphro! how little does the common herd know
of the nature of right and truth. A man must be an extraordinary man, and
have made great strides in wisdom, before he could have seen his way to
bring such an action.

EUTHYPHRO: Indeed, Socrates, he must.

SOCRATES: I suppose that the man whom your father murdered was one of your
relatives--clearly he was; for if he had been a stranger you would never
have thought of prosecuting him.

EUTHYPHRO: I am amused, Socrates, at your making a distinction between one
who is a relation and one who is not a relation; for surely the pollution
is the same in either case, if you knowingly associate with the murderer
when you ought to clear yourself and him by proceeding against him. The
real question is whether the murdered man has been justly slain. If
justly, then your duty is to let the matter alone; but if unjustly, then
even if the murderer lives under the same roof with you and eats at the
same table, proceed against him. Now the man who is dead was a poor
dependant of mine who worked for us as a field labourer on our farm in
Naxos, and one day in a fit of drunken passion he got into a quarrel with
one of our domestic servants and slew him. My father bound him hand and
foot and threw him into a ditch, and then sent to Athens to ask of a
diviner what he should do with him. Meanwhile he never attended to him and
took no care about him, for he regarded him as a murderer; and thought that
no great harm would be done even if he did die. Now this was just what
happened. For such was the effect of cold and hunger and chains upon him,
that before the messenger returned from the diviner, he was dead. And my
father and family are angry with me for taking the part of the murderer and
prosecuting my father. They say that he did not kill him, and that if he
did, the dead man was but a murderer, and I ought not to take any notice,
for that a son is impious who prosecutes a father. Which shows, Socrates,
how little they know what the gods think about piety and impiety.

SOCRATES: Good heavens, Euthyphro! and is your knowledge of religion and
of things pious and impious so very exact, that, supposing the
circumstances to be as you state them, you are not afraid lest you too may
be doing an impious thing in bringing an action against your father?

EUTHYPHRO: The best of Euthyphro, and that which distinguishes him,
Socrates, from other men, is his exact knowledge of all such matters. What
should I be good for without it?

SOCRATES: Rare friend! I think that I cannot do better than be your
disciple. Then before the trial with Meletus comes on I shall challenge
him, and say that I have always had a great interest in religious
questions, and now, as he charges me with rash imaginations and innovations
in religion, I have become your disciple. You, Meletus, as I shall say to
him, acknowledge Euthyphro to be a great theologian, and sound in his
opinions; and if you approve of him you ought to approve of me, and not
have me into court; but if you disapprove, you should begin by indicting
him who is my teacher, and who will be the ruin, not of the young, but of
the old; that is to say, of myself whom he instructs, and of his old father
whom he admonishes and chastises. And if Meletus refuses to listen to me,
but will go on, and will not shift the indictment from me to you, I cannot
do better than repeat this challenge in the court.

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, indeed, Socrates; and if he attempts to indict me I am
mistaken if I do not find a flaw in him; the court shall have a great deal
more to say to him than to me.

SOCRATES: And I, my dear friend, knowing this, am desirous of becoming
your disciple. For I observe that no one appears to notice you--not even
this Meletus; but his sharp eyes have found me out at once, and he has
indicted me for impiety. And therefore, I adjure you to tell me the nature
of piety and impiety, which you said that you knew so well, and of murder,
and of other offences against the gods. What are they? Is not piety in
every action always the same? and impiety, again--is it not always the
opposite of piety, and also the same with itself, having, as impiety, one
notion which includes whatever is impious?

EUTHYPHRO: To be sure, Socrates.

SOCRATES: And what is piety, and what is impiety?

EUTHYPHRO: Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting any
one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime--whether he
be your father or mother, or whoever he may be--that makes no difference;
and not to prosecute them is impiety. And please to consider, Socrates,
what a notable proof I will give you of the truth of my words, a proof
which I have already given to others:--of the principle, I mean, that the
impious, whoever he may be, ought not to go unpunished. For do not men
regard Zeus as the best and most righteous of the gods?--and yet they admit
that he bound his father (Cronos) because he wickedly devoured his sons,
and that he too had punished his own father (Uranus) for a similar reason,
in a nameless manner. And yet when I proceed against my father, they are
angry with me. So inconsistent are they in their way of talking when the
gods are concerned, and when I am concerned.

SOCRATES: May not this be the reason, Euthyphro, why I am charged with
impiety--that I cannot away with these stories about the gods? and
therefore I suppose that people think me wrong. But, as you who are
well informed about them approve of them, I cannot do better than
assent to your superior wisdom. What else can I say, confessing as I
do, that I know nothing about them? Tell me, for the love of Zeus,
whether you really believe that they are true.

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates; and things more wonderful still, of which the
world is in ignorance.

SOCRATES: And do you really believe that the gods fought with one
another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets
say, and as you may see represented in the works of great artists? The
temples are full of them; and notably the robe of Athene, which is
carried up to the Acropolis at the great Panathenaea, is embroidered
with them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates; and, as I was saying, I can tell you, if you
would like to hear them, many other things about the gods which
would quite amaze you.

SOCRATES: I dare say; and you shall tell me them at some other time when I
have leisure. But just at present I would rather hear from you a more
precise answer, which you have not as yet given, my friend, to the
question, What is 'piety'? When asked, you only replied, Doing as you do,
charging your father with murder.

EUTHYPHRO: And what I said was true, Socrates.

SOCRATES: No doubt, Euthyphro; but you would admit that there are many
other pious acts?

EUTHYPHRO: There are.

SOCRATES: Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples
of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to
be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the
impious impious, and the pious pious?

EUTHYPHRO: I remember.

SOCRATES: Tell me what is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a
standard to which I may look, and by which I may measure actions, whether
yours or those of any one else, and then I shall be able to say that such
and such an action is pious, such another impious.

EUTHYPHRO: I will tell you, if you like.

SOCRATES: I should very much like.

EUTHYPHRO: Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is
that which is not dear to them.

SOCRATES: Very good, Euthyphro; you have now given me the sort of answer
which I wanted. But whether what you say is true or not I cannot as yet
tell, although I make no doubt that you will prove the truth of your words.

EUTHYPHRO: Of course.

SOCRATES: Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing
or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person
which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme
opposites of one another. Was not that said?

EUTHYPHRO: It was.

SOCRATES: And well said?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said.

SOCRATES: And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities
and hatreds and differences?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, that was also said.

SOCRATES: And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose
for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do
differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one
another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a
sum?

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly
end the differences by measuring?

EUTHYPHRO: Very true.

SOCRATES: And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a
weighing machine?

EUTHYPHRO: To be sure.

SOCRATES: But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and
which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I
dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I
will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are
the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not
these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable
satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel,
when we do quarrel? (Compare Alcib.)

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we
quarrel is such as you describe.

SOCRATES: And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur,
are of a like nature?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly they are.

SOCRATES: They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and
evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been
no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences--would there
now?

EUTHYPHRO: You are quite right.

SOCRATES: Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and
good, and hate the opposite of them?

EUTHYPHRO: Very true.

SOCRATES: But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and
others as unjust,--about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and
fightings among them.

EUTHYPHRO: Very true.

SOCRATES: Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the
gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and
also impious?

EUTHYPHRO: So I should suppose.

SOCRATES: Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not
answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to
tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that
what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro,
in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is
agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is
acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other
gods who have similar differences of opinion.

EUTHYPHRO: But I believe, Socrates, that all the gods would be agreed as
to the propriety of punishing a murderer: there would be no difference of
opinion about that.

SOCRATES: Well, but speaking of men, Euthyphro, did you ever hear any one
arguing that a murderer or any sort of evil-doer ought to be let off?

EUTHYPHRO: I should rather say that these are the questions which they are
always arguing, especially in courts of law: they commit all sorts of
crimes, and there is nothing which they will not do or say in their own
defence.

SOCRATES: But do they admit their guilt, Euthyphro, and yet say that they
ought not to be punished?

EUTHYPHRO: No; they do not.

SOCRATES: Then there are some things which they do not venture to say and
do: for they do not venture to argue that the guilty are to be unpunished,
but they deny their guilt, do they not?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: Then they do not argue that the evil-doer should not be
punished, but they argue about the fact of who the evil-doer is, and what
he did and when?

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: And the gods are in the same case, if as you assert they quarrel
about just and unjust, and some of them say while others deny that
injustice is done among them. For surely neither God nor man will ever
venture to say that the doer of injustice is not to be punished?

EUTHYPHRO: That is true, Socrates, in the main.

SOCRATES: But they join issue about the particulars--gods and men alike;
and, if they dispute at all, they dispute about some act which is called in
question, and which by some is affirmed to be just, by others to be unjust.
Is not that true?

EUTHYPHRO: Quite true.

SOCRATES: Well then, my dear friend Euthyphro, do tell me, for my better
instruction and information, what proof have you that in the opinion of all
the gods a servant who is guilty of murder, and is put in chains by the
master of the dead man, and dies because he is put in chains before he who
bound him can learn from the interpreters of the gods what he ought to do
with him, dies unjustly; and that on behalf of such an one a son ought to
proceed against his father and accuse him of murder. How would you show
that all the gods absolutely agree in approving of his act? Prove to me
that they do, and I will applaud your wisdom as long as I live.

EUTHYPHRO: It will be a difficult task; but I could make the matter very
clear indeed to you.

SOCRATES: I understand; you mean to say that I am not so quick of
apprehension as the judges: for to them you will be sure to prove that the
act is unjust, and hateful to the gods.

EUTHYPHRO: Yes indeed, Socrates; at least if they will listen to me.

SOCRATES: But they will be sure to listen if they find that you are a good
speaker. There was a notion that came into my mind while you were
speaking; I said to myself: 'Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to me
that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how do I know
anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for granting that this
action may be hateful to the gods, still piety and impiety are not
adequately defined by these distinctions, for that which is hateful to the
gods has been shown to be also pleasing and dear to them.' And therefore,
Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove this; I will suppose, if you like,
that all the gods condemn and abominate such an action. But I will amend
the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and
what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is
both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?

EUTHYPHRO: Why not, Socrates?

SOCRATES: Why not! certainly, as far as I am concerned, Euthyphro, there
is no reason why not. But whether this admission will greatly assist you
in the task of instructing me as you promised, is a matter for you to
consider.

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and
holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.

SOCRATES: Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply
to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What
do you say?

EUTHYPHRO: We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand
the test of enquiry.

SOCRATES: We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The
point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy
is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of
the gods.

EUTHYPHRO: I do not understand your meaning, Socrates.

SOCRATES: I will endeavour to explain: we, speak of carrying and we speak
of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen. You
know that in all such cases there is a difference, and you know also in
what the difference lies?

EUTHYPHRO: I think that I understand.

SOCRATES: And is not that which is beloved distinct from that which loves?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: Well; and now tell me, is that which is carried in this state of
carrying because it is carried, or for some other reason?

EUTHYPHRO: No; that is the reason.

SOCRATES: And the same is true of what is led and of what is seen?

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely,
visible because it is seen; nor is a thing led because it is in the state
of being led, or carried because it is in the state of being carried, but
the converse of this. And now I think, Euthyphro, that my meaning will be
intelligible; and my meaning is, that any state of action or passion
implies previous action or passion. It does not become because it is
becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes; neither does
it suffer because it is in a state of suffering, but it is in a state of
suffering because it suffers. Do you not agree?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: Is not that which is loved in some state either of becoming or
suffering?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: And the same holds as in the previous instances; the state of
being loved follows the act of being loved, and not the act the state.

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro: is not piety,
according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

EUTHYPHRO: No, that is the reason.

SOCRATES: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: And that which is dear to the gods is loved by them, and is in a
state to be loved of them because it is loved of them?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: Then that which is dear to the gods, Euthyphro, is not holy, nor
is that which is holy loved of God, as you affirm; but they are two
different things.

EUTHYPHRO: How do you mean, Socrates?

SOCRATES: I mean to say that the holy has been acknowledged by us to be
loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved.

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: But that which is dear to the gods is dear to them because it is
loved by them, not loved by them because it is dear to them.

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: But, friend Euthyphro, if that which is holy is the same with
that which is dear to God, and is loved because it is holy, then that which
is dear to God would have been loved as being dear to God; but if that
which is dear to God is dear to him because loved by him, then that which
is holy would have been holy because loved by him. But now you see that
the reverse is the case, and that they are quite different from one
another. For one (theophiles) is of a kind to be loved cause it is loved,
and the other (osion) is loved because it is of a kind to be loved. Thus
you appear to me, Euthyphro, when I ask you what is the essence of
holiness, to offer an attribute only, and not the essence--the attribute of
being loved by all the gods. But you still refuse to explain to me the
nature of holiness. And therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to
hide your treasure, but to tell me once more what holiness or piety really
is, whether dear to the gods or not (for that is a matter about which we
will not quarrel); and what is impiety?

EUTHYPHRO: I really do not know, Socrates, how to express what I mean.
For somehow or other our arguments, on whatever ground we rest them, seem
to turn round and walk away from us.

SOCRATES: Your words, Euthyphro, are like the handiwork of my ancestor
Daedalus; and if I were the sayer or propounder of them, you might say that
my arguments walk away and will not remain fixed where they are placed
because I am a descendant of his. But now, since these notions are your
own, you must find some other gibe, for they certainly, as you yourself
allow, show an inclination to be on the move.

EUTHYPHRO: Nay, Socrates, I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who
sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go
round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned.

SOCRATES: Then I must be a greater than Daedalus: for whereas he only
made his own inventions to move, I move those of other people as well. And
the beauty of it is, that I would rather not. For I would give the wisdom
of Daedalus, and the wealth of Tantalus, to be able to detain them and keep
them fixed. But enough of this. As I perceive that you are lazy, I will
myself endeavour to show you how you might instruct me in the nature of
piety; and I hope that you will not grudge your labour. Tell me, then--Is
not that which is pious necessarily just?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: And is, then, all which is just pious? or, is that which is
pious all just, but that which is just, only in part and not all, pious?

EUTHYPHRO: I do not understand you, Socrates.

SOCRATES: And yet I know that you are as much wiser than I am, as you are
younger. But, as I was saying, revered friend, the abundance of your
wisdom makes you lazy. Please to exert yourself, for there is no real
difficulty in understanding me. What I mean I may explain by an
illustration of what I do not mean. The poet (Stasinus) sings--

'Of Zeus, the author and creator of all these things,
You will not tell: for where there is fear there is also reverence.'

Now I disagree with this poet. Shall I tell you in what respect?

EUTHYPHRO: By all means.

SOCRATES: I should not say that where there is fear there is also
reverence; for I am sure that many persons fear poverty and disease, and
the like evils, but I do not perceive that they reverence the objects of
their fear.

EUTHYPHRO: Very true.

SOCRATES: But where reverence is, there is fear; for he who has a feeling
of reverence and shame about the commission of any action, fears and is
afraid of an ill reputation.

EUTHYPHRO: No doubt.

SOCRATES: Then we are wrong in saying that where there is fear there is
also reverence; and we should say, where there is reverence there is also
fear. But there is not always reverence where there is fear; for fear is a
more extended notion, and reverence is a part of fear, just as the odd is a
part of number, and number is a more extended notion than the odd. I
suppose that you follow me now?

EUTHYPHRO: Quite well.

SOCRATES: That was the sort of question which I meant to raise when I
asked whether the just is always the pious, or the pious always the just;
and whether there may not be justice where there is not piety; for justice
is the more extended notion of which piety is only a part. Do you dissent?

EUTHYPHRO: No, I think that you are quite right.

SOCRATES: Then, if piety is a part of justice, I suppose that we should
enquire what part? If you had pursued the enquiry in the previous cases;
for instance, if you had asked me what is an even number, and what part of
number the even is, I should have had no difficulty in replying, a number
which represents a figure having two equal sides. Do you not agree?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, I quite agree.

SOCRATES: In like manner, I want you to tell me what part of justice is
piety or holiness, that I may be able to tell Meletus not to do me
injustice, or indict me for impiety, as I am now adequately instructed by
you in the nature of piety or holiness, and their opposites.

EUTHYPHRO: Piety or holiness, Socrates, appears to me to be that part of
justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice
which attends to men.

SOCRATES: That is good, Euthyphro; yet still there is a little point about
which I should like to have further information, What is the meaning of
'attention'? For attention can hardly be used in the same sense when
applied to the gods as when applied to other things. For instance, horses
are said to require attention, and not every person is able to attend to
them, but only a person skilled in horsemanship. Is it not so?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: I should suppose that the art of horsemanship is the art of
attending to horses?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: Nor is every one qualified to attend to dogs, but only the
huntsman?

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: And I should also conceive that the art of the huntsman is the
art of attending to dogs?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: As the art of the oxherd is the art of attending to oxen?

EUTHYPHRO: Very true.

SOCRATES: In like manner holiness or piety is the art of attending to the
gods?--that would be your meaning, Euthyphro?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: And is not attention always designed for the good or benefit of
that to which the attention is given? As in the case of horses, you may
observe that when attended to by the horseman's art they are benefited and
improved, are they not?

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: As the dogs are benefited by the huntsman's art, and the oxen by
the art of the oxherd, and all other things are tended or attended for
their good and not for their hurt?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly, not for their hurt.

SOCRATES: But for their good?

EUTHYPHRO: Of course.

SOCRATES: And does piety or holiness, which has been defined to be the art
of attending to the gods, benefit or improve them? Would you say that when
you do a holy act you make any of the gods better?

EUTHYPHRO: No, no; that was certainly not what I meant.

SOCRATES: And I, Euthyphro, never supposed that you did. I asked you the
question about the nature of the attention, because I thought that you did
not.

EUTHYPHRO: You do me justice, Socrates; that is not the sort of attention
which I mean.

SOCRATES: Good: but I must still ask what is this attention to the gods
which is called piety?

EUTHYPHRO: It is such, Socrates, as servants show to their masters.

SOCRATES: I understand--a sort of ministration to the gods.

EUTHYPHRO: Exactly.

SOCRATES: Medicine is also a sort of ministration or service, having in
view the attainment of some object--would you not say of health?

EUTHYPHRO: I should.

SOCRATES: Again, there is an art which ministers to the ship-builder with
a view to the attainment of some result?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates, with a view to the building of a ship.

SOCRATES: As there is an art which ministers to the house-builder with a
view to the building of a house?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: And now tell me, my good friend, about the art which ministers
to the gods: what work does that help to accomplish? For you must surely
know if, as you say, you are of all men living the one who is best
instructed in religion.

EUTHYPHRO: And I speak the truth, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Tell me then, oh tell me--what is that fair work which the gods
do by the help of our ministrations?

EUTHYPHRO: Many and fair, Socrates, are the works which they do.

SOCRATES: Why, my friend, and so are those of a general. But the chief of
them is easily told. Would you not say that victory in war is the chief of
them?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: Many and fair, too, are the works of the husbandman, if I am not
mistaken; but his chief work is the production of food from the earth?

EUTHYPHRO: Exactly.

SOCRATES: And of the many and fair things done by the gods, which is the
chief or principal one?

EUTHYPHRO: I have told you already, Socrates, that to learn all these
things accurately will be very tiresome. Let me simply say that piety or
holiness is learning how to please the gods in word and deed, by prayers
and sacrifices. Such piety is the salvation of families and states, just
as the impious, which is unpleasing to the gods, is their ruin and
destruction.

SOCRATES: I think that you could have answered in much fewer words the
chief question which I asked, Euthyphro, if you had chosen. But I see
plainly that you are not disposed to instruct me--clearly not: else why,
when we reached the point, did you turn aside? Had you only answered me I
should have truly learned of you by this time the nature of piety. Now, as
the asker of a question is necessarily dependent on the answerer, whither
he leads I must follow; and can only ask again, what is the pious, and what
is piety? Do you mean that they are a sort of science of praying and
sacrificing?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, I do.

SOCRATES: And sacrificing is giving to the gods, and prayer is asking of
the gods?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Upon this view, then, piety is a science of asking and giving?

EUTHYPHRO: You understand me capitally, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Yes, my friend; the reason is that I am a votary of your
science, and give my mind to it, and therefore nothing which you say will
be thrown away upon me. Please then to tell me, what is the nature of this
service to the gods? Do you mean that we prefer requests and give gifts to
them?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, I do.

SOCRATES: Is not the right way of asking to ask of them what we want?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And the right way of giving is to give to them in return what
they want of us. There would be no meaning in an art which gives to any
one that which he does not want.

EUTHYPHRO: Very true, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Then piety, Euthyphro, is an art which gods and men have of
doing business with one another?

EUTHYPHRO: That is an expression which you may use, if you like.

SOCRATES: But I have no particular liking for anything but the truth. I
wish, however, that you would tell me what benefit accrues to the gods from
our gifts. There is no doubt about what they give to us; for there is no
good thing which they do not give; but how we can give any good thing to
them in return is far from being equally clear. If they give everything
and we give nothing, that must be an affair of business in which we have
very greatly the advantage of them.

EUTHYPHRO: And do you imagine, Socrates, that any benefit accrues to the
gods from our gifts?

SOCRATES: But if not, Euthyphro, what is the meaning of gifts which are
conferred by us upon the gods?

EUTHYPHRO: What else, but tributes of honour; and, as I was just now
saying, what pleases them?

SOCRATES: Piety, then, is pleasing to the gods, but not beneficial or dear
to them?

EUTHYPHRO: I should say that nothing could be dearer.

SOCRATES: Then once more the assertion is repeated that piety is dear to
the gods?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And when you say this, can you wonder at your words not standing
firm, but walking away? Will you accuse me of being the Daedalus who makes
them walk away, not perceiving that there is another and far greater artist
than Daedalus who makes them go round in a circle, and he is yourself; for
the argument, as you will perceive, comes round to the same point. Were we
not saying that the holy or pious was not the same with that which is loved
of the gods? Have you forgotten?

EUTHYPHRO: I quite remember.

SOCRATES: And are you not saying that what is loved of the gods is holy;
and is not this the same as what is dear to them--do you see?

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: Then either we were wrong in our former assertion; or, if we
were right then, we are wrong now.

EUTHYPHRO: One of the two must be true.

SOCRATES: Then we must begin again and ask, What is piety? That is an
enquiry which I shall never be weary of pursuing as far as in me lies; and
I entreat you not to scorn me, but to apply your mind to the utmost, and
tell me the truth. For, if any man knows, you are he; and therefore I must
detain you, like Proteus, until you tell. If you had not certainly known
the nature of piety and impiety, I am confident that you would never, on
behalf of a serf, have charged your aged father with murder. You would not
have run such a risk of doing wrong in the sight of the gods, and you would
have had too much respect for the opinions of men. I am sure, therefore,
that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear
Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge.

EUTHYPHRO: Another time, Socrates; for I am in a hurry, and must go now.

SOCRATES: Alas! my companion, and will you leave me in despair? I was
hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and
then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment. I would
have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up
rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through
ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life.

Book of the day: