turn away all men from her, and not your sons only; but if she be what I
believe that she is, then follow her and serve her, you and your house, as
the saying is, and be of good cheer.
Euthyphro
by 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,
