Euth. How do you mean, Socrates?
Soc. I mean to say that the holy has been acknowledge by us to be
loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved.
Euth. Yes.
Soc. 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.
Euth. True.
Soc. 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 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?
Euth. 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.
Soc. 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.
Euth. 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.
Soc. 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 endeavor 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?
Euth. Yes.
Soc. 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?
Euth. I do not understand you, Socrates.
Soc. 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?
Euth. By all means.
Soc. 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.
Euth. Very true.
Soc. 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