No More Learning

? : on,
? ? Of HOLINESS. 179
on, in judging so differently of the Actions ofthose Gods,andmine,* inwhichIhadnootherdesign than that of imitating them.
Soc. Isthisthething,Eutyphron,whichhasbrought metodaytothisBar; becausewhenIam toldthese Tales of the Gods I can't hear 'era without Pain > IsthistheCrimewithwhichIam goingtobecharg'd> If you who are so able in Matters of Religion a- gree with the People in this, and believe thesesto ries 'tis absolutely necessary that I should believe 'em too, who confess ingenuously that I know nothing of these Matters ; shall Ipretend to be wiser than m y Teachers, and make head against them ? Therefore IbegofyouinthenameofthatGodwho presides over Friendship, do not deceive me, do you believe allthesethings you fay?
Eut. I not only believe these, but others too that &>><<kufi | are more surprizing,of which the People are wholly ***'*" ignorant. S S b
Soc. You seriouslybelievethenthattherearegreatvertknown Quarrels, Animosities and Wars among the Gods ? <<>>/;to
You believeallthoseothersPassionsreignamong'em,thof'*** which are so surprizing, and are represented by Poets *%' mtiar
and Painters in their Poems and Pictures, which are expos'd to view in all parts of our Temples ; and f
are wrought with variousColours in that mysterious Tapistry, which is carried in procession to the Cita
del every fifth Year, during the 'Panathsnea? _, _,<<- must we receive all these things as so many great ^iaJ^ Truths, Eutyphron.
Eut. Not onlythese,Socrates^. butagreatmany others besides, as I told you just now, which Iwill
* TheimitationofthosefalseGoIscouldonly producevery il Actions, as the Poets themselves have acknowledged.
f This Tapistry was the Sail of MUtrvtfs Ship, on which the Principal Actions of this Goddess were describ'd in Needle-work} which after it had been expos'd in the Ship ar the beginning of the Feast, was carried in Procession. The Ship was rolPd along on firmGroundtotheTempleofCeresatEleufaf,fromwhenceit was brought back, and canted to the Citadel ; and theS. a. ue of theGoddess was atlastadorn'd with it.
T4 ex-
? ? lU
BUtlffB^ONi or,
explaintoyouifyouplease^anduponmyword they'll make you wonder.
Soc. No, they will not make me wonder much, butyoumayexplain'emtomeanothertimewhen youaremore atleisure;Iprayendeavournowto
explain to m e w h a t I ask'd you,a little m o r e clearly ; foryouhaveriotyetfullyanswer'dmy Questioayou have not taught me what Holiness is. You have onb/toldmethatthat. isaholythingwhichyou
do in'accusing your Father of Murder
Eut. And1havetoldyoutheTruth,
Soc. Itmaybesojbutaretherenotagreatma ny other things which you call Holy > '? '
Eut. Without doubt there are.
Soc. I intreat you therefore to remember that whatIask'dyouwasnottoteachmeoneortwo holy'Things among a greatmany othersthat are so %oo; but to give me a clear and distinct Idea of the Nature of Holinels, and of that which causes allholyThingstobeholy. Foryoutoldmeyour self, that there is only one and the fame Character whichmakesallholyThingstobewhat theyarej as there is one that 'makes Wickedness to be always WickednessY don'tyourememberit?
' Eur, O ho, yes, I remember it. Soc. Thenteachme toknowwhatthisCharacter
is, thai Imay 'have italways before my Eyes, and may useitas the trueModel, and realOriginal, thatsoImay'beinaConditiontoaffirmof every thing which I see you or others do, that that which r e s e m b l e s , it is h o l y , a n d t h a t w h i c h d o e s n o t r e s e m
ble itiswicked.
'Eut. Ifthat'sit,youdesire,Socrates^\amready
tosatisfieyou. Soc. Trulythat'swhatIwouldhave* ASesimd 'Eut. IlaythenthatHolinessisthatwhichisa-
Df/somostf/greabletotheGods, andWickednessisthatwhich jAfif/f. -? }sdisagreableto'em. ? '' '
Soc. Verywell,Eutyphxon, you. haveatlastan
swerdmipreciselyaccordingtomyQuestion. But
I don't vet know whether you lpeak true : However ->? . *? ? . --. ? ? _, . ? -. surely.
? ? Os HOLINESS. 181
surelyyou will know how to convince me of the Truth of what you advance.
Eut. I'llansweryou.
Soc. Come then,letuslaydownwhat we fay plainly. AholyThing,oraholyMan,isaThing, oraMan thatisagreabletoGod-,awickedThing, orawickedMan, isaMan, orThingthatisdisa- g r e a b l e t o h i m ? , t h u s w h a t i s H o l y a n d w h a t i s W i c k
ed are directly opposite ; axe they not ? Eut. That'sbeyond contradiction.
Soc. I think this is very well lay'd down. Eut. Ithink so too, Socrates.
Soc. But have w e not also affirm'd that * the Gods have frequent Animosities and Contentions among themselves, and are often embroil'd and divided one against another ? Eut. Yes, without doubt.
Soc. Therefore let us now examine what may be the Occasion of that difference of Sentiments that produces those Quarrels and thatEnmity among 'em. IfyouandIshoulddisputeaboutNumbers, toknow which was the greater, would this difference make us Enemies, and carry us to all manner of Excesses andViolences? Shouldwe notimmediatelysetour selves to reckon, that w e might presently be of the sameMind>
Eut. Tis very true, we should so.
Soc. And ifwe should dispute about thedifferent bigness of Bodies, should w e not presently go about
measuring 'em, and would not that ibon put an end, to our Dispute? ?
Eut. Itwould so.
Soc. AndifweshouldcontestaboutWeight,would not our Difference be soon determin'd by means ofa pair of Scales?
Eut. Nodoubtofit.
Soc. Well then, what isthere, about which, if we should come to dispute Without having a cer tain Rule, to which we might recur, we should be-
* SocratesrefutesthisDefinitionof Holiness, by shewing thac ^tcan'tsubsistwiththeirTheology. ? ? '? .
'"-*"*? ? '"'? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? come
? ? i8i
EUTrTHGLON; of,
come irreconcileable Enemies, and fall into an ex travagant Passion one against the other > Perhaps none of these things at present occurs to your Mind. I'll tell you some of 'em, and you shall judge whe ther I am inthe right. Isitnot what isJust and Un just, Comely and Indecent, Good and Evil? Arenot not these the things about which we every day dif fer, and not finding a sufficient Rule to make us ac cord, we fallinto thegreatestEnmity ? When Ifay WeIspeakofallMankindingeneral.
Eut. Thatindeedisthe,trueCauseofallourLaw- suites, and all our Wars.
Soc. Arid if it be true, that the Gods are at Vari a n c e a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s a b o u t a n y t h i n g , m u s t it n o t - necessarily be some one of these ?
Eut. Itmustneedsbeso.
Soc. * According toyou then,Excellent Eutypbron, the Gods aredivided about what isJustand Unjust, ComelyandIndecent-,GoodandEvil. Forifthey did notcontest about these things, they would have no occasion of wrangling, but would be always uni tedjwouldtheynot> Eut. Youfayveryright.
&v. And the things which each God takes to be Comely, Good and Just, are lov'd by him, and the contrary hated.
Eut. Most certainly.
Soc. Accordingtoyou thenoneandthefamething seems Just to some of them and Unjust to others, seeingWarsandSeditionsarestir'dupamong 'em bysuchDisputesasthese. Isitnotso>
Eut. 'Tis so without doubt.
Soc. Hence itfollows, that one and the fame thing is t h e o b j e c t b o t h o f t h e L o v e a n d H a t r e d o f t h e G o d s , and isatthefame time pleasingand displeasing to 'em.
Eut. So it(seems.
Soc. And consequently, according to you, what is Holy and Profane are the fame thing.
Eut. I grant, this consequence may be Just.
* Socriteshmi(am\y ridiculesthoseGoJs, who know not whac Justice and Jniutice, Vice and Venue are.
? S<? c.
? ? Of HOLINESS. x8}
Soc. Than you have not answer'd my Question, Incomparable Eutypbron ; for I did not ask you what it was that at the fame time was Holy and Profane, PleaiingandDispleasingtotheGods. SothatIfore- fee 'tis possible without a Miracle, that the Action you are about to day in prosecuting your Father to bringhimtoPunisliment,may pleaseJupiter,andat the lame time may displease Coelus and Saturn -, may be approv'd by Vulcan, and dilapprov'd by Ju no,andsooftherestoftheGodswhomaybeofdif ferent Sentiments.
Eut. But Socrates, Isuppose there'snodisputea- bout this among the Gods, nor does any one of 'em pretend, that he who has kill'd a Man unjustly should be suffer'd to go unpunish'd.
Soc. NeitheristhereanyMan thatpretendsto that : Did you ever fee any one that dafd put the matter in Question, whether he that had willfully murder'daMan, orcommittedanyotherActofIn
justice, ought to be punisti'd or not ?
Eut. W e every where hear and fee scarce any
thing else before the Tribunals but Persons w h o have committed Acts of Injustice, saying and doing what they can to avoid Punishment.
Soc But do thePersonsofwhom you speak, Eu typbron, confess that they have done those Acts ofs Injustice of which they are accus'd ; and after this Confession maintain that they ought not to be punisti'd?
Eut. They havenoMind toconfessso,Socrates.
Soc. Then they do not lay and do all they can ; for they dare neither maintain nor assert, that whentheirInjusticeismanifest, andsufficientlyat tested,theyoughtnottobechastiz'dforit. Isitnotso*
Eut. 'Tis very true.
Soc. Theydon'tputtheMatter inQuestion, whe therhethatisguiltyofInjusticeought tobepu- nish'd;No bodydoubtsofthat;butthataboutwhich they dispute is the Natute of Injustice,- to deter mineinwhat, how, andonwhatOccasionitiscom mitted.
Em.
? ? *84 EUTYTHWN; orj
Eut. That'scertain.
Soc. AndisitnotthefameinHeaven,ifitbe true, as you have asserted that the Gods are at Va rianceaboutwhatisJustandUnjust? Donotsome of'emaffirmthatothersofem areUnjust,anddon't
thelattermaintaintheContrary. Forthereisnot oneamongthemnomorethanamonguswhodares advance such a Notion as this, that he that commits Injustice ought not to be punifliM.
Eut. All you fay is true, Socrates^ at least in general.
Soc. Youmayfayinparticulartoo. For'tisabout particular Actions that both Men and Gods dispute everyday jifitbetruethattheGodsdisputeabout anything:Do notsomesaysuchanActionisJust, and othersthat'tisUnjust *
Eut. Yes Doubtless.
Soc. Comethen,mydearEutypbron^formypar ticular Instruction tell me what certain Proof you have that the Gods all disapprove the Death of your Farmer, who after he had so barbarously knock'd his fellow servant on the head, was laid in Irons, and so perish'd before your Father had receiv'd the answerwhichheexpectedfromAthens. Demon stratetome thatonthisoccasion'tisapiousandjust Action for a Son to accuse his Father of Murder, and to endeavour to bring him toPunishment for it} and see if you can fairly and evidently prove to me, that,the Action of such a Son ispleasing to the Gods. If you do this I shall never cease to admire and ce lebrate your Capacity as long as I live.
Eut. Thisissomewhatdifficultindeedjtoprove ittoyou. FormypartIcouldproveitasevident ly as ?
Soc. Iunderstandyou. Thatistofay,Youthink Ihaveadullerhead thananyofyourJudges-,for as to them, there's no difficulty in the Case, you'll make it appear to them that your Farmer was un justly kill'd, and that allthe Gods disapprove your Father's Action,
Eut. .
? ? Of HOLINESS. 285
Eut.
I'llmakeitappearto'ematclearastheLight, provided they will but hear me.
Soc. Oh! Theywillnotfailtohearyou,*pro
videdyoumakeafineSpeechto'em. ButI'lltell
youwhat ReflectionI lustnow made, whileIwas
hearkningtowhat you laid; Isaid withinmy self;
suppose itwere possible for Eutyphron to persuade m e
that all the Gods are of the Mind that this Farmer
was unjustly kill'd ; should I be ever the wiser,
should I understand, better than I do, what is Holy
a n d w h a t P r o f a n e ? T h e D e a t h o f this F a n n e r is d i s
pleasing to the Gods, as he pretends, I'll grant it ;
but this is not a definition of what isHoly, and its contrary, seeingtheGodsaredivided? ,andthatwhich
isdjsagreabletosome ofthem isagreabletoothers:
Verywell,Ipassthat,Eutyphron:Iam willingto
suppose that all the Gods account your Father'sActi-
onunjust, andthattheyallabhorit:Ipraythen
let us correct our Definition a little, and fay, That
whichalltheGodscondemnisProfane, andthatwhich
all the Gods approve isHoly : and that which is ap proved by some o f em, ana disapproved by others, is
neither one nor t'other, or rather is both together. Shallwe standbythisDefinitionofwhatisHolyand what Profane ?
Eut. Whatshouldhinderus,Socrates>
S o c . F o r m y p a r t I ' l l n o t h i n d e r i t -, b u t d o y o u see your self if this suites your Opinion ; and if up onthisPrincipleyoucaninstructme betterinwhat you have been endeavouring to teach me.
Eut. And formy partI(hallmake no Difficulty of asserting, that that is Holy which all the Gods approve, andthatProfane, which they alldisapprove.
Soc. Examine thisDefinition to see if it be true, or shallwereceiveitwithoutanyCeremony? and
* Secritts reproaches the Athenians, that they lov'd to hear such as could talk finely, and did not much trouble their Heads about the Truth of Things: W e learn from the Sacred History that thiswastheCharacteroftheAthenians; theyspenttheirTimein hearing eitherNovelists or Orators.
shall
? ? . 86" EUTY<PH$LO 2\? ; or,
shall w e have that respect for our selves and others, as to give our Assent to all our Imaginations and
Fancies ; so that for a M a n to tell us a thing is so, s h a l l b e s u f f i c i e n t t o g a i n o u r B e l i e f ? , o r i s i t n e c e s
s a r y t o e x a m i n e w h a t i s s a i d t o u s . ? Eut. Withoutdoubtweshouldexamineit;and
Iamwellassur'dthatwhatwehavelaiddownisa good Position.
Soc. Thatweshallseepresently. Hearmealit tle. *IsthatwhichisHolybelov'doftheGods, because it is Holy, or isit Holy,because it is belov'd of'em>
Eut. Idon'twell understandwhat you fay, Socrates.
Soc. I'llendeavourtoexplainmyself. Don'twe lay, that a thing is carried, and that a thing carries? that a thing is seen, and that a thing fees ; that a thing ismov'd,and thata thing moves it? and thelike
to Infinity ? D o you conceive that they are different ? and do you understand in what they differ?
Eat. I think I do.
Soc. Is not the thing belov'd different from that which loves ?
Eut. A pretty Question indeed!
Soc. Tell me then isthe thing,which iscarried,car- ried because one carriesit;or for some other Reason?
Eut. Because one carries it ^ without doubt.
Soc. And the thing mov'd ismov'd because one m o v e s i t ? , a n d t h e t h i n g s e e n b e c a u s e o n e s e e s i t ?
Eut. Most certainly,
* ThisThoughtistoohighforEutypbron,whoconceivingHo linessasathingdistinctfromGod, couldnottellhow tocompre hend thatwhichisHolyisatthefametimelov'dofGod,becauseic isHoly;andHolybecauselov'dofGod:ForHolinesscomesfrom God, Sanftitasprimtivi ;and theHolinessofMen istheeffectofthe DivineCommunion, whichSocratesunderstood,andofwhichhe elsewherespeaks. SothatSocratesherespeakswithreferenceto thegrossmanner ofconceiving the thingsofReligionwhich was tobefoundinignorantMen;whojudg'dofthisasofallother thingsinwhichcheRelativesareverydifferent, asthatwhichis lov'd is different from that which loves, that which is moved tt different from that which moves ic, &e,
Soc.
? ? Of HOLINESS. 187
Soc. Then it is not true that one fees a thing be cause it is seen, but on the contrary 'tis seen because oneseesit. "Tisnottruethatonemovesathingbe cause 'tis mov'd, but it is mov'd because one moves it : N o r is it true, that one carries a thing because 'tis carried, but 'tis carried because one carries it:
? Doyouunderstandmenow? Isthisplainenough? My meaningis,thatonedoesnotdoathingbecause ?
it is done, but that it is done because one does it ? that a Reing which suffers does not suffer because itispassiye;butispassivebecauseitsuffers. Isnot this true ?
Eut. Whodoubtsit?
Soc. Is not that which is lov'd something that is done, or that suffers ?
Eut. Certainly.
Soc- Then 'tiswiththatwhich islov'das'tiswith a l l o t h e r t h i n g s ? , ' t i s n o t b e c a u s e i t i s l o v ' d t h a t o n e
lovesit,butonethecontrary'tisbecauseone loves it that it is lov'd.
Eut. That's as clear as the Light.
Soc. WhatshallwesaythenofthatwhichisHo ly,mydearEutypbron>shallwenotsay,itisbe- lov'd of the Gods, as you have asserted ?
Eut. Yes certainly.
Soc. Butisitbelov'dbecauseitisHoly, orisit. for some other Reason ? .
Eut. Tis for no other Reason.
Soc. Then itisbelov'dbecause itisHoly ; butitit*>belov'd isnotHolybecauseitisbelov'd. . s? faTM
Eut. Sol think. . S? 2? * S o c . B u t i s i t n o t b e l o v ' d o f t h e G o d s b e c a u s e t h e ? Q u a l i t y t h t t
G o d s l o v e it ? rtndtrs it Eut. Who 'candenyit? fmblt.
Soc. *Thenthatwhichisbelov'dofGodisnot the fame with that which is Holy, nor that which
* This isevident, scing what is Holy is lov'd only because it is Holy ; and chat which is lov'd is lov'd only because one loves it, theremustneedsbeadifferencebetweenthesetwo, vi\. whatis Lov'd and what isHoly.
is
? ? i88
EUTYfH^OHl or,1
is Holy the fame with that which is belov'd, as you. lay ; but they are very different.
Eut. How then, Socrates?
Soc. Because we are agreed that that which is Holyisbelov'dbecauseitisHoly, andthatitis not true that it is Holy because it is belov'd ; are wenotagreedinthat?
Eut. Iconfessit.
Soc. W e are farther agreed that that which isbe lov'd of the Gods is belov'd of 'em only because" they love it ; and that it is not true, to' fay they love it, because it is belov'd.
Eut. That'sright.
Soc. * But, my dear Eutyphron^ ifthat which is belov'd of th6 Gods, and that which isHoly were did
,lame thing, seeing that which isHoly is belov'd on lybecauseitisHoly, ItwouldfollowthattheGods should love that which they love, only because itis belov'dof 'em : And on the otherhand, ifthatwhich is belov'd of the Gods were lov'd only because they love it, than it would be true likewise. to lay, that which isHoly, isHoly, only because'tisbelov'dof them. Bythisthereforeyoufeethatthosetwo
terms, belov'd of the Gods and Holy are very diffe rent. One isbelov'dbecause theGods lovehim, and another is lov'd only because he deserves to be lov'd. Thus,mydearEutypbroa,whenyoushould h a v e g i v e n m e a n e x a c t a n s w e r w h a t it is t o b e H o l y , to be sure you were not willing to explain to me whereintheEssenceof itconsists byanaccurateDc: finition, but were content to shew one of its Quali ties, which is that of being belov'd of the Gods, but you have not given m e an Account of the Nature ofit. Iconjureyoutherefore,ifyouthinkfit,dis coverthisgreatsecrettome, andbeginningwithit
from itsveryPrinciple, teachme preciselytoknow what Holiness is,without having respect to any thing
* FprifthesetwoTeriiisBtltv'dandH$l)werethefttriething, one rriightbe put for t'other, whence all that Absurdity would fol low which Stratis represents here.
mi
? ? Of HOLINESS. . , ij$
that is adventitious^ as whether it be belov'd of the V<<r vhn Godsornot. Forweshallhavenodisputeabout'? *&>>* that. Comethen,tellmefreely? ,whatisittobej? /K5
Ho/y,andwhattobeProfane. . , ,. . } ,. ,; onemaysaf. Eut. But,SocratesIknowriothowtoexplainrrlyh k? ^:
ThoughtstoyouonthisSubject-,forallthatwelay? *f% ? ' down vanishes. from us, and does not continue fix'dbJedofGoi, andstablein,whatConditionsoeverweputit, -
Sac. AllthePrinciples, Eutypbron,whichyouhave . estahltfh'd are somewhat like* the figures of Deda- lusoneof. my Ancestors. IfIhadattested'emtd
be sure you would not have fail'd to jeer and re proach me, as ifI had derived thispretty Quality of
making things that flip out of a Man's Hands,
when he thinkshe holds 'em fastest:But itunhappi
lyfallsoutthat'tisyouthathaveasserted'em. There
fore I must seek for some other turns of Raillery, for
'tiscertainyourPrinciplesgiveustheflip, asyou feeverywell. ,. ,I . _. ?
. Eut. Formy part,Socrates,Ineednotseekanyo- ther turn of Raillery : that suites you perfectly well : for 'tis not I that inspire our reasonings with this Instability, which hinders 'em from fixing,but you are the Deda/us. . IfI were alone^ I tell you they wouldcontinuefirmandsteady. . ,. , ;
(She. ThenIammoreexpertinmyArtthanDeda- luswas, hecouldonlygivethisMobilitytohis own Works, whereas itseems Igive itnot only to myown,butalsotothoseofotherMen:audthat whichisyetmorestrangeis. thatIam thusexpert against m y will ; for I should m u c h rather choose
. *Diddlu&v/atanexcellentOrver, who madeStamesthatha4 Springswithin'cm,,bymeansofwhich they wouldstartoutand goalongasittheyhadbeenalive, therewere. ca/osortsof'em, asappearsbywhacissaidinMmm WhatSocratessayshereof Deddus, that he was one of his Aricestos, is only in Raillery. htdtlm descended from the Kings of Athens; and Socrates was ve ry, far sri m having the Vanity of pretending to be of that Family,. His meaning is orrfy this, that he knew, how to make himself. Wings,asDedilnsdid,toflytowardsHeavcti, andtora^sehis MiridtothekhowledgofdivineThings. ThisMatterttasspo- Ren of in the first Alcibiades.
'
U to
? ? 19o
EHirfHWtli or;
to have m y Discourses continue fix'd and unmovatte4 than to have all the Riches of Tantalus together withalltheSkillofDeda/usmyProgenitor. But
enoughofthisJesting. Seeingyouareairraidot theTrouble, 111 endeavour to ease you,and to open a shorterwaytoconductmy selftotheknowledgeof whatisHoly. Andyou(hallfeeifitdoesnotap pear to be of absolute necessity that whatever is Holy is Just. Eut. It cannot be otherwise.
Soc. DoyouthinkwhateverisJustisHoly,or whateverisHoly isJust? ordo yousupposethatthat w h i c h i s J u s t i s n o t a l w a y s H o l y ? , b u t o n l y t h a t t h e r e aresomeJustthingsthatareHoly, and otherswhich
are not so?
Eut. Ican'twellcomprehendwhatyoumean, bo-
crates.
Soc. AndyetyouhavetwogreatAdvantagesabove
me ? ,having both more Youth, and more Capacity thanI. But,asIjustnowtoldyou,swimmingin the Delicious abundance of your Wisdom, you are affraid ofputting your selfto much trouble. Shake off, I beseech you, this effeminate Softness, and ap plyyourselfalittletothinking-, what I say is notveryhardtobeunderstood. ForIfayjustthe contrary to what the Poet asserts, who to excuse
himself for not singing the Praises of Jupiter, fays, Shame every vchtre keeps company with fear.
I a m n o t a t a l l o f h i s M i n d -, s h a l l I t e l l y o u i n w h a t >
Eut. You'il oblige me in so doing.
Soc. I think 'tis not true that Shame always ac
companiesFear-? forIthinkwe everyDay feePeo ple in Fear of Sickness and Poverty, who yet are netatallasham'dofthethingstheyfear. Don't
you think so too ? Eut. IamofthesameMind.
Soc. On thecontraryFearalwaysfollowsShame; for is there any one w h o is astiam'd, and put into Confusion by any Action, who does not at the fame timefeavthedishonourthatistheConsequenceof it?
Eut.