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 ?
Plato - 1701 - Works - a
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. It can't be otherwise, he must be affraid of it. Soc*
? ? Of HOLINESS. i9i
Soc Thenitisnottruetofay,
Shame everywhere keeps company kmth Pear,
But we should lay,
Bear every where keeps company with Shame.
for 'tisfalse that shame iscontinually found with fear, fear having more extent than shame : indeed /name isonepartoffear,as theunequalisonepartof Number. Whereveryoufindanumberyoudonot necessarily find it unequal ? , but wherever it is une:
qual,thereyounecessarilyfindaNumber. Doyou understand me now ?
E/a. Very well.
Soc. This iswhatIjustnowask'dyou;vis. if
wherever thatwhich isjust isto be found, there is
also that which is Holy; and if wherever that which
is Holy is to be found, there is also that which is
Just? Now itappearsthatthatwhichisHolyisnot
a l w a y s f o u n d w i t h t h a t w h i c h i s J u s t -, f o r t h a t w h i c h
isHolyisapartofthatwhichisJust. Shallwe
thenlaythisdownasaPrinciple,orareyouofi different Sentiment ? ? . ?
EnY. 'Tis a Principle that can't be contested.
Soc. N o w mind what follows : if that which is HolyisapartofthatwhichisJust^wemustfind B u t w h a t p a r t o f t h a t w h i c h is J u s t t h a t w h i c h is H o l y is. Asifyou shouldaskme whatpartofNum beristhatwhich isequal,andwhatNumberisits Ishouldanswer, thatitis*theljbfce/e,andnotthe Scalene : Don't you think so as well as I >
E u t . Y e s c e r t a i n l y . _? . , ? t
Soc. Nowdoyouinlikemannerfeeifyoucan
informme whatpartofthatwhichisjustthatwhich
isHolyis;thatImay letMelitus know, that 'tis
bestforhim to forbear to do me any fartherInjustice
inaccusingme ofImpiety,me,who,Ifay,havebeen
perfectly instructed by you what Piety and Holiness,
and their Contraries are. .
,. *WxJibfctltsignifiesthaiwhichhastwoequalfiJes,forthe f even. Nfljnberdivide*itselfintocw<jequalpans. And theSciitnt
isihiiwhichha'stwounequalSides. ^
? ? ioi EUTTTB^ONi or,
a third E"t. For m y part, Socrates, I think that Holiness Definition andPietyistthatpartofwhatisJustwhich con- ivbicbat cernstheCareandWorshipoftheGods,andthatall bottomhas tjiereft0f-ltisthatwhich properlyrespectsMen.
Tmhinil Soc-VeryweI1:YettbereissomelittleMatterstill butthtse'wanting. ForIdonotwellunderstandwhatyou
falseTeach-meanbythisWord [Care]IsthisCareoftheGods trs hadnot tjie fan1e wjtj1 that which w e take about all other
wthHi If it.
things ? For w e every day fay, that none but a Quer- fyknowshowtotakecareofaHorse,andtolook wellafterhim,dowenot>
Eut. Yes doubtless,
Soc. Then the Caxe of Horses properly belongs to the Querry's Art.
Eut. Itdoes so.
Soc. AllMen arenotfittotakecareofDogs,and
to look after them, but only the Hunts-man. ? Eat. None but he.
Soc. Then the Care of Dogs properly belongs to the Art of Hunting.
Eut. Without doubtitdoes.
Soc. AnditbelongstotheGraziertotakecareof Oxen. ? :! -
Eut. True.
Soc N o w Holiness and Piety is the Care of the Gods;Isnotthiswhatyoufay?
Eut. Yes, certainly.
Soc. HasnotallCareforitsend, thegoodandad vantage of that which istaken care of? Don't you every day fee that the Horses which an able Querry takesCareofbecome better, andmore fitforservice than others ?
Eut. Yes, without doubt. '
Soc. Does not the care which a good Hunts-man takes of Dogs, and that which a good Grazier f This is true: but the Pagans had falseIdeas of it ; becaule
theydidnotunderstand thatthiscareofGod whichconsistson our partinoheyinghim, inconformingtohisholyWill,andinresign ing our selves to him, was preceded by his care of us in creating us,andinenlighteningourKindsjand thisisvhaSocmUs teaches m other places.
takes
? ? Of HOLINESS. ioj
takes of Oxen make both the one and the other bet ter ? and m a y not the like be said of all other Care ? Orcanyou thinkthatCaretendstohurtandspoilthat which is taken care of ? Eut. N o certainly.
Soc. Then it tends to make it better. Eut. That'sright. ?
Soc. Then Holiness, being the Care we take ofthe
Gods, tends to their Advantage ^ and so the end of
itmustbeto. make'embetter. Butwouldyoudare
to assert when you do any holy Action, that you make M*fs' T
anyoneoftheGodsbetterbyit? 'gj*% Eut. Iam farenoughfromutteringsuchhorridthingtotht
Blasphemy. . advantage SocNordoIthinkyouhaveanysuchThought;? fG"^
Iam veryfarfromsuchaSupposition:and'tisfor this Reason I ask'd you what this Care of the Gods is, being persuaded that was not your meaning.
Eut. You havedoneme Justice, Socrates^
Soc. Somuch forthat:Buttellmethen,what fort of Care of the Gods is Holiness ?
Eut. ''TisoftheNatureofthatCarewhich Ser vants take of their Masters.
Soc. I understand you, that is to. fay, Holinels is a kind of Servant to the Gods.
Eut. You hit it.
Soc. Can youtellme what Physicians operateby- MeansoftheArtofMedicinewhichistheirServant? . Do nottheyrestoreHealth> Eut. Ye>
Soc. What do the. Ship-Carpenters, who are in- Portsdo? ,and*what doourArchitectsperform bytha
M i n i s t r y o f t h e i r S e r v a n t ? . D o n ' t t h e f o r m e r b u i l d Ships and the latter Houses ?
Eut. Yes certainly.
Soc. *WhatthendotheGodsperform,bytheMi nistry of their Servant ? For you must certainly know-
* Socrates would hereby insinuate what he elsewhere reache? , thatGod by theMinistryofHolinessworkstheConversionot Souls, that thisConversion produces Love, and that this Lore en-, sages us to render him that which appertains to hiin, and which wecannotinnocentlyrefusehim, . . . ','. " . . ''',> .
U 3 this,
? ? |94
EUTtrH%QH. , or,
this,fince you pretend to know Religion better than any Man. in the World beside.
slut. And IhaveReasontomake thatpretence.
Soc. Tellmethen,Ibeseechyou,whatwonder ful work isit that the. Gods perform by making use of our Service ?
Eut. They perform many very great and wonder ful things. -
Soc. The Generals of our Army perform many great Things too'-/'but yet there is always one thing
that isthe Principal, and that isthe Victory they ob tain in Battel ? , Is it not >
'Eut. Tisso.
Soc. And the Graziers do many good things, but
the Principal is that of supplying Mankind with food by theirLabour. Eut. I grant it.
Soc. Well then, of all those good Things which the Gods operate by the Ministry of our Holiness, what isthe Principal ?
; Eut. Ijustnowtoldyou,Socrates^thatthereneeds moretimeandpainstoarriveat anaccurateknow ledgeofalltheseThings. AllthatIcan*tellyou in general, is, that to please the Gods by Prayers andSacrifices,isthatwhichwecallHoliness. And 4 inthisconsiststheWelfareofFamiliesandCities, whereastodispleasetheGods, isImpietywhichut terly mines and subverts every thing.
'Soc'. Indeed, Eutygbron, you might have told me whatIask'dinfewerwords,ifyouhadpleas'd; 'Tis easy to leeyouhave no Mind to instructme,for when vou seem to'bejuft in theway todo it, you present-' fystrikeoffagain;Ifyouhadbutanswer'dme aWord more, Ihadverywellunderstood*heNatureofHo- lipels. Butnow, (forhethatasksmustfollowhim w h o is ask'd) don't you fay, Holiness is the Art of sacrificingandprayirg> :Eut. YesthatIdp.
' ' t { c c . T o s a c r i f i c e , i s t o g i v e t o t h e G o d s . . ,' T o p r a y is to ask of 'em. ' . Eut. 'Tis right, Socrates. '? :
* I<< what the Sasetv cr Ruine of Families, Cities and States coefifis,evenbytheConfessionoftheblindestPagaar, -N
^'? '. r. s,-. >>. ,? . ! . ? 4. u-? ;? ;. ? ',.
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. It can't be otherwise, he must be affraid of it. Soc*
? ? Of HOLINESS. i9i
Soc Thenitisnottruetofay,
Shame everywhere keeps company kmth Pear,
But we should lay,
Bear every where keeps company with Shame.
for 'tisfalse that shame iscontinually found with fear, fear having more extent than shame : indeed /name isonepartoffear,as theunequalisonepartof Number. Whereveryoufindanumberyoudonot necessarily find it unequal ? , but wherever it is une:
qual,thereyounecessarilyfindaNumber. Doyou understand me now ?
E/a. Very well.
Soc. This iswhatIjustnowask'dyou;vis. if
wherever thatwhich isjust isto be found, there is
also that which is Holy; and if wherever that which
is Holy is to be found, there is also that which is
Just? Now itappearsthatthatwhichisHolyisnot
a l w a y s f o u n d w i t h t h a t w h i c h i s J u s t -, f o r t h a t w h i c h
isHolyisapartofthatwhichisJust. Shallwe
thenlaythisdownasaPrinciple,orareyouofi different Sentiment ? ? . ?
EnY. 'Tis a Principle that can't be contested.
Soc. N o w mind what follows : if that which is HolyisapartofthatwhichisJust^wemustfind B u t w h a t p a r t o f t h a t w h i c h is J u s t t h a t w h i c h is H o l y is. Asifyou shouldaskme whatpartofNum beristhatwhich isequal,andwhatNumberisits Ishouldanswer, thatitis*theljbfce/e,andnotthe Scalene : Don't you think so as well as I >
E u t . Y e s c e r t a i n l y . _? . , ? t
Soc. Nowdoyouinlikemannerfeeifyoucan
informme whatpartofthatwhichisjustthatwhich
isHolyis;thatImay letMelitus know, that 'tis
bestforhim to forbear to do me any fartherInjustice
inaccusingme ofImpiety,me,who,Ifay,havebeen
perfectly instructed by you what Piety and Holiness,
and their Contraries are. .
,. *WxJibfctltsignifiesthaiwhichhastwoequalfiJes,forthe f even. Nfljnberdivide*itselfintocw<jequalpans. And theSciitnt
isihiiwhichha'stwounequalSides. ^
? ? ioi EUTTTB^ONi or,
a third E"t. For m y part, Socrates, I think that Holiness Definition andPietyistthatpartofwhatisJustwhich con- ivbicbat cernstheCareandWorshipoftheGods,andthatall bottomhas tjiereft0f-ltisthatwhich properlyrespectsMen.
Tmhinil Soc-VeryweI1:YettbereissomelittleMatterstill butthtse'wanting. ForIdonotwellunderstandwhatyou
falseTeach-meanbythisWord [Care]IsthisCareoftheGods trs hadnot tjie fan1e wjtj1 that which w e take about all other
wthHi If it.
things ? For w e every day fay, that none but a Quer- fyknowshowtotakecareofaHorse,andtolook wellafterhim,dowenot>
Eut. Yes doubtless,
Soc. Then the Caxe of Horses properly belongs to the Querry's Art.
Eut. Itdoes so.
Soc. AllMen arenotfittotakecareofDogs,and
to look after them, but only the Hunts-man. ? Eat. None but he.
Soc. Then the Care of Dogs properly belongs to the Art of Hunting.
Eut. Without doubtitdoes.
Soc. AnditbelongstotheGraziertotakecareof Oxen. ? :! -
Eut. True.
Soc N o w Holiness and Piety is the Care of the Gods;Isnotthiswhatyoufay?
Eut. Yes, certainly.
Soc. HasnotallCareforitsend, thegoodandad vantage of that which istaken care of? Don't you every day fee that the Horses which an able Querry takesCareofbecome better, andmore fitforservice than others ?
Eut. Yes, without doubt. '
Soc. Does not the care which a good Hunts-man takes of Dogs, and that which a good Grazier f This is true: but the Pagans had falseIdeas of it ; becaule
theydidnotunderstand thatthiscareofGod whichconsistson our partinoheyinghim, inconformingtohisholyWill,andinresign ing our selves to him, was preceded by his care of us in creating us,andinenlighteningourKindsjand thisisvhaSocmUs teaches m other places.
takes
? ? Of HOLINESS. ioj
takes of Oxen make both the one and the other bet ter ? and m a y not the like be said of all other Care ? Orcanyou thinkthatCaretendstohurtandspoilthat which is taken care of ? Eut. N o certainly.
Soc. Then it tends to make it better. Eut. That'sright. ?
Soc. Then Holiness, being the Care we take ofthe
Gods, tends to their Advantage ^ and so the end of
itmustbeto. make'embetter. Butwouldyoudare
to assert when you do any holy Action, that you make M*fs' T
anyoneoftheGodsbetterbyit? 'gj*% Eut. Iam farenoughfromutteringsuchhorridthingtotht
Blasphemy. . advantage SocNordoIthinkyouhaveanysuchThought;? fG"^
Iam veryfarfromsuchaSupposition:and'tisfor this Reason I ask'd you what this Care of the Gods is, being persuaded that was not your meaning.
Eut. You havedoneme Justice, Socrates^
Soc. Somuch forthat:Buttellmethen,what fort of Care of the Gods is Holiness ?
Eut. ''TisoftheNatureofthatCarewhich Ser vants take of their Masters.
Soc. I understand you, that is to. fay, Holinels is a kind of Servant to the Gods.
Eut. You hit it.
Soc. Can youtellme what Physicians operateby- MeansoftheArtofMedicinewhichistheirServant? . Do nottheyrestoreHealth> Eut. Ye>
Soc. What do the. Ship-Carpenters, who are in- Portsdo? ,and*what doourArchitectsperform bytha
M i n i s t r y o f t h e i r S e r v a n t ? . D o n ' t t h e f o r m e r b u i l d Ships and the latter Houses ?
Eut. Yes certainly.
Soc. *WhatthendotheGodsperform,bytheMi nistry of their Servant ? For you must certainly know-
* Socrates would hereby insinuate what he elsewhere reache? , thatGod by theMinistryofHolinessworkstheConversionot Souls, that thisConversion produces Love, and that this Lore en-, sages us to render him that which appertains to hiin, and which wecannotinnocentlyrefusehim, . . . ','. " . . ''',> .
U 3 this,
? ? |94
EUTtrH%QH. , or,
this,fince you pretend to know Religion better than any Man. in the World beside.
slut. And IhaveReasontomake thatpretence.
Soc. Tellmethen,Ibeseechyou,whatwonder ful work isit that the. Gods perform by making use of our Service ?
Eut. They perform many very great and wonder ful things. -
Soc. The Generals of our Army perform many great Things too'-/'but yet there is always one thing
that isthe Principal, and that isthe Victory they ob tain in Battel ? , Is it not >
'Eut. Tisso.
Soc. And the Graziers do many good things, but
the Principal is that of supplying Mankind with food by theirLabour. Eut. I grant it.
Soc. Well then, of all those good Things which the Gods operate by the Ministry of our Holiness, what isthe Principal ?
; Eut. Ijustnowtoldyou,Socrates^thatthereneeds moretimeandpainstoarriveat anaccurateknow ledgeofalltheseThings. AllthatIcan*tellyou in general, is, that to please the Gods by Prayers andSacrifices,isthatwhichwecallHoliness. And 4 inthisconsiststheWelfareofFamiliesandCities, whereastodispleasetheGods, isImpietywhichut terly mines and subverts every thing.
'Soc'. Indeed, Eutygbron, you might have told me whatIask'dinfewerwords,ifyouhadpleas'd; 'Tis easy to leeyouhave no Mind to instructme,for when vou seem to'bejuft in theway todo it, you present-' fystrikeoffagain;Ifyouhadbutanswer'dme aWord more, Ihadverywellunderstood*heNatureofHo- lipels. Butnow, (forhethatasksmustfollowhim w h o is ask'd) don't you fay, Holiness is the Art of sacrificingandprayirg> :Eut. YesthatIdp.
' ' t { c c . T o s a c r i f i c e , i s t o g i v e t o t h e G o d s . . ,' T o p r a y is to ask of 'em. ' . Eut. 'Tis right, Socrates. '? :
* I<< what the Sasetv cr Ruine of Families, Cities and States coefifis,evenbytheConfessionoftheblindestPagaar, -N
^'? '. r. s,-. >>. ,? . ! . ? 4. u-? ;? ;. ? ',.
