Socrates: Now tell me (Le/ge dh/ moi), is a thing which is carried (po/teron to\ fero/menon) a carried thing because one carries it (dio/ti fe/retai, fero/meno/n e0stin), or for some other reason (h2 di’ a1llo ti;)?
Euthyphro: No,
for that reason (Ou1k, a0lla\ dia\ tou=to).
Socrates: And
a thing which is led is lead (Kai\ to\ a0go/menon dh/) because one leads it (dio/ti a1getai), and a thing which is seen is so (kai\ to
o9rw~menon) because one
sees it (dio/ti o9ra=tai)?
Euthyphro: Certainly
(Pa/nu
ge).
Socrates: Then
one does not see it because it is a seen thing (Ou0k a1ra dio/ti o9rw&meno/n
ge/ e0stin, dia\ tou=to o9ra=tai), but, on the contrary (a0lla\ to\ e0nanti/on), it is a seen thing because one
sees it (dio/ti o9ra=tai, dia\ tou=to o9rw~menon); and one does not lead it because it is a led thing
(ou0de\
dio/ti a0go/meno/n e0stin, dia\ tou=to a1getai), but it is a led thing because one leads it (a0lla\ dio/ti
a1getai, dia\ tou=to a0go/menon); and one does not carry it because it is a carried thing (ou0de\ dio/ti
fero/menon, fe/retai),
but it is a carried thing because one carries it (a0lla\ dio/ti
fe/retai, fero/menon).
Is it clear (a]ra kata/dhlon),
Euthyphro (w} Eu0qu/fron),
what I am trying to say (o4 bou/lomai le/gein;)? I am trying to say this (bou/lomai de\ to/de), that (o3ti) if anything becomes or undergoes (ei1 ti gi/gnetai
h2 pa/sxei), it does not
become because it is in a state of becoming (ou0x o3ti gignomeno/n e0sti,
gi/gntai) but it is in a
state of becoming because it becomes (a0lla\ dio/ti gi/gnetai, gigno/meno/n
e0stin), and it does not
undergo because it is a thing which undergoes (ou0d’ o3ti pasxo/menon
e0sti, pa/sxei), but
because it undergoes (a0ll’ o3ti pa/sxei) it is a thing which undergoes (pa/sxon e0sti/n); or do you not agree to this (h2 ou0 cugxwrei=j
ou3tw;)?
Euthyphro: I
agree (E!gwge).
Socrates: Is
not that which is beloved a thing which is either becoming or undergoing
something (Ou0kou=n kai\ to\ filou/menon h2 gigno/meno/n ti/ e0stin h2 pa/sxon ti
u9po/ tou;)?
Euthyphro: Certainly
(Pa/nu
ge)
Socrates:
And is this case (Kai\ tou=to a1ra ou3twj e1xei) like the former ones (w#sper ta\
pro/tera;): those who
love it do not love it because it is a loved thing (ou0x o3ti
filou/meno/n e0stin, filei=tai u9po\ w{n filei=tai), but it is a beloved thing because
they love it (a0ll o2ti filei=tai, filou/menon;)?
Euthyphro:
Obviously (A0na/gkh).
Socrates:
Now what do you say about that which is holy (Ti/ dh\ ou]n le/gomen peri\ tou=
o9si/ou;), Euthyphro (w} Eu0qu/fron;)? It is loved by all the gods, is it
not (a1llo
ti filei=tai u9po\ qew~n pa/ntwn), according to what you said (w(j o9 so\j lo/goj;)?
Euthyphro:
Yes (Nai/).
Socrates: For
this reason (A]ra dia\ tou=to),
because it is holy (o3ti o3sio/n e0stin), or for some other reason (h2 di’ a1llo ti;)?
Euthyphro: No,
for this reason (Ou0k, a0lla\ dia\ tou=to).
Socrates: It
is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved (Dio/ti a1ra o3sio/n
e0stin, filei=tai, a0ll’ ou0x o3ti filei=tai, dia/ tou=to o9sio/n
e0stin;)?
Euthyphro: I
think so (E!oiken).
Socrates: But
that which is dear to the gods is dear to them and beloved by them because they
love it (A0lla\ me\n dh\ dio/ti ge filei=tai u9po\ qew~n, filou=meno/n e0sti
kai\ qeofile\j to\ qeofile/j).
Euthyphro: Of course (Pw~j ga\r ou1;).
Socrates: Then
that which is dear to the gods and that which is holy are not identical, but
differ from one another (Ou0k a1ra to qeofile\j o(sio/n e0stin, w} Eu0qu/fron,
ou0de/ to/ o3sion qeofile/j, w(j su\ le/geij, a0ll’ e3teron tou=to
tou/tou).
Euthyphro: How
so, Socrates (Pw~j dh/, w} Sw&kratej;)?
Socrates:
Because we are agreed (O#ti o9mologou=men) that the holy is loved because it is holy (to\ me\n o3sion
dia\ tou=to filei=sqai, o3ti o9sio/n e0stin) and that it is not holy because it is loved (a0ll’ ou0 dio/ti
filei=tai, o3sion ei]nai);
are we not (h] ga/r;)?
Euthyphro:
Yes (Nai/).
Socrates: But
we are agreed that what is dear to the gods is dear to them because they love
it, that is, by reason of this love, not that they love it because it is dear (To\ de/ ge
qeofile\j o3ti filei=tai u9po\ qew~n, au0tw~| tou/tw| tw~| filei=sqai qeofile\j
ei]nai, a0ll’ ou0x o3ti qeofile/j, dia\ tou=to filei=sqai).
Euthyphro: Very
true (A0lhqh=
le/geij).
Socrates: But
if that which is dear to the gods and that which is holy were identical, my
dear Euthyphro (A0ll’ ei1 ge tau0to\n h]n, w} fi/le
Eu0qu/fron, to\ qeofile\j kai\ to\ o3sion), then if the holy were loved because it is holy (ei0 me\n dia\ to\
o3sion ei]nai e0filei=to to\ o3sion), that which is dear to the gods would be loved because it
is dear (kai\ dia\ to\ qeofile\j ei]nai e0filei=to a2n to\ qeofile/j), and if that which is dear to the
gods is dear because it is loved (ei0 de\ dia\ to\ filei=sqai u9po\ qew~n
to\ qeofile\j qeofile\j h]n), then that which is holy would be holy because it is loved (kai\ to\ o3sion
a1n dia\ to\ filei=sqai o3sion h]n); but now you see (nu=n de\ o9ra=|j) that the opposite is the case (o3ti e0nanti/wj
e1xeton), showing that
the two are entirely different from each other (w(j panta/pasin e3te/rw o1nte
a0llh/lwn). For the one becomes
lovable from the fact that it is loved (to\ me\n ga/r, o3ti filei=tai, e0sti\n
oi[on filei=sqai),
whereas the other is loved because it is in itself lovable (to\ d’ o3ti e0sti\n
oi[on filei=sqai, dia\ tou=to filei=tai). And Euthyphro, it seems that when you were asked (kai\
kinduneu/eij, w} Eu0qu/fron, e0rwtw&menoj) what holiness is (to\ o3sion, o3 ti/ pot’
e1stin) you were unwilling to make plain its essence (th\n me\n ou0si/an moi au0tou= ou0 bou/lesqai dhlw~sai), but you mentioned something that
has happened to this holiness (pa/qoj de/ ti
peri\ au0tou= le/gein, o3 ti pe/ponqe tou=to to\ o3sion), namely, that it is loved by the
gods (filei=sqai u9po\ pa/ntwn qew~n). But you did not tell us yet, what
it really is (o3 ti de\ o1n, ou1pw ei]pej). So, if you please (ei0 ou]n soi
fi/lon), do not hide it
from me (mh/ me a0pokru/yh|), but begin over again and tell me (a1lla\ pa/lin ei0pe\ e0c a0rxh=j) what holiness is (ti/ pote o2n to\
o3sion), no matter
whether it is loved by the gods or anything else happens to it (ei1te filei=tai
u9po\ tw~n qew~n ei1te o9tidh\ pa/sxei); for we shall not quarrel about that (ou0 ga\r peri\
tou/tou dioiso/meqa).
But tell me frankly (a0ll’ ei0pe\ proqu/mwj), What is (ti/ e0stin) holiness, and what is unholiness (to/ te o3sion
kai\ to\ a0no/sion)?
Euthyphro:
But, Socrates, I do not know how to say what I mean (A0ll’, w}
Sw&kratej, ou0k e1xw e1gwge, o3pwj soi ei1pw o4 now~). For whatever statement we advance,
somehow or other it moves about (perie/rxetai ga/r pw~j h9mi=n a0ei\ o4
a2n proqw&meqa) and
won’t stay where we put it (kai\ ou0k e0qe/lei me\nein o3pou a2n i9drusw&meqa
au0to/).
Socrates: Your
statements, Euthyphro, are like works of my ancestor Daedalus (Tou= h9mete/rou
progo/nou, w} Eu0qu/fron, e1oiken ei]nai Daida/lou ta\ u9po\ sou= lego/mena),
***
H.N. Fowler
comments: Socrates was the son of a sculptor and was himself educated to be a
sculptor. This is doubtless the reason for his reference to Daedalus as an
ancestor. Daedalus was a half mythical personage whose statues were said to
have been so lifelike that they moved their eyes and walked about.
***
and if I
were the one who made or advanced them (kai\ ei0 me\n au0ta\ e0gw_ e1legon kai\
e0tiqe/mhn), you might
laugh at me and say (i1swj a1n me e0skw&ptej) that on account of my relationship to him my works
in words run away (w(j a1ra e0moi\ kata\ th\n e0kei/nou cugge/neian ta\ e0n
toi=j lo/goij e1rga a0podidra/skei) and won’t stay where they are put (kai\ ou0k
e0qelei\ me/nein o3pou a1n tij au0ta\ qh=|). But now (nu=n de/ ge) – well, the statements are yours (sai\ ga\r ai9 u9poqe/seij
ei0si/n); so some other
jest is demanded (a1llou dh/ tinoj dei= skw&mmatoj); for they won’t stay fixed (ou0 ga\r
e0qe/lousi soi\ me/nein),
as you yourself see (w(j au0tw~| soi dokei=).
Euthyphro: I
think (E)moi\
de\ dokei=) the jest
does very well as it is; for I am not the one who makes these statements move
about and not stay in the same place, but you are the Daedalus (sxedo/n ti tou=
a0tou= skw&mmatoj, w} Sw&kratej, dei=sqai ta\ lego/mena, to\ ga\r
periie/nai tou/toij tou=to kai\ mh\ me/nein e0n tw~| au0tw~| ou0k ei]mi e0gw_
o9 e0ntiqei/j, a\lla\ su/ moi dokei=j o9 Dai/daloj); for they would have stayed, so far
as I am concerned (e0pei\ e0mou= ge e3neka e1menen a2n au0ta\ ou3twj).
Socrates: Apparently then, my friend (Kinduneu/w a1ra,
w} e9tai=re), I am a
more clever artist than Daedalus (e0kei/nou tou= a1ndro\j deino/teroj
gegone/nai th\n te/xnhn),
inasmuch as he made only his own works move (tosou/tw| o3sw| o9 me\n ta\
au9tou= mo/na e0poi/ei ou0 me/nonta), whereas I, as it seems, give motion to the works of others
as well as to my own (e0gw_ de\ pro\j toi=j e0mautou=, w(j e1oike, kai\ ta\
a0llo/tria). And the
most exquisite thing about my art is (kai\ dh=ta tou=to/ moi th=j te/xnhj
e0sti\ komyo/taton) that
I am clever against my will (o3ti a1kwn ei]mi sofo/j); for I would rather have my words have fixed and
stable (e0boulo/mhn
a1n moi tou\j lo/gouj me/nein kai\ a0kinh=twj i9dru=sqai ma=llon) than possess the wisdom of Daedalus
and the wealth of Tantalus besides (h2 pro\j th|= Daida/lou sofi/a| ta\
Tanta/lou xrh/mata gene/sqai). But enough of this (kai\ tou/twn me\n a3dhn). Since you seem to be indolent (e0peidh\ de/ moi
dokei=j su\ trufa=n), I
will aid you myself (au0to/j soi cumproqumh/somai), so that you may instruct me (o3pwj a1n me
dida/ch|j) about
holiness (peri\ tou= o9si/ou). And do not give it up beforehand (kai\ mh\ proapoka/mh|j). Just see whether you do not think that
everything that is holy is right (i0de\ ga/r, ei0
ou0k a0nagkai=o/n soi dokei= di/kaion ei]nai pa=n to\ o3sion).
Euthyphro: I
do (E!moige).
No comments:
Post a Comment