yCrNRLF 
 
 ■^52 use, 
 
 
 •ml 
 
 f'i i. 
 
 ♦Viu;.'',;-' , 
 
 
 >f?i! 
 
 
 M.'Hiifl 
 
 
PLATONIS EUTHYPHRO 
 
Eontiott: C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSI 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 ffamiritige: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. 
 Eeipjig: F. A. P.ROCKHAUS. 
 
 te 
 
\itt IBmss Strtts. 
 
 EY0Y<1)PQN 
 
 LATONIS EUTHYPHRO 
 
 IVITJI INTRODUCTION AND NOTES 
 
 BY 
 
 J. ADAM M.A. 
 
 FELLOW AND CLASSICAL LECTURER OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 DITED FOR Ti 
 
 ^^ OP THB ^^ 
 
 'naERSITY PRESS 
 
 diimiS^ 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 1890 
 
 \All Rights reserved] 
 
3- . 
 
 A-7 All- 
 
 ^jy^(^ 
 
 riJRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 rAGH 
 PREFACE iii 
 
 INTRODUCTION V 
 
 TEXT r 
 
 NOTES . 1 
 
 INDICES 109 
 
Tl HOT eCTIN CKeTNO TO nAfKAAON epfON, 6 
 
 ol Geol d^nepfAzoNTAi hmTn ytthpstaic 
 Xpcik)MeNOi • 
 
 Plato : Euthyphro 13 E. 
 
 GeoY r^P ecMGN cyNeproi* GeoY r^^Pr'ON, GeoY 
 
 oIkoAomh ecre. 
 
 Paul : I Cor. 3. g. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE present edition of the Euthyphro is intended to 
 be uniform with my editions of the Apology and 
 the Crito. I have tried to shew in the Introduction 
 that a thorough examination of the Euthyphro forms an 
 excellent training for thp study of Plato's more profound 
 and complex dialogues : and with this end in view, I 
 have spared no effort to make my exposition of Plato's 
 style and doctrine as complete as possible. 
 
 The text is based on Schanz's collation of B and T, 
 the few cases where I have departed from these manu- 
 scripts being noted in the commentary. In writing the 
 notes, I have derived considerable help from the anno- 
 tated editions of Fritzsche and Wohlrab, but above all 
 from that of Schanz, whose work in this department 
 proves him as great in exegesis as he is patient and 
 trustworthy in collating manuscripts. For the Introduc- 
 tion, Fritzsche's Prolegomena and Bonitz's Platonische 
 Studien have been of the greatest service. I hope 
 however to have contributed a good deal that is new 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 in the interpretation both of the text and subject matter 
 of the dialogue. 
 
 I am indebted to my friends Mr Neil of Pembroke, 
 Mr Piatt of Trinity, and Mr Headlam of Trinity Hall, 
 for kindly reading through the sheets and contributing 
 many valuable suggestions. 
 
 Emmanuel College, 
 Cambridge, 
 
 yanuary 21, 1890. 
 
'■<y>^ OP THE 
 
 UlTI7ERSlTr, 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § I. On the leading motive of the Euthyphro. 
 
 In the well-known passage of the Phaedrus*, 
 
 where Plato weighs the rival claims of spoken and 
 
 written discourse, it is said that the philosopher will 
 
 write books for amusement (TratStas xapiv), as well as 
 
 to provide a treasury of memories and suggestions 
 
 for himself when he shall have reached "oblivion's 
 
 old age", and for all who follow the same trail. 
 
 Generally however, even a single dialogue of Plato 
 
 shews a great complexity of motive. Playful person- Intertnix- 
 
 alities, veiled eulogies on his master Socrates, logical ^^^^^.^ . 
 
 . . . motives in 
 
 inquiries, ethical and metaphysical doctrine, are fused Plato's 
 
 into one whole by his unsurpassed dramatic skill, ^^^^^^i^^^- 
 Regarding as he did written discourse as the image of 
 words spoken (tov rov €.i^6T0<i Xoyov Xeyet? ^cuvra Koi 
 €lxif/V)(OV, ov o yeypa/x/^eVos etSwA-ov av tl XiyoLTO StKatcos^), 
 Plato endeavoured to communicate to the image 
 something of the variety and vivacity of actual conver- 
 sation : ScLv Ttavra Xoyov wa-Trep ^wov (Jwedravai croiiJid 
 Tt £^ovTa avTov avTOv, ojcTe />t^Te dKecf>aXov eTvai [xrJTe 
 
 ^ 276 D. 2 phaedr. 276 a. 
 
VI 
 
 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 The com- 
 parative 
 simplicity 
 of the 
 Euthyphro 
 renders it 
 valuable as 
 an intro- 
 duction to 
 Platonic 
 study. 
 
 ,^'' 
 
 especially 
 as it fore' 
 shadows 
 the theory 
 of Ideas, 
 and is 
 thoroughly 
 Platonic 
 in style. 
 
 OLTTOvv, dXXd fxiaa re ^xetv koI a/cpa, TrpiiTOvr aWrjAoLS 
 Kol T(3 oAo) yiypajx/Jiiva . 
 
 The dialogue called 'Euthyphro' was intended 
 less for amusement, than as a finger-post to point the 
 way TravTL T(3 ravTov ix^o^ /x-ertovrt. Though by no 
 means deficient in character-drawing and general 
 dramatic vivacity, it is in this respect inferior to 
 dialogues like the Phaedrus or Euthydemus. The ac- 
 cessories of scene and setting are very simple: as in 
 the Crito, only two actors appear upon the stage. But 
 the very simplicity of its structure renders the work 
 all the more suitable as an introduction to the more 
 serious study of Plato. For while the artistic unity 
 and brilliant colouring of the most finished dialogues 
 frequently make it difficult to discover the germ of 
 positive teaching which lies latent in them, in the. 
 Euthyphro, on the other hand, it is comparatively 
 easy to see what Plato meant to say: i n spite of mor e 
 tha n one fah f^ start, and much_vyanderinQ; throu^^h 
 devious byways, we come at last within clear view of 
 the^summit j thoug h it still remains u n seale d. The 
 lesson learned in unravelling the Euthyphro may be 
 afterwards made use of to disentangle the more 
 complex dialogues. And besides this training in 
 method, the careful student of the Euthyphro will be 
 introduced to many logical problems that continually 
 reappear in the more elaborate dialogues of Plato: 
 while even more clearly than in any other of the 
 Socratic dialogues, he will see the doctrine of Xoyot 
 transforming itself into the theory of Ideas. If we 
 add to this, that the diction of the Euthyphro pos- 
 sesses all the marks of Plato's style in dialogue, 
 1 Phaedr. 264 c. 
 
INTRODUCTION. vii 
 
 except that it is simpler, we shall admit that a 
 thorough examination of the dialogue will form a 
 fitting preparation for a more comprehensive study 
 of Plato's style and doctrine'. 
 
 It will facilitate the proper apprehension of the 
 meaning of the Euthyphro to describe as clearly as 
 possible the progress of the dialogue. 
 
 Socrates, going to the King's Porch in connection Argument 
 with the indictment preferred against him by Meletus, "f^Y 
 is met by Euthyphro. In reply to Euthyphro's 
 wondering question as to why he had so far left his 
 usual haunts, Socrates rapidly describes the accusa- The intro- 
 tion and alludes to his accuser in no flattering terms. ^^^<^^^on. 
 His resentment is shared by Euthyphro, who sees in 
 the prosecution something of the same spirit of 
 secularism that leads the Athenian assembly to deride 
 his own deliverances on things divine. 'Just so', says 
 Socrates: 'you they deride, but me they prosecute: I 
 suppose because I teach my wisdom, whereas you 
 keep yours to yourself. Euthyphro hopes that all 
 will end well with Socrates' trial as he thinks it will 
 with his own (Chapters I — III). 
 
 It is now the turn of Socrates to ask and of 
 Euthyphro to answer. In reply to Socrates' questions, 
 Euthyphro says that he is about to prosecute his own 
 father for manslaughter. Socrates is horrified, or 
 
 ^ I am glad to see that Dr Franz Lauczizsky (in the Zeit- 
 schrift fiir osterreichische Gymnasien Vol. XL 3. p. 274) also 
 regards the Euthyphro as 'eine fruchtbare und lohnende Schul- 
 lectiire ', chiefly on account of the -clear and emphatic way in 
 which the Socratic doctrine of concepts is presented and illus- 
 trated. Wohlrab's Euthyphro for schools has now reached a 
 third edition (18S7). 
 
Vlll 
 
 INTRO D UCTION. 
 
 pretends to be : and his horror is not lessened when 
 Euthyphro narrates the circumstances on which the 
 charge rests. A day-labourer, in a paroxysm of 
 drunken rage, had killed a slave belonging to Euthy- 
 phro's father. He was put in chains and thrown into 
 a pit, till directions as to his treatment should come 
 from Athens. In the meantime he died. Euthyphro 
 is so confident in the correctness of his views of 
 holiness and unholiness that heedless of the remon- 
 strances of his family he resolves to prosecute his 
 father (Chapter IV). As one who is himself accused 
 of impiety, Socrates professes himself eager to be 
 taught by Euthyphro the true nature of holiness and 
 its opposite, so as either to prove to Meletus that he 
 is not guilty of impiety, or to induce him to attack 
 Euthyphro the teacher first (Chapter V). 
 
 What, asks Socrates, is holiness and unholiness? 
 Euthyphro answers (i): Holiness is to do what 1 
 am Joine: jiow : unholiness is not so to do. See 
 
 But 
 
 how Zeus treated his guilty father Cronus ! 
 Socrates expresses his disbelief in such legends as 
 dishonourable to the gods, hinting that perhaps that 
 is why he is put upon his trial (Chapter VI). 
 
 Postponing the inquiry into the truth of such tales, 
 Socrates directs his attack upon the definition given 
 by Euthyphro and has no difficulty in shewing that it 
 errs by putting one special instance in place of the 
 general quality. Perceiving the mistake, Euthyphro 
 offers an amended definition (2): what is dear to 
 the gods is holy, what is no t dear, unholy (Chapter 
 
 ""VTT)^ ' 
 
 In assailing this definition, Socrates points out 
 that there are gods and gods: and as in the allusion 
 
INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 to Zeus and Cronus it has already been admitted 
 that they have differences, different gods will difier 
 from each other just on those points on which men 
 differ among themselves, viz. on such questions as 
 what is honourable and what is just: and since they 
 will love what they think honourable, it follows that ^ 
 they will love different things, so that one and the 
 same thing will be both holy and unholy (Chapter 
 VIII). For example, the conduct of Euthyphro in 
 
 prosecuting his father may commend itself to one god,^^- 
 
 and not to another: in which case it will be unholy 
 no less than holy. To Euthyphro's objection that 
 all the gods will agree in thinking that the doer of 
 unrighteous manslaughter should be punished, Socrates 
 replies that the point at issue in such a case, with gods 
 as well as with men, will be ' Is the manslaughter 
 righteous or not?' So that they will still differ none 
 the less (Chapter IX). How can Euthyphro shew that 
 all the gods hold the manslaughter committed by his 
 father to be unrighteous ? Euthyphro pretends that he 
 could give the proof if time allowed : the judges shall 
 have it, if they will but hear him (Chapter X). After 
 Euthyphro has thus for the first time shirked the 
 issue, he is allowed by Socrates to restate his second 
 definition in the corrected form which the inquiry has 
 shewn to be necessary. "Holine ss ", he now says. Third 
 "is (3) wh at all the gods love, unholinessj vhat all the. ^'M^''^'- 
 gods hate_ ''. With this ends Chapter XI. 
 
 The third definition is refuted in the course of 
 the two following chapters. Socrates proves that it 
 is only an accident of piety to be beloved of the gods : 
 whereas a definition should state, not the accident, 
 but the essence of a notion. A brief interlude follows, 
 
VH 
 
 X INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in which Euthyphro complains of the unsettling 
 character of Socrates' dialectic. 
 
 Presently, with a view to attaining a more satis- 
 factory definition, Socrates himself puts forward a 
 suggestion: Is all that is right holy, or is all that is 
 holy right, but only part of that which is right holy? 
 Euthyphro is unable to catch the meaning of the 
 question, until by an exercise in the conversion of 
 propositions it is made clear to him (Chapters XII — 
 XIII). 
 
 The question still remains what part of that Avhich 
 
 is right is to be identified with holiness ? Euthyphro's 
 
 solution is (4): "Piety and Holiness are that part of 
 
 rectitude which is concerned with the care of the 
 
 ^jgod^(Chapter XIV). 
 
 In criticising this definition, the first object of 
 Socrates is to determine what meaning is to be assigned 
 to the word ' care '. That it is not the care which 
 results in benefit to the gods, making them better, he 
 agrees: it is rather such care as is shewn by slaves to 
 their masters — vTrrjpeTiKij ns BepaTr^ia (Chapter XI II). 
 But even now the definition is not clear. Servants, 
 working under their masters, produce some definite 
 result: what result does the pious man produce, 
 working under the gods ? What do the gods produce, 
 when they make use of us as their servants ? To this 
 question Euthyphro returns only the vague reply 
 "many beautiful things", thus for the second time 
 .shirking the issue: when further pressed, he evades 
 the point and declares (5) that "if one knows how 
 ■ to say and do what is acceptable to the gods in 
 prayer and sacrifice, that is holiness, and such 
 a course of conduct is the salvation both of private 
 
INTRODUCTION, xi 
 
 hom es and public communities: whereas the opposite 
 of what is acceptable to the gods is impious, and 
 overthrows and ruins everything" (Chapter XVI). 
 
 Socrates first points out that Euthyphro has evaded 
 the issue: afterwards, taking his definition as equiva- 
 lent to the notion that "hoHness is the knowledge of 
 how to sacrifice and how to pray ", he interprets this 
 as "the knowledge of how to ask from the gods 
 and give to the gods aright" (Chapter XVII). In 
 other words. Holiness is the art of merchandise 
 exercised between gods and men. What benefit, then, 
 do the gods derive from the gifts we give them ? In 
 Euthyphro's opinion, none: our gifts to the gods are 
 acceptable to them, nothing more. And Euthyphro 
 admits that if acceptable, they must be dear, thus 
 reverting to the second definition, which has already 
 been refuted (Chapter XVIII). 
 
 In the two remaining chapters, Socrates twits 
 Euthyphro with even greater unsteadiness in argument 
 than himself, and parts from him with an expression 
 of deep regret that one so wise should be so niggardly 
 of his wisdom. 
 
 From this analysis of the dialogue, it is clear that 
 the Euthyphro falls into three parts, the two first of 
 which are followed by a kind of transitional episode, 
 and the last by a sort of valediction. 
 
 The structure of the dialogue is therefore as Resume, 
 follows : 
 
 I. Introduction, with transitional chapter : I — V. 
 
 II. Suggestions coming from Euthyphro, followed 
 by an interlude on the bewildering nature of 
 the Socratic method: VI — middle of XIII. 
 
xii INTR on UCTION. 
 
 III. A suggestion by Socrates, and its dialecti- 
 cal development, with two concluding chap- 
 ters: XIII— XX. 
 
 Without going so far as to assert that there can be 
 
 no positive teaching in the second division of the 
 
 dialogue, we can hardly be wrong in looking for the 
 
 most valuable result in the last section, seeing that it 
 
 is introduced by Socrates. In the Theaetetus (184 b 
 
 foil.), one of the most important doctrines of the 
 
 whole dialogue, the power of the soul to cognize things 
 
 by herself, independently of the senses, is introduced 
 
 by Socrates and not by Theaetetus. Nevertheless, 
 
 on a first inspection of this part of the dialogue, 
 
 it may seem that there is no definite result attained 
 
 even here: and, as we shall see later, Schleiermacher, 
 
 in company with other critics, has taken this view. 
 
 The key But on a closer examination, we shall find at least one 
 
 ^^ ,^^^,^ "^^ question of the first importance to which Euthyphro 
 
 to Plato's returns no precise answer, and if we can find in our 
 
 senerallv dialogue some unrefuted hints of the true answer, we 
 
 is to be shall be justified in regarding these as the key to the 
 
 studvino coriception of piety contained in the Euthyphro. 
 
 the The principle of interpretation, that whatever remains 
 
 ^statements ^^^^^/'^^^^ ^^ ^ Platonic dialogue contai?is the key to its 
 
 positive_teaching, a principle consistently applied by 
 
 Bonitz in his Platonische Studien, would seem to 
 
 have the countenance of Plato himself in the Gorgias 
 
 where he sums up the teaching of the dialogue in 
 
 these words (527 b): ovk ex^"^^ ctTroSet^at oj? Set aA.Aov 
 
 riva, (3lov ^rjv rj tovtov ocnrep kol ckcictc c^atVcrat <JVfJi,<f>€- 
 
 pcDVy dW* €v ToaovTOi<; Aoyots tcoi/ vCtXXcDV eA-cy^o- 
 
 fxiviov /xovos ovTos rjpe/xcl o Xoyos, cJs evXa^rjreov 
 
 icTTL TO dSLKelv fxdWov rj to aSiKela-OaL, koL TravTos fiaXXow 
 
INTRODUCTION. xiii 
 
 avopi iJ.€X€Tr]T€ov ov TO SoK€tv cTvai ctya^oj/ aA.Xa to eti/at, 
 /cat i8ia Kttt Sr)iJLO(rta. Applying this canon to the 
 Euthyphro, we have first to note what questions are 
 left partly or entirely unanswered in our dialogue. 
 There is only one, but that of first-rate importance, 
 the question in 13 e: etVe 817 7rp6s Ato'?, tl ttotc 
 ia-TLV CKCtvo TO irdyKaXov epyov, o ot Oeol dircpya^ovTai 
 y/Luv vTrrjpeTaL^ XP<^/^^»^ot; The question is presently 
 repeated in 14 a: tl Se 877 twv ttoXXojv koI KaXojv 
 d OL Oeol aTrepyd^ovTat ; tl to Kecfidkaiov Ictl tt^s 
 ipyaaias', Once more Euthyphro evades the point: 
 and, as if to make it clear beyond dispute that 
 in the answer to this question lies the true con- 
 ception of Holiness, Socrates in 14 b — c reproaches 
 Euthyphro in these words; aXA.a yap ov TrpoOvixd'i 
 /xe €t StSa^at* SrjXos ct* koL yap vvv evreiS^ ctt' 
 avTW 7]cr6a, (XTrcTpaTrou • 6 el drreKpivo), tKai/(oS 
 av ydr] irapd aov ttJv oortOTrjTa ifxefxaOTjKrj. It 
 may be added that as early as 1820 Socher (iiber 
 Platons Schriften p. 62) saw that in this unanswered 
 question lies the key to our dialogue: among more 
 recent writers, Bonitz\ Lechthaler^, Fritzsche^, and 
 with some modifications, Wohlrab^, hold the same 
 view. 
 
 It is much more difficult to discover how Plato 
 would himself have answered the question here ad- 
 
 1 Platonische Studien^ pp. 227 — 242. 
 
 ^ Die oaioTrjs (Frommigkeit) bei Platen mit Riicksicht auf 
 Schaarschmidt's Athetese des Dialogs Euthyphron (pp. 46 — 47). 
 Meran 1879. 
 
 ^ Prolegomena ad Euthyphronem p. 147. 
 
 "* Platons Euthyphron fiir den Schulgebrauch erklart p. 9. 
 In the third and last edition (1887) Wohlrab accepts Bonitz's 
 view unreservedly. 
 
 A. EU. 2 
 
XIV 
 
 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 The dressed to Euthyphro. If we confine ourselves in the 
 
 unrefided ^^^^ instance to indications contained in the Euthy- 
 
 stateincnts 
 
 in the Eii- phro, we shall attain only to the concep tion ^f_piety 
 
 thyphro. as a_ nibde-oTvv^ 
 
 rnder the gods which is pro- 
 ductive^f soTnB allogetlier tjeaunfurfesult"fjrSyKaA.oi/ 
 cpyo;/ 13 e). In the same view Socrates in 14 e 
 remarks that we have no good thing, which does not 
 come from the gods (ovScv yap ly/xtv Iktjiv dyaOov, 6 tl 
 av 1X7) cKctvoi Swo-ii/). Viewing these passages in con- 
 nection with Socrates' emphatic rejection of legends 
 imputing wicked conduct to the gods (6 a foil.), we 
 may take it as established that whatever the joint 
 epyov of gods and men maybe," it will be something 
 altogether good. Farther than this, there seems to be 
 no hint in the Euthyphro of the true answer to 
 Socrates' question. Wohlrab' can hardly be right in 
 supposing that 14 b contains the secret: for, although 
 Socrates does not refute the statement that holiness 
 'conserves private houses and public communities', 
 yet he does refute the notion (upon which this remark 
 of Euthyphro's depends) that jjiety is th e knowledge 
 of how to sacrific e and ho w to pray. 
 
 TlielnosTtliat can be^licited from the Euthyphro 
 in the way of positive teaching as to piety is that piety 
 COl^istS ilL ^ork in g unde r C^n(\ for th<a,prndnrtinn of 
 sonii^-goodresult not specified. I say 'under God', 
 because there seems to be^an underlying note of 
 monotheism i n Socrateg^rofusal to. al low that .^ods ca n 
 quarrel among themselves. Througliout the argument 
 in 7 A — 8 A, Socrates is most careful to shew that the 
 hypothesis of differences in opinion between gods and 
 gods, on which he refutes the definition of Euthyphro, 
 ^ I.e. p. 9 (edition of 1880). 
 
I 
 
 INTRODUCTION. xv 
 
 is Euthyphro's own hypothesis: he is refuting Euthy- 
 phro upon his own ground. 
 
 It was no small achievement to have brought 
 the investigation even so far as to have asked the 
 one vital question : eo-rt Se rots iVTroprjaai (SovXofxevois 
 TTpovpyov TO ScaTToprjcrai KaXws, as Aristotle says\ But 
 unless we regard every dialogue of Plato as in itself 
 a whole, to be studied quite apart from the others, 
 it becomes our duty to inquire whether Plato has These are 
 furnished any answer to the problem in any other ''''^'^^'^Af 
 
 . ^ •' more jiilly 
 
 dialogues. The conception of man as the opyavoi/ oiin other 
 the gods is far from rare in Plato ^: but it is less easy ^^^%"^-^' 
 to discover what precise result the gods and pious 
 men produce in common. Bonitz has correctly solved 
 the question as follows. Reminding us that Plato in 
 all his dialogues invariably ascribes perfect goodness — 
 to God^, and comparing passages of such a tenor wath 
 the slight indications of the nature of the Ip-^ov given 
 in the Euthyphro itself, he infers that the true Platonic 
 definition of Piety, as sketched in the Euthyphro, and 
 filled in elsewhere, is "perfect morality, only in such 
 a form, that ?nan is conscious of bei?tg thereby the 
 auxiliar y organ of the divine working''^. In other 
 words. Piet y is conceived of a s a virtue that tran scends 
 and at the same time includes all the other leading; 
 virtues! It is the knowledge of thegoodor^od 
 translate d iiito the field of act ion f^nd is n ot^t_o be 
 copnroff^^ frr>^-|-) ||^p f^fbin^ ^^dj as cxprcsscd in dyu,ot- 
 o)(rts ^€0J Kara to Svi/arov (TheaetetUS 176 b), eTreo-^at 
 ^ew and the like. 
 
 ». * Met. B. I 995a 27. 
 
 "^ See note on 13 d. 
 ^ Rep. II 379 B. Timaeus 29 e et al. 
 
xvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 This conception of piety suggests two reflections. 
 Two reflec- In the first place it is equivalent to an asser- 
 
 tions on the j.-qj^ ^f ^^ unity of the virtues. Piety includes all 
 
 view of .— * : 7— — Vj — ^ — • 
 
 Piety pre- Other virt ues becau se it is the knowledgeof the 
 
 sentedin rrood: iust as in the~"T:a€h€Sr-Goiira:gerT)einff the 
 the Euthy- ° •' . . o ? o^ 
 
 phro. It knowledge of good and evil, is represented as iden- 
 
 implies [i) \\Q2i\ with the whole of virtue \ And besides many 
 
 the unity , . 
 
 of virtue in particular hints throughout the Euthyphro of the 
 
 knowledge: m^^j-y of virtue in knowledge, it is implied in the 
 dramatic setting of the dialogue that, being know- 
 ledge, piety may be taught by Euthyphro to Socrates. 
 (2) the In the second place^ the notion of man's working 
 
 'ofGoT'^^ in common with God has its root inJhe^tniry_Gj;eek 
 
 and man. idea tVmt^ (xi anB'lrrrair'afeof one fam ily. As is 
 pointed out in the notes, this idea runs throughout a 
 considerable part of the argument of our dialogue. 
 In arguing that if gods differ among themselves, they 
 will differ exactly on those points which arouse dis- 
 sension among men (7 d), and again, when Socrates 
 clears up Euthyphro's confusion about the precise 
 point on which the gods join issue in discussing a case 
 of manslaughter, the latent major premise might be 
 expressed in the words which Lucian' puts into the 
 mouth of HeraclitUS^: rt Sat o\ avOpwrrot; Oeol 6ur]T0L. 
 tC Sat 01 ^€01 ; avOp(ji)7roL dOavaroL. Only in respect 
 of immortality and superior power are the gods 
 different from mankind : they will work together as 
 members of one household, whether we regard them 
 as standing to one another in the relation of master 
 
 ^ Laches 199 e: cf. Charniides 174 D, Alcibiades II 146 E 
 foil. 
 
 ^ Vilarum Auctio § 14. 
 
 3 Cf. Her. Frag. 67 (ed. Bywater). 
 
INTRODUCTION. xvii 
 
 and slaved or children of a common stock, as 
 Hesiod" does or Pindar^, when he sings tv aVSpwv, %v 
 ^cojv yeVos* Ik /xias Se Trviofiev /xarpos aiJi(j>6T€poL. 
 
 § 2. 77/^ defiiiitmis of Piety con tamed i?i the 
 Eiithyphro. 
 
 Besides the leading conception of hoHness as a 
 co-working with God, it is worth while to direct some 
 attention to the minor" definitions. For iHe interlo- Special 
 cutors in Plato are for the most part types both of his ^^ff/^"^'''' 
 contemporaries and of men in general: what thty refittdd 
 say is intended to represent a certain attitude q{'^^M^^^<^"^- 
 mind. 
 
 The first definition advanced by Euthyphro need The first, 
 not in itself detain us, since it is in reality no defini- 
 tion, any more than Theaetetus' account of knowledge 
 as mathematics, shoemaking etc. (Theaet. 146 c — d), 
 or the other abortive attempts at defining which meet 
 us in the Hippias Major, Laches and elsewhere*. 
 But it is important from the manner in which Euthy- 
 phro supports his view. He appeals to Zeus, who 
 himself put his own father in chains for wrongfully 
 devouring his offspring: and in this appeal he finds 
 a sanction for his own conduct. Now it would seem 
 that these and similar legends were in Plato's time 
 
 1 Euthyphro 13 D. 
 
 2 Works and Days 108. Compare also Frag. 1S7 (ed. 
 Gottling) : ^vval yap rbre SaTres ^aav, ^vvol be ddcoKOi ddapdroKXi 
 deoiac KaTadvrjTOLS r' dudpioiroLS. Aeschylus too in Sept. 238 
 makes the chorus address the gods as fellow-citizens. 
 
 3 Nem. VI I. 
 
 * See note on Ch. vi net init. 
 
xvih INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and earlier cited to give countenance to deeds which 
 the morahty of the day condemned. This might be 
 done either sophistically, as by the Unjust Cause in the 
 Clouds (904 foil), or conscientiously and with reli- 
 gious faith, as when the Eumenides^ defend them- 
 selves for leaving Agamemnon's doom unheeded by 
 reminding Orestes that Zeus put his own aged father 
 in chains. As for Euthyphro, there is nothing in- 
 sincere or sophistical about his manner of using the 
 legend. To him all these legends are true: he is in 
 fact the quintessence of consistent orthodoxy. He 
 differs from the Athenians on the one hand by not 
 only believing the national theology but letting it 
 influence his life and conduct: on the other hand, 
 Socrates and he are still further apart, inasmuch as 
 \ Socrates goes so far as to disbelieve the theology of 
 in the dis- his country. And here one of the subsidiary motives 
 ^J'^A'V' <?/ Qf Qyj. dialogue is seen to be at work — the apologetic 
 Flaio con- motive, as we may call it. Socrates had been accused 
 /;7wWt7 q£ heterodoxy — that is, of treason, according to the 
 Socrates ancient view — and of corrupting the youth. In par- 
 char^^^f ti^"^^^ ^^ ^^^ blamed for setting sons against their 
 treason fathers. Plato replies by giving us a picture of active 
 7uMin^W and consistent orthodoxy in the person of Euthyphro. 
 the youth. Ut is as if he had said: "After all, you Athenians are 
 not consistent: the creed which you theoretically 
 believe you do not carry out in practice. If you 
 would see what your creed leads to, look at Euthy- 
 phro: in living out his religion, which is yours, he 
 becomes unfilial in his own person, to the extent of 
 prosecuting his own father for manslaughter: it is 
 your own religion that is the traitor, for its consistent 
 ^ Eum. 640 — 641. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xix 
 
 believers are worse than useless to the state (3 c — d). 
 The fact is, you do not really believe your national 
 creed, otherwise you would approve of Euthyphro: 
 why then do you prosecute Socrates for seeking to 
 replace your indifference by some new faith?" It 
 was of course no new thing to protest against a 
 theology which ascribed to the gods deeds of which 
 men might be ashamed. Since Xenophanes wrote 
 his well-known censure on Homer and Hesiod (TraVra 
 ^eots avedrjKav 0/x7ypos 6' Hcrtobos re ocrcra Trap av- 
 
 OpOiTTOLCTLV oVctSctt Kol lf/OyO<; ICTTIV, KkilTTUV ^OL)(ev€.iV 
 
 T€ Kttt aXX-qkovi aTrarevciv'), it had been a common- 
 place with Pindar, Aeschylus, and other writers of a 
 lofty moral tone", to urge that goodness must needs 
 be one of the divine attributes, but in the character 
 of Euthyphro Plato goes even further, and makes it S 
 clear that an active faith in the old theology was // 
 incompatible with what the ordinary public opinion 
 of Athens pronounced to be right conduct: Athens 
 had in fact outgrown her faith. And as Plato like his 
 master hated nothing more than idle acquiescence in 
 an inert Xoyos, he desired to make the Athenians feel 
 that the old religion was virtually dead, so as to 
 pave the way for a higher creed. 
 
 Euthyphro's second definition may best be con- The second 
 sidered along with the third, which is but an amended ^definition:. 
 form of the same underlying conception. The view 
 that Holiness is what is dear to the gods, would have 
 been accepted by most of the Greeks. 'Beloved of 
 the gods' was an epithet of the truly pious and vir- 
 tuous man. AtKaios avT^p, asks Socrates in the Philebus 
 
 1 Ap. Sext. Emp, adv. Math, ix 193. 
 
 2 See Nagelsbach's Nachhonierische Theologie p. 45 {{. 
 
XX 
 
 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 Ift discuss- 
 ing these 
 Socrates 
 reveals the 
 mono- 
 theisi7i of 
 his creed, 
 
 and dis- 
 tinguishes 
 accident 
 from 
 essence. 
 
 Other con- 
 irihutions 
 to logic in 
 the iHiUhy 
 phro. 
 
 (39 e) Kttt €vae/3y<» koX dya66<; Trai/rcos ap' ov 6€ocf)i\yj<: 
 i-a-Tt; and in the first Alcibiades (134 d) we read 
 SiKaticos fxlv yap TrpciTTOVTes koX (ro}cfip6voi<s av re koI rj 
 TToXts 6€o(f>ikoj<s TTpa^ere. It was probably the popular 
 conception of piety. In his preliminary criticism of 
 the definition^ Socrates is really arguing against poly- 
 theism. On the assumption of a plurality of gods, it 
 is useless to say that what is dear to the gods is holy, 
 since one god will love what another hates: but if the 
 divine nature is one, then it will be constant in its 
 likes and dislikes, and, so far, the definition may still 
 hold good. Here therefore we have a distinct allusion 
 to the underlying monotheism of the Socratic creed : 
 but the doctrine is not explicitly stated and hardly 
 goes beyond the common usage of to Oelovj to 8at- 
 jjLoviov and the like, so often used in referring to the 
 divine power as shewing itself in the government of 
 the world. 
 
 After conceding the difficulty as to a plurality of 
 gods, Socrates attacks the definition in earnest, and 
 proves it inadequate even on a monotheistic creed, 
 inasmuch as it puts a 7rd6o<; in place of the ova-ia. 
 This is probably the earliest place in Greek literature 
 where the distinction of TTd6o<s and ova-La is clearly 
 recognised (11 a). Nor is this the only contribution 
 to logic in our dialogue. The exercise in the con- 
 version of propositions shewing that although all atSws 
 is at the same time 8eos, yet the converse is not true 
 (12 A ff.), doubtless had some value in an age when 
 logic was still young. Moreover, the manner in 
 which the notion of SUaiov is subdivided into oo-iov 
 and another unknown quantity, with a view to reach- 
 ing a definition (12 a), is suggestive of the 8iatpco-i9 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 which is so constantly employed in Plato's later 
 dialogues : while in the form of definition required 
 by Socrates in 12 d Set %y\ y][jJo.%^ ojs eoiKci/, i^ivpeiv 
 TO TToXov fxepos av etj] tov StKatov to oo-iov, we have a 
 clear recognition of the principle of defining I>er genus 
 et differoitiam. We may therefore infer that one of 
 the subsidiary purposes of our dialogue is to be a 
 lesson in logic. 
 
 It has already been shewn that in the develop- 
 ment of Socrates' suggestion about the relation 
 between SUaLov and oo-ioi^ lies the most valuable part 
 of the positive teaching of the Euthyphro. We may 
 therefore pass on to Euthyphro's fifth effort: Holiness The fifth 
 is the knowledge of how to sacrifice and how to pray. '^J^'"^'^'^ 
 
 ° , . represents 
 
 In effect, as Socrates proves, there is nothing but the the sacer- 
 
 second definition elaborated in detail : it is therefore ' ^^^ ,^'f^'' 
 
 of religion. 
 
 instructive to observe how Euthyphro, dizzy from the 
 effect of Socrates' logic, takes refuge in crooning over 
 to himself the sacerdotal view of religion with which 
 his profession had made him familiar. As a pro- 
 fessional fxdvTL? Euthyphro cannot shake himself clear 
 of the mantic stand-point. His theology is correctly 
 described as a sort of iixiropLKij : it conceives of gods 
 and men as bound by a compact to give and take 
 reciprocally \ There is no hint of the importance of 
 true devotion in the soul of the worshipper, such as 
 Socrates always inculcated. S<2pa 6€ov<i TretOu, Scop' 
 alSoLov<; (3acn\r}as^ was the corner-stone of Euthy- 
 phro's creed. And it is just this view of religion 
 which marks him out as essentially the representative 
 
 ^ Cf. Aristotle Eth. Nic. IV ii23'*Ta 5c- ^wpa toU dvaOi'iixacLV 
 IXft Tt o/xoiov. 
 
 2 Hes. Frag. 180 ed. Gottling. 
 
xxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of active Greek orthodoxy : there could be no greater 
 mistake than to take Euthyphro as a type of /he dis- 
 believing Athenians of his day. That sacrifice was a 
 gift, almost a bribe to the gods (originally the gods' 
 food^), was so thoroughly recognised in the Greek 
 religion as to have passed into a proverb ^ The senti- 
 ment was only a natural outcome of the view that 
 gods and men are one in kind — an idea which we 
 have already seen to be a distinctive feature of the 
 Hellenic faith. 
 Summary. The results of the preceding investigation may be 
 thus summed up. The main purpose of the Euthyphro 
 i s to lea d_thg_ way to a higher coiiceptiQii_of_4iiety 
 th an was pos sible un deTThe m ost^ort hodox belief J n 
 the old Greek religion. As secondary motives, there 
 is first and foremost a desire to defend_SQ£iates by 
 shewing that orthodoxy if active and no t quies cent 
 was rnqre dangerous to the tamily and the state than 
 
 t he neterodox y of Snrrnies : there are also indications 
 of a wish to improve the occasion by imparting some 
 lessons in logic. The rejected definitions are valuable 
 as shewing' different points of view characteristic of 
 the Greek religion, above all, the belief in a common 
 origin and common interests for gods and men. 
 
 § 3. On Euthyphro. 
 
 Euthyphro Nothing is known for certain about Euthyphro as 
 to us only ^ historical person except what we learn from Plato. 
 
 from The statements of later authors rest entirely upon his 
 
 Plato. . ., 
 
 authority. 
 
 ^ Article Sacrifice in Encycl. Brit. 
 
 ^ Eur. Met!. 964 ireiffeiv du>pa Kal Oeoi/^ X670S, 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxiii 
 
 It is argued, indeed, by Bergk (Dc Reliquiis Co- 
 moediae Atticae Antiquae p. 357 foil.) that Eupolis' 
 comedy called npoo-7raA.Tiot was directed against Eu- 
 thyphro, who was a native of the deme of Prospalta, 
 in the tribe of Acamantis\ We know from Suidas 
 (s.v. Spvaxapvev) that the Prospaltians were derided 
 for their extreme litigiousness : and Euthyphro, who 
 accused his own father, might well be taken as a type 
 of his demesmen. The fact that Eupolis' drama was 
 written long before 399, the assumed date of Euthy- 
 phro's accusation, need not prove a difficulty, for 
 "satis superque notum est, quam parum Plato curam 
 temporum rationis habuerit : ut nihil distet, quominus 
 illam litigationem aHquanto ante accidisse statuamus"". 
 Some degree of probability is lent to the theory cf 
 Bergk by the line^ 
 
 TL KaTaKpodcrOi [xov ra ixovao^ovyixara ; 
 
 which seems to allude to some such tricks of language 
 
 as are attributed to Euthyphro in Plato's Cratylus : 
 
 but at most the theory is only a brilliant conjecture, 
 
 and we are bound to confine ourselves to the Platonic 
 
 picture of Euthyphro. 
 
 Except in the dialogue called after him, Euthy- lie appears 
 
 phro appears only in the Cratylus. The description ^-^ ^^' ^f:, 
 
 . , . . . ,1 • rahc philo- 
 
 of hmi there accords generally with what we gather /agist in 
 
 from our dialogue : he is a uaVris not to say a aaviKo^ ^^^ 
 , , 1 • r Cratylus. 
 
 avtjp. There his frenzy takes the form of etymologi- 
 zing, and Socrates humorously makes him responsible 
 for his own philological vagaries. koI atTtw/xat ye, 
 (3 'F,pfx6y€V€^ (says Socrates), /^aAio-ra avri^v (sc. ryv 
 
 ^ See Fritzsche's Prolegomena p. 153 foil. 
 
 2 Bergk I.e. p. 358. "^ Kock Frag. 745. 
 
xxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (TOffiLav) ttTTO ^v9v(fipOVO'S TOV lipocTTraXTLOv TTpocnreTTTOi- 
 K€vai fioL' eoiOev yap ttoXXo, avTco avvrj kol Trapet^ov ra 
 (x)Ta. KivSvvevet ovv ivOovaiwv ov fjiovov ra (ora /xov 
 ifXTrX-^aaL Trj<i 8at//-ovtas (ro^tas aA.Xa koX Trj<; il/v)(rj<; 
 i7reLXrjcf>0aL (396 d)*. In the present dialogue there 
 are perhaps one or two examples of Euthyphro's 
 philological skilP: but it is chiefly as a /xaVrts that he 
 I/ere he is is represented. Euthyphro is the incarnation of Plato's 
 Athenian ^'^^"^ ^^ Athenian orthodoxy carried consistently into 
 orthodoxy practice. Implicitly believing in the creed of Athens 
 ^consistent ^^ ^ "^^^ ^^ conduct, he accepts all the obnoxious 
 action : stories about the gods and despises the Athenians for 
 not shewing their faith in their works : a superior 
 person in his own estimation, he is at once fanatical 
 and complacent, even jaunty in his bearing, as one 
 who has solved the problem of the Universe. When 
 he is confronted with the necessity of defending his 
 position, he submits with the amiable condescending 
 smile of a man who is impervious to reason, because 
 he claims to stand on the higher platform of inspiration 
 and faith : and when he is refuted, instead of distrust- 
 ing himself, he takes refuge in the old position from 
 which he has long ago been dislodged. He combines 
 a sciolist the worst features of a sciolist and a prig. But for his 
 and a prig. ^^^ sincere faith in himself, he might be regarded as 
 a type of the /xaj/rts aXa^oJv^ Doubtless the picture is 
 
 ^ Cf. ibid. 399 A TTj TOV 'Evdvcppovos eiripoiq., 407 D 6(ppa idrjai 
 otoL 'Evdvippovos LTTiroi, 409 D 7] TOV 'Eivdvcppovos fJiovaa (Fritzsche 
 Proleg. p. 154). The expression oi dfx^l EvOdcppova in 399 Edoes 
 not of course imply that Euthyphro had a following of Neo- 
 grammarians. 
 
 2 See notes on 2 u and 3 b, lines 11 and 18. 
 
 ^ See Aristotle's account of dXa^oveia in Eth. Nic. IV 13. 
 p. 1117^ 13 ff., esp. 1127^ 19 — 20 ol 5^ K^p8ovs (sc. xdpti' aXa^ov- 
 
INTR OD UCTION. xx v 
 
 overdrawn, but not without reason : for Plato's object 
 was to contrast the logical outcome of the Athenian 
 creed with that of his master's, in order to shew that 
 the Athenians no longer believed the national religion, 
 and were ripe for something higher ^ 
 
 § 4. Genuineness of the Dialogue. 
 
 Since the time of Ast (181 6), doubts have fre- 
 quently been expressed as to the authenticity of the 
 Euthyphro, and not a few critics have categorically 
 denied it. But the overwhelming balance of opinion 
 is in favour of regarding the dialogue as a genuine 
 work of Plato. 
 
 The arguments advanced by the party of attack 
 are of very different weight. 
 
 Starting with the notion that every genuine dia- Arguments 
 logue contains some positive teaching either worked amnine- 
 out or at least suggested, Ast rejected the Euthyphro «f -5" of the 
 on the ground that the essence of piety is not t^\ fj^f^ ^^ 
 thoroughly investigated ''oder auf Platonische W Qhn is devoid of 
 auch nur angedeutet^". Schleiermacher had already -J^^^^^!^^^^ 
 refused to allow the presence of any dogmatic teaching 
 in the Euthyphro, while still retaining it among the 
 works of Plato. Four years later it was pointed out 
 by Socher^ that the required hint of positive doctrine 
 
 evoixevoL to. TOiavra TrpoawotovyTaL) uiv Kal aTroXavals iarL rois 
 TreXas Kal a diaXadeiy eari fxr] ovra, oXov [xavTLV aocpou iaTpov. 
 Numenius actually refers to Euthyphro as avbpa dXa^ova Kal 
 KoaXefAov (apud Eusebium Praep. Evangelica xiii. 5). 
 
 ^ See above p. xix. 
 
 - Platon's Leben und Schriften p. 470. 
 
 ^ Ueber Platon's Schriften p. 62. 
 
 'ine : 
 
xxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 was to be found in the question addressed to Euthyphro 
 in 13 E. After him, Susemihl (1855), Munk (1857), 
 and later, Bonitz and Lechthaler', have all recognized 
 that the Euthyphro is far from being devoid of positive 
 teaching. 
 
 The views of these scholars have been subjected 
 to a spirited criticism by Josef Wagner, in a Briinn 
 Program of 1882 — 3 pp. 6 — 17, but he has not 
 succeeded in weakening the position of Bonitz, if 
 only we are willing to admit that Plato's meaning is 
 not always discoverable without some effort on the 
 part of the reader. In view of our previous discussion 
 on the leading motive of the Euthyphro, without 
 raising the question whether Plato could have written 
 a purely peirastic dialogue, we may take it as certain 
 that the arguments against the present dialogue which 
 are drawn from its alleged absence of dogmatic teaching 
 miss their mark^ It cannot indeed be maintained that 
 the Euthyphro by itself contains a clear and definite 
 solution of the problem proposed : but^ this is in full 
 harmony with Plato's representation of the Socratic 
 method. Socrates does hot take pains to enlighten 
 those with whom he converses unless their humiliation 
 is sincere : and it is manifest from the whole tone and 
 bearing of Euthyphro that even while professing his 
 inability to follow Socrates^ he still believes himself 
 to be in the right. 
 
 ^ Die bcLOTT)^ bei Platon: Meran 1879. On the other hand, 
 Schaarschmidt (Die Sammkmg der Platonischen Schriften p. 
 390 ff. ) declares himself upon the side of Ast. 
 
 2 In the Zeitschrift fUr ost. Gymn. Vol. x£ 3. p. 275 Dr 
 Lauczizsky also expresses his surprise that Wagner should still 
 cling to his belief in the spuriousness of the dialogue. 
 
 ^ See note on he. "* In i i b. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxvii 
 
 A further argument has been found by Schaar- (2) That ^ 
 Schmidt' in the apparently untrue representation ^^ ifii^repre- 
 Socrates given in the Euthyphro. To leave Euthy- smted 
 phro in a course of wicked conduct, and pass on to (iialo<rue. 
 discussions on oaiov and avodiov which have only a 
 remote bearing on the situation, is inconsistent (thinks 
 Schaarschmidt) with Socrates' well-known practice of 
 assisting his friends to improve their conduct by 
 theoretical discussions. To this it seems a sufficient 
 answer to point out that we are dealing here with 
 Plato's Socrates, and not Xenophon's: nor are the 
 discussions on oqiov at all irrelevant, but thoroughly 
 in harmony even with Xenophon's representation of 
 the Socratic method as an attempt to establish a Xo'yos 
 for the regulation of conduct. 
 
 More serious would seem to be the arguments (3) Alleged 
 drawn from the alleged formal and structural defects ^J^^f^J^'^ 
 of the dialogue. Wagner^ descants upon the 'poverty 
 manifest in the external scenery and characterisation 
 of the actors': the whole dialogue is carried on between 
 two actors and we hear nothing of auditors, in spite 
 of the busy quarter where the scene is laid : Socrates 
 is not true to life and Euthyphro's portrait is absurdly 
 overdrawn ! The climax is reached when in criticising 
 the words of Socrates in 3 d (eyw 8e ^o^ov/xat /w,r) vVo 
 <f)iXavOpoi7rLa<; Sokco aurots on Trep l^o) eKKe^fx^vios Travri 
 dvSpl Aeyetv, ov {xovov avev jxtaOov, dXXd kol Trpoa-TLOels 
 av T^Seo)?, ei rts pov lOiXoi aKoveiv), Wagner remarks 
 "Auf welcher Seite die Ungeschicklichkeit liegt, 
 brauchen wir nicht weiter zu erortern, fragen nur, 
 woher Sokrates dazu das Geld hatte hernehmen sollen, 
 
 ^ Die Sammlung der Platonischen Schriften p. 393. 
 - I.e. p. 26. 
 
xxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 da er in der Apologie nur iiber eine Mine verfiigt?" 
 We may allow that the dialogue is inferior in dramatic 
 power to the best of Plato's works without denying it 
 to Plato : and as for Euthyphro's portrait, if it is 
 meant to represent the logical outcome of an active 
 faith in the old mythology, it is doubtless intentionally 
 overdrawn. 
 (4) That A great deal has been made of the supposed 
 
 the theory allusion to the theory of Ideas in q c — d and 6 d — e. 
 
 oj Ideas is , , . "^ ^ 
 
 erroneous- It is chiefly on this ground that Ueberweg' rejects the 
 ^^"^" dialogue, and Schaarschmidt' has used the same 
 argument with great emphasis. The words (in 5 d) 
 f.)(pv fxiav TLva iSiav Kara ttjv avocrLOT-qra (sic), ap- 
 plied to dv6(Tiov, have incurred the especial censure of 
 Schaarschmidt and Wagner^ And it must be allowed 
 that an Idea of pure and absolute ne2:atiDn is a singular 
 
 doctrine to meet with m Plato. But, beyond all doubt, 
 the correct reading in this particular passage is the 
 Kara ttjv oaioTrjra of the Bodleian manuscript^: and, 
 on the general question, Bonitz^ seems to me to have 
 conclusively shewn that there is no knowledge whatever 
 of the ideal theory implied in either of the places cited. 
 The \6yoL are not hypostasized, since in to oo-lov avro 
 avTw, avTo belongs to avTw and not to to oatov, while 
 the expression e)(ov jxiav tlvo. Ihiav is parallel to the 
 words in the Meno (72 c) ovtw ^rj koX ttc/oI tcSi/ apcTwv 
 Kav €t TToWat Kat TravToSaTrat eXcriv, €v yi tl ctSos ravrov 
 aTTacrai e^ovcL, Sl 6 eialv apcrat. Similar passages, 
 in which the expressions which were afterwards used 
 in connection with the theory of ideas occur in speak- 
 
 1 Untersuchungen p. 7.51. ^ I.e. p. 394. 
 
 3 I.e. p. 22. * See note m loc. 
 
 ^ Plat. Stud.=* p. 240 ff. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxix 
 
 ing of the Socratic Xoyoi, are far from rare in the 
 Socratic dialogues : it will suffice to refer to the first 
 Alcibiades 129 b and 130 d (o apn ovTio ttw? ippyjOrj, 
 OTL TrpcoTor orK€7rT€Ov €17] avTO TO avTO' vvv 8e dvrl tov 
 avTov avrov avro 'iKacrrov ia-KefjLfJLeOa o tl icTTLv), and 
 to the Hippias Major 289 d et Se o-e -^po/j.rjv, cfiyaci, i$ 
 "■PXV'^y ''"' ^^'^'- xolXov re kol aL(T)(p6v, et /xot airep vvv 
 air^Kpivai apa, crv av opOois aTr^KiKpicro. hri Se kcll 8o/c€t 
 (TOt avTO TO KaXov, o) Kttt TaAXa iravTa KocT/xeLTai kol 
 KaXa (f)aLV€TaL, €7reiSav Trpoa-ycvTjTai Ikuvo to €tSo9, tovt 
 uvai Trap^eVos r) ittttos 17 Xvpa\ In neither of these two 
 dialogues is the Ideal theory presupposed : but as it 
 was chiefly out of the Socratic Ao'yot that Plato's theory 
 of Ideas was evolved, it is only natural that the phrase- 
 ology of the later theory should sometimes be used in 
 connectiDD^with'the earlier--:- and Jja^'tm i di di -settssed 
 passage in the Euthyphro is extremely valuable as a 
 link in the chain of development, since besides the 
 words iSea and et8o9 applied to the Socratic Ao'yos we 
 find the concept regarded as a TrapaSuy/jia, exactly 
 like the Idea in Platonic teaching generally. 
 
 It is further pointed out^ that an imitator of Plato (5) Thai 
 might well have composed the dialogue as a sermon ^Jiaiooue is 
 on the text in the Republic (11 378 b) oi;Se X^Kxiov a patch- 
 
 / > ' c >c\ /^ \ >, >o,v * /) \ work frotn 
 
 veo) aKOvovTt, cos aOLKoiV ra ecr^ara ovo€v av uavp.a(TTOv .j , ■' 
 
 TTOtot, ov8' av aSiKOvvTa TraTepa KoXdt,uiv travrX dialogues. 
 
 TpoTTio, aXXa SpcoT] av oTrep Ogwv ol TrpwTOt Te Kat 
 
 IJL€yL(TTOL. Plato then proceeds, in language closely 
 
 parallel to that of the Euthyphro ^ to enter a protest 
 
 against the stories of wars between gods, whether sung 
 
 of in poetry, or depicted on canvas, and concludes 
 
 1 Ast, p. 472. 
 
 2 Compare Euthyphr. 6 b with Rep. 11 378 c. 
 
 A. EU. X 
 
XXX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 with an eloquent assertion of the supreme goodness of 
 God. Schaarschmidt^ conjectures that the author of 
 the Euthyphro had also in view the passage in the 
 Laws (ix 865 c), where Plato would inflict only a mode- 
 rate penalty in cases of manslaughter resembling that 
 committed by Euthyphro's father. Numerous parallels 
 with the Meno and the Theaetetus are also quoted : 
 in particular, the comparison of unstable ideas with 
 figures by Daedalus (11 c — e and 15 b) is supposed 
 to be borrowed from the Meno (97 d — e), or elabo- 
 rated out of the expression in the Theaetetus (203 d) 
 Kat ovrws >7/xtv o KaAos Aoyos ctTroSeSpaKcos Qiyy](ma.i. 
 Socrates' demand that Euthyphro should give in his 
 answer not a plurality of things holy but the one form 
 of holiness reminds us of similar passages in the 
 Meno (71 E ff. 74 a) and Theaetetus (146 a ff.). And 
 among other reminiscences of the dialogues noted by 
 Schaarschmidt is the echo of the Phaedrus (229 c) in 
 Socrates' question (6 b) aXXa /txot cittc wpos <I>l\lov, av 
 ws dX7]0<j)<; yyel ravra ovtoos yeyovevat ', 
 These Striking as these parallels are, and especially that 
 
 arguments fj-^j^ ^j^g Republic, they are by no means enough to 
 simply and .^ ... , _, , , _»i ttt 
 
 together, justify US m denymg the Euthyphro to Plato. Were 
 
 are not j-j^g ideas in question more fully and elaborately 
 
 enough to . ,. , 111 i • 1 
 
 prove the worked out m our dialogue than elsewhere, and with 
 Euthyphro greater dramatic power, the same critics would be 
 ready to doubt whether those other dialogues -were 
 genuine. If the dialogue could be shewn to be 
 spurious on other grounds, such evidence as this 
 would be valuable as shewing from what quarries 
 the imitator had hewed his stone: but, as it is, the 
 same ideas continually reappear in the admittedly 
 
 ^ 1-c- p. 395- 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxi 
 
 genuine works of Plato, and if we are prepared to 
 allow that the Euthyphro is a comparatively early 
 dialogue, it may well be that ideas and images 
 employed in this early work were afterwards ex- 
 panded and developed by Plato in his more mature 
 productions. 
 
 This leads us to say a word as to the date of the Date of 
 Euthyphro. Of external evidence there is none : we ''{'/ , 
 
 11111 . dialogue. 
 
 have only the style and treatment to guide us'. 
 
 From the tables given by Constantin Ritter in his 
 Untersuchungen iiber Plato (pp. 56 — 59), it is seen 
 to belong to the earlier dialogues, if any faith is to be 
 placed in statistics of the use of particles and the 
 like : and the absence of any allusion to the theory 
 of ideas ^ together with the somewhat overdrawn 
 picture of Athenian orthodoxy in the person of 
 Euthyphro, lead one to place it among Plato's early 
 works. It is of course impossible fully to discuss this 
 point without at the same tim^ discussing the chrono- 
 logical sequence of Plato's dialogues generally: at 
 present it will suffice to say that I believe it (in 
 common with all Plato's dialogues) to have been 
 written after the death of Socrates, and to be con- 
 siderably later than the Crito. It probably belongs 
 to about the same period as the Laches and the // ivas 
 
 Charmides, but I think it precedes both of these ^''''^'^^^-^ 
 1-1 1 1 • iq lorttten 
 
 dialogues by a short interval . just before 
 
 ^ No argument can of course be based on the connection 
 between the Introduction of the Euthyphro and the end of 
 the Theaetetus: this is only one of Plato's many dramatic 
 fictions. 
 
 2 See above p. xxviii. 
 
 ^ Siebeck (Zur Chronologic der platonischen Dialoge p. 12S) 
 
 3—2 
 
xxxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the Laches It has however been argued from the manner in 
 ^Char^-^ which piety is here treated that the dialogue is later 
 mides. than the Laches and Protagoras, possibly even than 
 the Meno and Gorgias'. Socrates' own definition 
 of €vae^€La, as given in the Memorabilia (iv 6. 4), 
 identifies it with 'knowledge of what is lawful in 
 respect of the gods': SiKaioavvrj being the 'knowledge 
 Critidsin of what is lawful in respect of men '. In other words 
 of another ^ya-eBeia and StKaLoavu'q are put on the same platform 
 by Socrates, each being regarded as a distinct and 
 special virtue. Now in the Protagoras, Meno, and 
 Gorgias, oVtoTTys is in the same way held to be one of 
 the virtues, parallel with "^iKaioa vvyf : whereas in the 
 Euthyphro (12 a), hiKaiodvyt] is set above oo-iorr;?, the 
 general notion StKaiov being subdivided into oo-lov and 
 some other section not specified. And as in the later 
 dialogues^ of Plato oo-iorrys is not mentioned as a sub- 
 stantive virtue at all, it is supposed by Fritzsche that 
 Plato in the Euthyphro is passing from the Socratic 
 conception of piety (as contained in the Protagoras, 
 Meno and Gorgias) to a fourfold classification of the 
 virtues, in which 6(rL6Tr]<; as a special virtue shall be 
 excluded. But the difference in the treatment of 
 puety is susceptible.of anotlier^xplanatign,. The word 
 
 seems to me riglrt in' assigmng-t^re La^lxes jLiKJ-Euth vphr o to the 
 same period : but whether he is right in holding that the first 
 four books of the Republic preceded these dialogues, dWrjs ap 
 €17) crKixpecos. 
 
 ^ Fritzsche Prolegomena ad Euthyphronem p. 157. 
 
 * Prot. 329 c et al. Meno 78 D. Gorg. 507 B. 
 
 ' Such as the Republic (iv 428 a rirrapa 6vTa rvyxdvei) and 
 Laws XII 963 c. The four are ao(pia, avdpeia, (xo}(}>po(j(>vri and 
 bt-Kaioavvrj. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxiii 
 
 KKaiov had two well-marked senses throughout Greek 
 literature : the first wider, equivalent to our ' right ', 
 as when Theognis said kv 8e StKatoo-vvr; o-vXXtj^Stjv 
 irda dpcT-q 'vt' and in this sense ro octlov might at all 
 times be regarded as a subdivision of StKatov. Plato 
 is not in the Euthyphro propounding a table of the 
 virtues : he is therefore justified in using SiKaiov in 
 its non-technical sense. And the apparent divergence 
 between the Protagoras for example and the Re- 
 public in the doctrine of piety has been explained 
 by Bonitz in a way which fits in with the teaching 
 of the Euthyphro as already expounded^ "Where 
 Plato", says Bonitz ^ "is demonstrably following the 
 ordinary views (e.g. in the Protagoras), he enumerates 
 Piety among the different expressions of man's moral 
 nature, viz. the individual virtues : on the other hand, 
 he makes no mention of it where he himself marshals 
 the idea of virtue in its different expressions according 
 to his own conviction (e.g. in the Republic), and thus 
 he shews that to him Piety is not a single virtue, to 
 be coordinated with Temperance or Justice. On the 
 contrary, the entire essence of moral conduct is 
 characterized by Plato on the one hand as the know- 
 ledge of the good determining o f necessity the w ill, 
 and on the othf ^r ha|]r] a'^ ^a process of assitp ilation to 
 the divine essenceand an attaching of oneseff ther ^^^^ 
 combined with service". For it is exactly this view of 
 piety which is at all events suggested in the Euthy- 
 phro, and which marks it as belonging to the earlier 
 
 ^ Bergk's Theognis (Poetae Lyrici Graeci) line 147. 
 - Bonitz Plat. Studien p. 234. 
 ^ Plat. Studien p. ■234. 
 
xxxiv INTRODUCTION, 
 
 dialogues like the Charmides and Laches, in which 
 the individual virtues, such as temperance and courage, 
 are each of them finally resolved into the knowledge 
 of the Good. 
 
EY0Y<t)PQN. 
 
 H nepl ocfoy [neipAcriKoc] 
 
 TA TOY AIAAOrOY nPO^OHA 
 
 ET0TcE>PX2N, :Si:iKPATHX. 
 1. 1. 
 
 2 I. Tl vecorepov, co XcoKpaT€<;, yiyovev, otl au 
 
 Ta<i iv AvK€L(p KaraXlTTCOV ScaTpLl3a<; Socrates informs 
 y a'^ '-^•'//O V ^ ^ a Euthyphro of his 
 
 evuabe vvv oiaTpLpeL<; irepv rrjv rov pa- impending tnai ; 
 <7^X-eft)9 aroav ; ov yap ttov kol aol ye Slktj rt? ovaa 
 Tvyx^dvec Trpo? rov ^aaiXea cocrirep ifioi. 5 
 
 Sn. OvTOL St] ^ K6r]valol ye, cS ^vOv(f)pou, SIktjv 
 avTTJv KaXovaiv, aWa ypa(f)>]v. 
 B ET0. Tt ^^?; ypa(f)rjv cre rt?, (o<; eoiKe, yeypair- 
 Tai' 01) yap eKelvo ye KarayvcoaoiJiaL, co<i av erepov. 
 
 Xn. Ov yap ovv. 10 
 
 ET©. 'AXXa ere a\Xo9 ; 
 
 S^. Tiavv ye. 
 
 ET®. Tt? ovTo<; ; 
 
 Itfl. OvS* avTo^i TTCLVv TL yiyv^cTKW, CO Fiv6v(f)pov, 
 Tov uvhpa' veo<^ yap Ti9 /^ot (^alveraL Kal ayvw<i' 15 
 ovo/jbd^ovat jjuivToc avTOv, ceJ9 iycpfiai, MeXrjTov. ean 
 
2 HAATHNOZ 1*2 6 
 
 Be Twv Sr/fKov UirOeixi, et nva vm e')(^eL<s TiirOea 
 MeXyTOp, olov reravorpL'^a koI ov iravv evjeveiov, 
 iiri^pvTTov Be. 
 
 20 ET0. OvK evvoWy at ScoKpaT€<;' dWa Brj rlva 
 ypa^^v ae fyijpaTrrai ; C 
 
 Sn. "YivTLva ; ovk dyevvrj, eaoiye BoKet' to 'yap 
 viop ovra roaovrov 'Trpd<y[JLa ijj^Kevat ov (pavXov 
 icTTiv' €Kelvo<; ydp, a><; (prjcriv, oIS\ rlva rpoirov ol 
 
 2$ veov Biac^OelpovTaL koI tlv6<; ol Bta(p^^povT€<i avrov^. 
 KoX KLvBvvevei aoc^o^ tl^ elrai' koX rrjv^f^rjv d/xaOlav 
 KariBwv ft)? Biacf)delpovTO<; to'u<; TjXtKLOora'; avTov, 
 ep')(ejai KaT7)yopi']crcov /lov (o^ 7r/309 /uLTjrepa tt/jo? rriv 
 ttoXlv. Koi (palveral jjlov toov ttoXltlkcov fjL6vo<^ 
 
 30 dp'^eadai 6p6w^' 6p6w^ yap ean twv vicov irpwTOv D 
 
 « eiTLiieXriOrjvai, OTro)? ecrovrat o n dpiaroL, (oairep 
 yecopyov dyaOov twv vecov (pvTwv et^o? irpwTov 
 iTTLfieXrjdfjvai, /jueTa Be tovto Kal twv dXXwV Kal 
 Brj Kal MeXT^TO? t'cro)? TrpwTov fiev J i^/idf; eKKaOaipec 3 
 
 35 Toi)? TWV vewv Ta9 ^XdcrTa^ Bia<pdelpovTa(y, w<; (f)7)aLv 
 eireuTa /xera tovto B^Xov oti ' twv irpea^vTepwv 
 eTTLfMeXrjdel^; TrXelaTwv Kal /jieylaTwv dyadwv aLTL0<; 
 Tj} iroXei yevrjcreTaiy w? ye to etVo? ^vfM/Srjvac eK 
 TOiavTrj<; dp')(rj'i op^afMevw. 
 
 II. ET0. BovXoLfjLTjv dv, CO ^WKpaTe<;, dXX^ 
 in which Eu- oppwBw, fjbrj TOVvavTLOv yevrjTai. dTe)(yw'^ 
 
 thyphro sees but ' ^ '^ ' i' «T7 ' " /i 
 
 a symptom of 7<^/3 l^^L ooKet a(p ii(7Tta9 ap^eaUai 
 
 the contempt in '> \ /-v '» « ^ cs « 
 
 which seers are KaKOVpyetV T7]V TTOXCV, eTTlX^ipWV aCLKeiV 
 held. / / -^ f / \ « / / 
 
 5 ae. Kau /Mot Xeye, tv Kav iroiovvTa ae 
 
 (f>rjai> BLa<j)deip€Lv tov<; veov<; ; 
 
 */ Xn. "ATOTra, w Oavfidace, <W9 ovtw 7' uKovaai. B 
 ^7}al yap fxe TroirjTrjv elvai Oewv, Kal w<; KaLvov<i 
 
Ill 3 E EY0Y*PnN. 3 
 
 TTOLOvvra Oeov'^, tou? 8 ap'^^atovi ov vofiil^ovTa, 
 j/ iypd-slraro rovrcov avroov eveKa, co? (f^rjatv. lo 
 
 ET0. M.av6dv(o, w XwKpaTe<^' on Brj av ro 
 SaL/jboviov 0^9 aavTW eKaarore <ylyve(76at. co? ovv 
 KaivoTOjjLOVVTO^ (Tov TTcpl TCI Oela fye^paTTjai ravrrjv 
 rrjv ypa(f)j]v, kol cw? Sca^aKoov Br} kp^erat et? to 
 BiKaarrfpiov, etScw? ort 6vSi(il3o\a ra roiavra 7rpo<; 15 
 C Toi)9 TToXXou?. KOL ifiov <ydp TOi, orav ri Xeycj iv 
 rfj eKK\r)<jLa irepl twv Oelcov, irpoXeycov avT0L<; rd 
 fjLeWovra, KarayeXccaiv 009 p,aivopievov. KauroL ovSev 
 Tb ovK dX7]de(; elprfKa wv Trpoelirov, aW b/u-co? 
 (f)6ovovcnv rjixlv iroicri TOi<; tolovtol^^. aXK ovBev 20 
 avTcov y^py) ^povrl^eiv, dX\! oixcae levau. 
 
 III. Xn. "^n <^/Xe 'Evdvcppov, dWd ro jiev 
 KarayeXaadfivab Laco<; ovSev irpd'yua. 
 
 , /I / ' f , V <s « , S. 'You do not 
 
 K6rjVaiOl<; yap TOL, (W? eaoi. OOK6I, ov proselytise : I do. 
 
 / / ,/ V ,/ Therefore they 
 
 acboBpa /xeXet, dv nva SeiVOV OiCOVrai prosecute me and 
 
 ' ' augh at you. 
 
 elvai, arj aevroL BiBacrKoXiKov Trj<; avrov \,'^ ,^^f}- ?^} ? 
 
 ' ' ' ' will end well with y 
 
 aod)ia<;' bv S' dv kol dW0V<; OlCOPTaC your case, as with 
 ' mine. 
 
 D TTOielv TOLovTOv^;, Ovfiovvrai, ecr ovv 
 (f)d6va), to? av \ey€i<;, etre Sl' dWo ri. 
 
 ET©. ^ovTov ovv nrepL o7rco<; irore tt/^o? ifxe 
 €')(0V(7iv, ov irdvv eTriOvfjiw TreipaOfjvai. 10 
 
 Xn. "Ic7Ct)9 <ydp av fiev 8oK€i^ airdviov aeavrov 
 7rape')(eiv kol BiBdaKeLV ovk eOekeiv rrjv aeavrov 
 ao(f3iav' iyco Be (^o^ovfiai fir) viro (jiLXavOpcoTTta^; 
 BoKO) avroL<; o rv irep €')((jc> eKKe'^vfjuevco^; rravrl dvBpl 
 Xiryecv, ov fiovov dvev pnaOov, dXXd Kal irpoanOel'^ 15 
 dv TjBew^;, el t/9 ijlov edeXoi dKovecv. el fxev ovv, o 
 vvv Br) eXeyov, fieXXocev /jlov KarayeXdv, coairep en) 
 
 E 0^9 aavrov, ovBev, dv ecrj dr)Be^ 7rai^ovra<^ Kal 
 
 / 
 
4 nAATHNOl III 3E 
 
 ryeXoovra^; ev tm ^iKaarrjpiw Boayayelv, el Se cnrou- 
 20 hdaovrai, tovt rjSr] OTry diro^rjaeTaL ahrfkov TrXrjv 
 vfJLLV TOL<; /jbdvreacv. 
 
 ET©. 'AXV tVft)? ovSev ecrrai,, w 1(0KpaT€<;, 
 TTpdy/jba, dXkd crv re Kara vovv dywvcel ttjv BUrjVy 
 olfiat Be Koi efxe Trjv i/juijv. 
 
 IV. Xfl. "^(TTiv Be Brj (Toi, (o ^vOv^pov, Ti<; rj 
 
 • I prosecute my BlKT) / (j)evyei<; aVTTjV T] BlQ)K€L<; ,* 
 father for man- -i-i-^y-^. a / 
 
 slaughter.' S. 'Is ET0. Al,COK(0. 
 
 it holy so to do?' , 
 
 E. 'Assuredly.' 2^l.l. LLVa; 
 
 5 ET©. I '^Ov Blcokcov av Bokco jxaiveaOai. 4 
 
 ^n. T/ Be ; ireTOfxevov nva BicoKecs ; 
 
 ET0. HoXkov ye Bet ireTeaOai, 09 ye rvy^drei 
 wv ev fjbdXa irpea^vTr}^. 
 
 Xn. Tt9 ovTOf; ; 
 10 ET©. 'O ifi6(; irarrip. 
 
 Sn. 'O cro9, (w l3eXriaTe ; 
 
 ET©. Udvv fjuev ovv. 
 
 "X^l. "EcTti/ Be tI to eyKkrjfia koX tlvo<^ rj Bikt) ; 
 
 ET0. ^ovov, CO ^ooKpaTe<;. 
 15 SO. ^UpdnXeif;' rj irov, (o ^v6v(f)pov, dyvoelrai 
 VTTO Twv TToWwv hrTT} TTOTe [o|C)^w9] e;^et9""[* ov yap 
 olfjiai ye rod e7rLTV')(pVT0<^ 6p6u}<; avro irpd^ai, dXkd 
 TToppo) irov rjBrj cro<^ia^ eKavvoyro'^. B 
 
 ET@. TToppo) jjLevTOL vi) Ala, m Xco/cpaTe<;. 
 20 Sn. "E(TTiv Be Brj Twv oiKeicov ra 6 reOvew^ viro 
 Tov GOV irarpo^ ; rj BrjXa Brj ; ov yap dv irov virep ye 
 dXXorplov eTre^rjeiaOa (f)6vov avTM. 
 
 ET©. TeXoLov, co ^(OKpaTe<;, ore otet rt Bca<f)e- 
 peiv, etre dXX6TpL0<; etre olfceio'^ 6 TeOvew^, aW' ov 
 
 + MSS. OTTT} iroTk 6pdu)S ^X"' 
 
IV 4E EY0Y*PnN. 5 
 
 TOVTO fjLovov BeLP (^vKcLTTetv, elre ev Slktj 6kt€lv€v 6 25 
 KT6Lva<; elre firj, kol el fxev iv Blkt), inv, el he 
 jxr), eTre^Levac, iavirep 6 Krelva^ o-vvecmo'^ aoi kol 
 
 C 6 ixorpajTe^o^ y. 'iaov yap to filacrixa yiyverai, eav 
 ^vvfj<; Tw TOiovTM ^vvecSco<i Kol fXTj d(f)oatoL<i aeavrov 
 re KOL eKelvov rfj Sl/ctj iire^Lcov. eirel b <ye diroOavwv 30 
 ireXdrrj^i t69 '^v e/ji6<^, koI C09 eyecopyov/juev ev rfj 
 Nafft), e6)]T€vev eKel irap' rj^lv. TrapoLvrjcra^ ovv 
 KOL 6pyia6e\<=; rcov olKerwv tlvl tcov y/juerepcov diro- 
 (T(f>dTTei avTov o ovv irarrjp avvSrjaa<i rov^; 7r6Sa<; 
 Kal ra9 ')(eipa<; avrov, Kara^oKwv eh rdcppov rivd, 35 
 ireixirei Sevpo dvhpa irevaofievov rov e^rjyrjTov o ri 
 
 D XP^^'^ TTOielv. ev Se rovrcp tcu ^/doz^w tov SeSe/Mvov * 
 (oXLycopet re kol rj/jieXeL gj? dvBpo(p6vov Kal ovSev ov 
 Trpdjfia, el Kal diroddvof oirep ovv Kal eiradev. 
 viro yap \Lfj,ov Kal p[yov<; Kal rcov Bea/xouv dno- 40 
 6v7JaKec, Trplv tov dyyeXov irapd tov e^TjyrjTov 
 d^LKecrdaL, TovraBrj ovv Kal ayavaKrel Te TraTtjp 
 Kal ol dXkoi OLKeloi, otl eyw virep tov dvSpo^ovov tw 
 TraTpl (f)6vov eTre^ep^op^aL, ovre d-TTOKTeivavTi, w<i 
 (paaLv eKelvoi, ovt el o tl jxaXiaTa direKTeivev, 45 
 dvSpo(p6vov ye 6vto<; tov oTrodavovTO'^, ov Betv (ppov- 
 
 E Ti^eLv virep tov tolovtov' dvocriov yap elvat to viov 
 TraTpl (j)6vov eire^-Levai' KaKO)<; elBoTe^, co ^coKpaTe<;, 
 TO Oelov co<; e%et tov oalnp Te irepu Kal tov dvoaiov. 
 
 So. Si) Be Brj 7rp6<; Aio?, w ^v6u(f)pov, ovtjiXo^o 
 aKpi^oo^ o'let eirlaTaaOai, irepl tcov Oelcov, oirrj eyei, 
 Kau TcGz^ oortcov Te Kal avodlcov, coaTe tovtcov ovtco 
 irpaxPevTwv, (W9 crv \eyei<;, ov (^o^el BtKa^o/jLevo^ 
 TO) iraTpi, 07ra)9 iJUf] av av dvocriov irpdyp^a Tvyxdvrj^ 
 irpaTTcov ; 55 
 
6 nAATHNOI IV 4E 
 
 ET0. OvSev yap dv fjLOV 6(f)6\o<; eir], do Xco- 
 Kpare^, ovhe t« av Bta<pepoL \ Kv6v<pp(ov rwv ttoWoou 5 
 avOpooTTCdv, el fxr) to, rotavra iravra aKpi^(jo<^ elheirjv. 
 
 V. %Vl. Wp' ovv fioLy (o Oavfidcne ^v6v(f)poi', 
 Kpdriarov iari /JLadyrfj crou yevecrdai koX 
 
 S. 'Then teach ^ ^ ,„ „ \ \if'^ ■» v 
 
 me holiness, that TTpO T7](; rypacpTj'^ T^9 TT^O? MeXrjTOV OVTa 
 I may baffle Me- ^ ^ "^ > \ ^ / r, 
 
 letus. What ii TUVTa TTpoicaKeiauai avTov Xeyovra, on, 
 
 piety ,/ V , - V /) / V 
 
 5 eycoye Kai ev ro) efJLirpocruev XP^^V '^^ 
 
 Oela irepl iroWov eTToiov/J-rjv elBevac, koX vvv eirethrj 
 fie iK€Lvo<^ avToayehLa^ovrd (prjai kol KaLvorofxovvra 
 irepl Twv Oelcov e^afxaprdveiv, jjLaOrjrrjf; Srj ykyova 
 
 '' (769 — Kb^ el fiev, (h MeXT^re, ^airjv dv, Ev6v(j)pova B 
 
 10 6/jio\oyeL<; <T0(f>6v elvai rd roiavra, koI op6oo<; vo/xi^eiv 
 Kol i/xe rjyov koI jirj StKa^ov el Se yu.?;, i/celvw tw 
 hihaaKdXw Xa^e Blkijv irporepov tj ifJiol, w? roi)? 
 Trpea^vrepov; Bcacpdelpovri, ifie re koX rov avrov 
 irarepa, efie fiev BtSda/covrt, eKelvov he vovOeTovvrl 
 
 15 re KaX KoXd^ovru — Kai dv fir) /not TreWrjrat /jLijSe d^ir) 
 rfjf; BiKTjf; rj dvr ifiov ypdcpijrai ere, avrd. ravra Xeyeiv 
 ev Tc5 BiKacTTTjpiq) a ir pov koXov fxrjv axnov. 
 
 ET@. Nat pud Ala, (o Xu)KpaTe<;, el dpa jie 
 eTTi'^eip^creLe ypd<^ea6ai, evpoip^ dv, <h^ olfiai, oirrj c 
 
 20 cadpas eanv, Kai t toXv dv rjfjilv irporepov irepl 
 eKelvov X0709 eyevero ev rS BcKaari^pLM r] irepl 
 
 efJLQV. 
 
 iSn. Kat eycti tol, S (})lXe eralpe, ravra yiyv(£)- 
 aK(ov /jia6r)r7]<=; eTrcdvpLoo yeveadau cr6<^, elBw^ on Kai 
 25 <i'Wo9 TTov n<i Kai 6 MeX^^To? ovro^ ere piev ovBe BoKet 
 opdv, epie Be outo)? 6^ea)9 Kai paBtco^; KaretBev, axrre 
 dae^ela'^ eypd'^^aro. vvv ovv 7rpo9 Ato9 Xeye piot, o 
 vvv Brj aa(^do<; elBkvai Bucr^vpi^oV ttolov n ro ev- 
 
VI 6a EYOY^PHN. 7 
 
 o^eySe? </)^9 elvai, koI to acreyQt? Kal irepl (j)6vov koX 
 D Tvepi Twv aWcov ; rj ou ravrov iarcv ev Trdarj irpa^et 30 
 . TO oaiov avT^ uvtS, kol to avocnov av tov fiev 
 oalov TravTot; evavTiov, avTO he avTa> ofiotov koI e'^ov 
 uiav Tiva IBiay KaTa ttjv ocnoTrjTa it civ ^ b rt irep av 
 fieWr) nvocTLov eivai ; 
 
 ET0. YidvTW<^ SrjTTOV, CO Scy/cptXTe?. 35 
 
 VI. Xfl. Ae7e Bij, tI ^t}? elvai to oaiov koI to 
 dvoaLov ; 
 
 -C^'^C^ A ' ' '/ ^ ^ and holiness?' E. 
 
 lliliy. Ae7&) TOLVVV, OTi to fieV {Def. i) 'To do 
 
 r/ / i r/ "^^ \ /s « « as I do now. 
 
 OGIOV eaTlV Oirep eyOO VVV TTOLCO, TM Zeus dealt thus 
 
 > P> ^ ,^ s , , ,v \ with his father.' 
 
 aOLKOVVT L 7] TT € p L (pOVOV^ 7] TTCpi S. 'These legends 5 
 
 f « \ V V n /I disbelieve. 
 
 lepoDV KXo7ra<; r) tl aWo toov tolov- 
 
 T(ov i^a/xapTdvovTL iire^ievai, idv re TraTrjp 
 
 wv Tvy')(^dv7j idv re firjTrjp idv T6 dWo<; octtl- 
 
 E aovv, TO Be firj iire^ievai dvoaiov' eVe/, co *■ 
 ^ooKpaTe(i, Oeacrai, &? fieja croi ipw TeKfirjpiov tov io 
 vojJiov GTt ovTco^i e%6f, o Kal dWoi^ rjSrj elirov, cti 
 
 *' Tavra op6a)<; av e'lrj ovtco ycyvofMeva, fir) iiTLTpeTretv 
 Tw dae/3ovvTi fi7)h civ odTicrovv Tvy^dvy oov' avToX 
 
 •^ yap 01 dvOpwirot Tvyy^avovcn vofii^ovTe'^ tov Ala twv 
 6ecov dpLGTov Kal SiKacoTaTov, Kal tovtov 6/jLo\oy overt 15 
 
 6 TOV avTov I iraTepa Btjaat, otl tov<s vi€l<; KaTeircvev 
 
 ^^ ovK iv Blkt), KaKelvov ye av tov avTOv iraTepa 
 
 eKTejxelv BC eTepa ToiavTa' ifiol Be ')(^a\e7raivovaLV, 
 
 OTL Tw TraTpl iire^ep^o/xac dBiKovvTi, Kal o^t&)9 
 
 f-avTol avTol<; tcl ivavTia Xeyovat, irepl re tccv Oewv 20 
 Kal Trepl efxov. 
 
 ^ Sn. 'Apd^'ye, w ^v6v(f)poVy tovt Icttlv, ovveKa 
 T7JV ypacprjv (jievyw, otl ra ToiavTa iTreiBdv tl^ irepl 
 Twv Bewv \eyr], Bva'^epco^i ttg)? aTToBi'^OfiaL ; Bib 8^7, 
 
8 nAATHNOI • VI 6a 
 
 . / , • V ' 
 
 25 a;? eoiKev, ^yaet tl^ /i€ e^afiapraveiV vvv ovv el kol 
 
 crol ravra ^vvSo/cel tc3 eu elBon irepl rSv roLothayv, 
 
 dvdryKrj S'^, (W? €olk6v, Kot Tjfuv ^vy^copetv. TL jdp B 
 
 "^ Kal ^rjao/jiev, ol <y€ avrol ofjLokoyovfjiev Trepl avrcov 
 
 jirjhev elhevai ; dWd fjioi elire 7rp6<; <f)i\lov, av &;? 
 
 30 dX7]doo<; Tjyel ravra ouTft)9 yeyovkvai ; 
 
 ET@. Kal ert ye rovrcov dav/Jbaaioorepa, w 
 X(OKpar€<;, d ol ttoWoI ovk Xaaariv. 
 
 Sn. Kat iToXefjiov dpa rjyet av etvai tc3 ovtl ev 
 TOi'^ 6eol<^ irpo^ dWrfKovs, Kal e')^6pa<; ye Becvd'; Kal 
 35 H'd')^a<; Kal dXXa roiavra iroWd, oca Xeyeral re vrro 
 rcov iTOLTjrwv, Kal virb rwv uyaOwv ypa^ecov rd re C 
 aXXa Ltpd yfilv KararreiroLKiXrai, Kal Brj Kal roi<; 
 /j,eydXoL<; Tiava6r)vaL0L<i 6 ireirXo^; fiearo'; rdov roLov- 
 rcov TTocKtXfJidrcjv dvdyerai el<; rrjv dKpoiroXuv ; ravra 
 40 dXir]6rj ^(pcofiev eivat, (6 ^v6v^pov ; 
 
 ET®. Mrj fiovov ye, w 'ZcoKpare<;' aXV oTrep 
 dpri elirov, Kal dXXa aoc iyoo iroXXd, edvirep ^ovXrj, 
 rrepl rwv Oelwv SirjyijaofiaL, a av dKovcov ev o2S' ore 
 * eKTrXayijaet. 
 
 VII. Sn. Ovk dv Oavfid^oi/iL dXXd ravra 
 Your definition /^^^ f^^'' elaadei^ IitI axoXrj^ hiT^ryrjaer 
 
 Uneifb wl't^h; (Tacpearepov elirelv. ov yap fie, w eralpe, D 
 tj ^°^^ ^°^^" ro TTporepov lfcavoo<; iBlBa^a^; epwrrjaavra 
 
 ro oaiop, o ri rror etrj, aXXa /jlol etire^;, ore rovro 
 rvyx^dvet oacov ov, o av vvv irouel^, ^ovov eire^Lwv 
 Tft) rrarpi. 
 
 ET@. Kat dXr]6rj ye eXeyov, (o ^WKpare^. 
 10 2)11. "IcTft)?. dXXd yap, to ^vOv^pov, Kal dXXa 
 TToXXd (f)fj(; elvai oaia. 
 
VIII 7 B EY0Y<l>PnN. 9 
 
 ET0. Kal 'yap iariv ocna. 
 
 SO. M.6fjLV7]o-ai, ovv, OTL ov TOVTo aot Bc€K€\ev6- 
 firjv, ev Tt 17 hvo fie SiSd^ac rcov ttoWwv oalwv, dX)C 
 '^eKelvo avTo to eI8o9, cb Trdvra rd oaia ocrtd eariv ; 15 
 E €(f)7]aOa ydp ttou fjna Ihea rd re dvoaia dvoaia elvat, 
 Kal rd oaua ocna' rj ov jULvrijbLovev€L<; ; 
 
 ET(H). "£70)76. 
 \/ Z4II. lavT7]v TOLvvv fi€ avTTjv oLoa^ov T-qv ioeav, 
 Tt9 TTore eariv, 'iva eh eKeivr^v diro^Xeirayv Kal XP^~ 20 
 /jLevQf; avrfj TrapaSeiy/jLari, fieu dv tolovtov fj, wv dv 
 rj (TV rj aXXo? Ti? irpdrrr), (pco oatov ecvac, b S dv firj 
 tolovtov, jir) (pco. •^/•J» 
 
 ET0. 'AX\' el ovTco ^ovXei, w X(OKpaTe<;, Kal 
 
 OVTO) (TOL ^pd<T(D. 25 
 
 v/ 2X2. 'AWa (jLrjv ^ovXofjLal ye. 
 
 '^ ET0. "Ecrrt ^oivvv to fiev rot? Oeol^ irpoa- 
 0tXe9 ooTLov, TO Se ixrj 7rpoa^i\e<; dvoaiov. 
 7 2n. I IIa7/taXft)9, w ^vOv<j)pov, Kal (io<i eyco e^rj- 
 
 Tovv diroKpLvaaOal ae, ovtco vvv dTreKplvco. el fievTOi 30 
 d\7jdco(;, TOVTO ovttol) olSa, dWd av SrjXov otl ei reKZu 
 a^eL<i Q)<; eaTLv aArjurj a Aeyec^;. 
 ET0. Haw jjbev ovv. 
 
 VIII. 2n. ^epe hr), eirLaKe'^cDiieOa tl \eyo- 
 /lev. TO fiev 6eo(bL\e<; re Kal 6 deo(f)LXrj(; 
 
 ., a f/ V SJv ZJ ^ V f S. 'But since 
 
 aVUpWirO^ 0<TLO<;, to Oe Ueop>LCre<; Kai you say that the 
 
 V , , , ,— V ^,, -. / gods differ among 
 
 UeO/JLLOrr)^ aV0ai0<;' ov TaVTOV O eaTiV, themselves, they 
 
 , V V > / \ f/ « ^^'^ ^°^® different 
 
 aXXa TO evaVTLCOTaTOV. to OCriOV to) things : the same - 
 
 ^ ' * thing will there- *' 
 
 aVOCTiO)' OVy OVTO)^ <eLp7]Tat> : fore be both holy 
 
 ' „ \ ■^ ^"*^ unholy. 
 
 ET©. Ovtco jxev ovv. 
 2X1. Kat ev ye ^alveTau elprja-dai. 
 B ET0. Ao/ccy, w ^wKpaTe<i [etprjTaL ydp]. 
 
10 nAATHNOI VIII 7E 
 
 lo Sn. OvKovv fcal on crracrLd^ovcnv ol Oeol, c3 
 Kv6v<ppov, KoX Bia<j)6povTai, dXX,7]\oL<; koI e')(6pa io-Tcv 
 iv avTOi<; 7rpo<? dWr]\ov<i, Kai tovto elpTjrai ; 
 ^ ET0. Eiprjrac yap. 
 
 Sn. "Et-^dpav Se Kal 6pyd<;, w apiare, rj irepl 
 15 Tivcov hLa<^opd TTOiel; whe he aKoiroo/jLev. ap' dv el St,a- 
 (l)epoLfie6a eyoo re kol av irepX apiOjiov, oirorepa TrXeio), 
 r) Trepl TovTcov htac^opd e')(6pov<i dv rjfjbd'^ iroiol /cal 
 opyi^eaOai dW^Xoif;, "^ iirl Xoyta/JLOV iXOoyre^i Trepl 
 ye Tcov ToiovTwv Ta')(v dv aTraWayetfiev ; C 
 
 20 ET©. Udvv ye. 
 
 50. OvKovv Kal Trepl tov ixel^ovo'^ Kai eXar- 
 Tovo<; el Siacf^epoLfieda, eVt to fierpelv eXdovre^; Ta')(v 
 iravaaifieO^ dv t?;? Bia(f)opd<; ; 
 ET0. "Kan ravra. 
 25 SO. Kal eTTL ye to laTavai eXOovre^y &)? iyMfiai, 
 Trepl TOV jBapvTepov re Kal Kov(f>OTepov hLaKpiOelfxev av; 
 ET©. rrco9 yap 01) ; 
 
 Sn. n.€pl tIvo^ Se Brj BLeve')(^OevTe(; Kal eVl Tiva 
 
 y Kplaiv 01) Bwiip^evoL dcpcKeaOai e')(6pol ye dv dXXr)XoL^ 
 
 30 elfjuev Kal opyi^oi/jbeOa ; tcr(o<; ov Trp6')(^eip6i' aol iaTiv, 
 
 dXX^ i/jLov \eyovTO<; aKOTrec, el TaS* earl to tc BUaiov D 
 
 Kal TO cihiKov Kal KaXov Kal ala')(^pov Kal ayaQov Kal 
 
 V KaKov' ^dpa ov TavTa ecTTLv, Trepl Sv Bieve')(6evTe<; Kal 
 
 ov Bwdfievoi eVl Uavrjv Kpiacv avTCOv eXOelv e')(6pol 
 
 35 (iXXriXoL<; ytyvofieOa, orav ytyvco/jLeOa, Kal eycio Kal av 
 
 Kal ol dXXot dvdpcoTTOL TTnvTe^ ; 
 
 y ET®. AXX' eaTtv avTT) t] Bca(j)opd, cS ScoAC/jare?, 
 
 Kol Trepl TOVTO)V. 
 
 Xn. "~^T/ Be ; ol Beol, w KvOixppov, ovk eiTrep tl 
 40 BLa<j)€povTat^id ravTa BLa<^epoLVT dv ; 
 
IX 8b EY0Y4>PnN. II 
 
 ET0. IIoW^ dvdyKrj. 
 E SO. Kal Twv BeOiV dpa, co yevvale EvOvcjipov, 
 aWot dWa BiKaca rjiyovvTat Kara rbv abv XoyoVy 
 Kal KaXd Kal alcr')(pd Kal d<ya6d Kal KaKa' ov yap 
 dv TTOV icFTacna^ov aWr)\oc<}, ei ixrj Trepl tovtcov 45 
 *^ Bi€(j)€povTO' '^'ydp ; 
 
 ET©. 'Op^co? Xeyei^. 
 
 Sn. OvKovv direp KaXd jjyovvrat eKaaroi Kal 
 dyadd Kal SiKaca, ravra Kal (piXovcnv, Ta Be evavTia 
 TOVTCov fjLcaovaiv ; 50 
 
 ETe. liavy ye. 
 
 Sn. Tai^ra he ye, cof; (tv (p^^, ol fiev SUaia 
 rjyovvrat, ol Be dBiKa' irepl d Kal dfKpLcr/SijrovvTef; ^ 
 8 araacd^ovo-L | re Kal TTokefiovaLV dXkrfkoL<i' up ovy^ 
 ovTox; ; 55 
 
 ET0. OuTO). 
 
 2,11. LavT apa, O)? eoLKev, /iLcreiTac viro roov 
 Oewv Kal ^iKelrai, Kal deo/jLLcrrj re Kal deocfycXi] ravr 
 av eiT], 
 
 ETe. "Eot/^ez/. 60 
 
 ^ 2,12. Kat oaia apa Kai avocna ra avra av eirj, co 
 l£ivdv^pov, TOVTO) TO) Xoyw. 
 
 ETe. KivSvvevec. \^^ ^ 
 
 f IX. Sn. OvK dpa b rjpo/uLTjv dTr eKfijjji o, w Oav- 
 fidaie, ov yap tovto ye rjpwrwv, b ^ .^^^ ^j^^ 
 
 ' '\>Nf/' \'/ pods will hate uji- 
 
 Tvyxavei ravrov ov oatov re Kai avo- ^^^IZoT'^^Z- 
 (TLOv, o B' dv 6eo(j)iXe<; y, Kal OeofjuKrh 'DoSbtEs: but 
 
 ^ ■> ^ < V ti '"C^'/l'i •^ thev will differ ^ 
 
 B eCTTLV, ft)9 eOLKeV. ware, O) bjVtlvCppOV, ^s to its unright- 5 
 \« «\ / ■\ ' i* '^^ eousness.' 
 
 (TV vvv 7roiet<i rov irarepa KoXa^cov, ovoev 
 OavfjLaarov, el rovro Bpwv ra> fiev Ad TrpoacpcXe^ 
 TTOLels, rat Be K.p6v(p Kal rw Ovpavw i'^dpov, Kal ra> 
 
 A. EU. 4 
 
12 nAATHNOZ IX 8b 
 
 fiev H^atcTTft) <J)lXop, rf/ Be "Hpa e')(9p6v' kol eo Tfc? 
 10 aXXo9 Toov 6ewv 6T€po<^ ^T^p(p hiai^eperai irepl avrov^ 
 
 KOL eKeLvoL^ Kara Tavrd. 
 
 ET(h). 'AXV 6l/jLai, CO XcoKpare^, irepl ye tovtov 
 
 tSv Oecov ovheva erepov erepco Bia^epeadat,, cJ? ov 
 
 Set SiKTjv SLSovat eKelvov, b? av dBLK(o<i rivd aTro- 
 15 KTeivrj. 
 
 ^O. T/ he; dvOpooiTcov, m ^v6v<j)pov, ijZrj Ttv6<^ 
 
 7JK0vaa<i dpL^La^rjTovvTO^, C09 top dBUco<i diroKTei- C 
 
 vavra i] oKKo aZiK(D<^ iroLovvra otlovv ov hel Blktjp 
 
 hihovai ; 
 20 ET0. Ovhev fiev ovv Travovrat ravra d/jLcpia^q- . 
 
 rovvTe<i kol dXXoOi kol ev rol<; SiKacrrrjpLOLf;. dSc- 
 
 Kovvre^ 'yap TrdfjUTToWa iravra ttoiovctl kol Xeyovcri 
 
 (pevyovTe'i rrjv Blktjv. 
 
 Xn. 'H Kol SfioXoyovaiv, <w ^vdixppov, dBiKelv, 
 25 /cal 6/jLo\oyovvTe<i o/jucoy ov Belv ^aal aSa<; BcBovai 
 
 BiKTjV ; 
 
 ET0, OvBa/jiCt)<i rovTO ye. ^ 
 
 20. OvK dpa irdv ye nrotovai kol \eyovcnv. 
 TOVTo yap olfiaL ov roX/Jiwcn Xeyecv ovS* dfKpia^rjTetv, 
 30 (o<; ov^lf etirep dBc/coval ye, Boreov BiK7]v' dX^C ol/nat D 
 ov (j)a<Ttv dBiKelv. rj yap ; 
 ET0. 'AX77^97 Xeyet^. 
 
 Sn. OvK a pa eKelvo ye djK^Lcr^rjTovaiv, tw? ov 
 
 rdv dBcKovvra Bet BtBovai Blktjv dXX^ eKelvo ia(o<; 
 
 / 35 dp(j)Lo-^7jTovcnv, TO Ti^ eartv 6 dBiKwv kol tI Bpwv 
 
 KaVTTore. 
 
 ET©. 'KXT^er] XeyeK;. 
 
 2^n. OvKovv avrd ye ravra Ka\ 01 6eo\ rrerrbv- 
 daaiVj eXrrep aracnd^ovcn Trcpl rcuv BiKalcov Ka\ 
 
X9B EY0Yc|>PnN. 13 
 
 dSiKcov, cJ? (76<i X0709, Kal ol fiev (jiaaiv aW aWov<i 40 
 ahiKuv, ol he ov (paatv ; iirel ifcelvo <y6 Btjttov, w 
 Oavfidcne, ovhel^ ovre Oewv ovre dvdpooTrodv ToKfia 
 E Xeyetv, cej? ou rw ye dSiKovvrt BoTeov Slktjv. 
 
 ET0. Nat, TovTo fiev akrjOe^^ Xejec^;, w ^coKpa- 
 re?, TO Ke(f}dXaiov. 45 
 
 So,. 'Aw' GKaarov ye ol/nai, w ^vdvc^pov, twv 
 
 Trpa^OevTcov dixc^La^rjTOvaiv ol diK^ia^rjTovvTe^, Kal 
 
 dvdpcoTTOL Kal Oeoi, ecrrep djicf^La^r/TOvatv Oeol' irpd^- 
 
 eu)<; TLVo^ Trept Bia(pep6/jLei'0L ol jxev ScKaico<; (paalv 
 
 *^ avrrjv TreTrpd-^^^Oat, ol Be dSiK(o<;' ^dp' ou^ ovrco ; 50 
 
 ET0. Udvv ye. 
 9 X. 2n. "10 L vvv, w (f)vXe ^vdv(f)poVy SlSa^ov | Kal 
 iae, Xva cro(bu)Tepo<; yevwiiat, tL croc reK- 
 
 , r , r , n y r . E. 'Not in the 
 
 in]piov eaTLV, ox; wavre'^ tfeoL rjyovvraL present case, as 
 eKeivov aoLKco<; Teuvavai, 09 av ovrevcov wiii, to the 
 
 _ judges.' 
 
 dvSpo<p6vo'^ yevofjbevo'^y ^vvSeOeh viro tov 5 
 
 heairoTov tov diroOavovTO^;^ (pOdaj) TeXevTiqaa^i hid to, 
 heafid, irplv tov ^vvSrjaavTa irapd twv i^TjyrjToov 
 Trepl avTov 7rv6ea0£U^ tl y^prj iroielv, Kal virep tov 
 TOLovTov hrj opOco^i e;^efc eTre^Levat Kal eTrLajcrmTeaOai 
 <^6vov TOV viov T(p iraTpi' X6i, Trepl tovtcov Tretpw tl 10 
 B fioi, aa(f)e<i evhei^aaOai, cJ? iTavTo<^ fidXXov 7rdvTe<; 
 Oeol ijyovvTac 6pO(o<; €'^€LV TavTrjv ttjv Trpd^tv' Kav 
 fioL lKava)<i evBel^rj, eyKcoficd^cov ere iirl aocj^ca ovBe- 
 TTore iravao/iai. 
 
 ET©, Aw tVft)? ovK oXlyov epyov ecrTiv, w 15 
 Sco/cpare?' eTret irdw ye cra^ft)? e'^otfit dv eTTiBel^ai 
 aoL. 
 
 SH. MavOdvCO' OTL (TOl BoKCO TWV BcKaaTcov 
 
 Bva/JLaOecTTepof; elvac' iirel eKelvoL<; ye ivBel^et BrjXov 
 
14 nAATHNOZ Xqb 
 
 20 oTL, 009 aScKa T6 icTTiv Kol ol Oeoi airavre'i Ta Toiavra 
 
 IMLaOVCTLV. 
 
 ET®. Haw 76 (Ta^co<;f (w XwKpare^, eavirep 
 (iKovooal ye jxov Xeyovro^. 
 
 XI. SO. 'Aw' aKovaovTaL, eavirep ev BoKf}<i C 
 Xeyeiv. roSe Si crov evevorjara a/jua \e- 
 
 S. (De/. 3) \ \ > \ «. > f/ 
 
 'Shall we say yOVTO<^j Ktti 7r/309 efiaVTOV (TKOTTCl) eU O 
 
 ness is what all rt LLaXiard lie ^v6vd)p(ov SiSaPeiev. w? 
 
 the gods love?' . \. . „ . . n' 
 
 5 E. 'As you OL ueoL aTTavre'i tov t^lovtov uavarov 
 
 please.' ,„ „^ ^ #« ,v" 
 
 7]yovvrac aoLKov elvac, n fiaXXov eyoo 
 /jLe/JbddrjKa Trap* ^v6v(j)povo<^, tl ttot earlv to oatov 
 re KoX TO dvocrtov ; 6eo/jLcae<} /lev yap rovro rb epyov, - 
 CO? eoLKev, elr) dv' \aWa yap ov tovto) ecj^avT] dprt 
 
 10 ojptcr/jLeva to oacov kol fir)' to yap 6eo/jiL(re<; ov kol 
 6eo<pL\e<i i(f)dvrj'^ cocrre tovtov d<j)Lr]/jLb ere, co l^vdv- 
 (f^pov' el ^ov\eo, irdvre'^ avrb rjyelaOciiv 6eo\ dSiKov D 
 Kal 7rdvre<i /juaovvTCOv. dX)C dpa rovro vvv eiravop- 
 Owfjbeda ev tg5 \6y(p, oj? fjuev dv iravre^ ol 6eol 
 
 15 fjLLaoocnv, dvoacov eanv, 8' dv (f)iXdoai,v, ocriov' b S' 
 dv ol fiev (piXcoatv, ol Be pacrwaLV, ovSerepa rj dfKpo- 
 repa; dp* ovrco /SovXeb rjiuv coplaOai vvv irepl rov 
 oalov Kal rov avoaiov ; 
 
 ET0. Tt yap KcoXvei, (o ^ooKpare<; ; 
 
 20 Xn. OvSev e/xe ye, w ^vOvtppov, dXXd av S?) rb 
 abv aKOTTet, el rovro vrroOefxevo^ ovrw paard fie 
 OLoa^ei^ o virea'^ov. 
 ' ET©. 'AXX' eycoye ^alrjv dv tovto elvai E 
 TO ocTLOv, o dv iravre^ ol 6eo\ (^iXSxTLV, Kal rb 
 
 25 evavriov, o dv rrdvre^ Oeol jMicraxTiv, dvocrtov. 
 
 SO. OvKovv eTnaKOTTw/juev av rovro, 00 Eu^i/- 
 (ppov, el KaXco<i Xeyerai, rj ewfiev Kal oiirco<i rjfioov re 
 
XII IOC EYOY^PHN. 15 
 
 avTwv d'iTohe')((oixe6a koX tcov dWcov, eav fiovov (fyfj 
 
 Ti? TL eX^LV OVTCO, ^VfyX(iL>pOVVT6<i ^X^''^ '* V CrfC67rT60l' 
 
 t/ \i<y€L 6 Xeycov ; 30 
 
 ET0, X/ceTrriov' ol/jLat /nivTOL eycoye tovto vvvl 
 Kokco^ XiyecrOai. 
 
 XII. Sn. Ta^', (oyaOe, ^eXriov elao/JLeOa. iv- 
 10 v6i](Tov jap I TO TOLovSe' dparo oaLov/ort g ,^^^ ^^jj, 
 
 f/ f y t ~\ ^ ^v ^ /I ^ "►^ nes*i is loved bv 
 
 oo-Lov eajLv, (ptkeorat viro twv Uewv, y the gods, ^^^a«^^ 
 
 r/ I -v '« r/ / > it is holy : 
 
 oTi (piXecTaL, ocTLov eartv ; 
 
 ET0. OvK olK o TL XeyeL^;, (v '^cofcpaTe<;. 5 
 
 XH. 'AXX' iyoo Tretpdaofjiai aa(pecn6pov ^pciaat. 
 Xeyofiiv tl (^epojxevov kol (f)epov, koI dyo/JLevov kol 
 dyov, Kol opwjxevov koI opcov' koi iravTa Tci ToiavTa 
 fxavOdveL'^ otl €Tepa dXXr/Xcov iaTL kol y €Tepa ; , 
 
 ET0. "^ycoye fJLOi SokS /navddvecv. 10 
 
 %fl. OvKOVV KOL (j^LXoV/JLevOV TL icTTLV, KOL TOVTOV 
 
 eTepov TO cf)LXovv ; 
 
 ET0. Uw^ydpov; 
 B ^O. Aiye Sr] fjLOC, iroTepov to (^epojjbevov, Slotl 
 (pipeTai, (f)6p6/ji€v6v iaTcv, 7) Bl dXXo tl; 15 
 
 ET@. OvK, dXXd Sta TOVTO. 
 
 2n. Kal TO dyofievov S77, Slotl dyeTai, koI to 
 opoofjievov, Blotl opaTai ; 
 
 ET@. Udvv ye. 
 
 z,\l. U vK ap a oioTL opcofievov ye eaTLv, OLa 20 
 TOVTO opaTaL, dXXa TOvvavTiov Siotl opaTaL, Sid 
 TovToopoo/jLevov' ovSe Slotl dyofievov ecrTLV, hid tovto 
 dyeTai, dXXd Slotl dyeTai, Bed tovto dyofxevov' ovBe 
 BioTL <pep6fjLevov, cfyepeTaL, dXXd Blotl (pepeTaL, (f)ep6- 
 fievov. dpa KaTdSrjXov, c5 l^vOvc^pov, o jSoi/Xofxai 25 
 C Xeyeiv ; ^ovXop^aL Be ToBe, otl, el tl y'lyveTaL rj Tt 
 
l6 nAATHNOZ XII lo c 
 
 7rd(T'^€i, ovx '^'^^ yi<yv6/jL€v6v iarc, yiyverai, aXX' ore 
 <yLyp6raL, fytyvo/jLevov iarcv ovB' on, Tracr^oj/ ia-rl, 
 Tracr^et, aXV otl Trda^et, 7ra<j^oz/ earlv rj ov 
 30 ^vy^cop62<; oi;T&)9 ; 
 
 ET0. "£70)76. 
 
 211. Ovfcovv Kol TO (j^iXovfievov rj yuyvofievov t/ 
 icTTLv rj 'irda')(ov rt vtto tov ; 
 
 EXe. Udvv ye. 
 35 Xn. Kat TOVTO dpa out(o<; e^ft, ooairep rd 
 irporepa' ou^ brt ^i\ov/jL6vov ecmv, (^CkelraL vtto wv 
 (j)tXetTat, dXX^ ore (fyiXelrai,, ^CkovpLevov ; 
 
 ET(H). 'KydyKT). 
 
 iSn. Tt S?} ow Xeyofxev irepl rod baiov, w ^v6v- D 
 40 (f)pov ; dWo TL ^Ckeliav viro 6ewv iravrwv, co<i 6 ao9 
 X6yo<; ; 
 
 ET©. Nat. 
 
 Zli. A/)a oia tovto, otl oaiov eartv, rj 01 aXXo ri; 
 
 ET©. OvK, dXXd Sta TOVTO. 
 45 Xlit. Alotc dpa oaiov iaTiv, (j)LXeiTat, dX)C ov^ 
 OTL (^iXeLTai, hid tovto oaiov Igtiv ; 
 
 ET©. '"^oiKev. 
 
 SO. AWa yLtei^ hyj hioTi ye (^iXelTai vtto 6eoov, 
 (j)LXov/jLev6v eaTi kol deocptXef; <t6 Oeo(f)LXe<;>. 
 50 ET©. lift)? ydp ov ; 
 
 2ri. OvK dpa TO 6eo(pLXe'!; oaiov eaTiv, w EJ^u- 
 <j)pov, ovBe TO oaiov 6eo(^iXe<;, (o<; <jv XeyeL<s, dXX 
 
 GTepOV TOVTO TOVTOV. 
 
 ET©. lift)? S/], w %wKpaTe^ ; E 
 
 55 2)11. ^'Otl opLoXoyovjiev to fxev oaiov Bid tovto 
 (f)iXeia6ai, otl oaiov eaTiv, dXX' ov Bioti (fyiXeiTai, 
 oaiov elvai' y ydp; 
 
XIII II c EY0Y<t>PnN. 17 
 
 ET@. Nal. 
 
 XIII. %Cl. To Be <y€ d€0(f)L\e^ ore (f>i\6LTac viro 
 Oeoiv, avTa> rovrw tw <f>i\ela6ai Oeo^LXe^ ^^^^ j^ ^^^^ 
 
 elvat, aX)C OV^ OTL 6eO(f>lX6<i, Bid TOVTO an^^aSdent ^of 
 
 ETe. 'AXve^Xiyec. ^-.^r^5 
 
 ^ Sn. 'AXV et ye ravrdv ^v, cJ cf^cXe %Toft.Zr 
 EvOvippov, TO 6eo<piXe<; koI to cxjlov, el ' ^^' 
 1 1 fiev Bta TO oaiov elvai \ e<^L\elTO to oatov, koI Bed to 
 6eocf)t\e'i euvai €(f)LXetT0 dv to deo(f)t\,e<;, el Be Bid to 
 (f)L\ecadai, viro decov to 6eo(pcXe<; 6eo<pc\e<; rjv, kol to 10 
 OGLov av Ota to cpiKeLcrvaL oatov rjv vvv be opa<^ otl 
 €i>avTL(o<; e^eTov, w? iravTairaaLV eTepw ovTe dWrjXcov. 
 TO fiev yap, OTC (piXetTai, icTTlv olov (piXeladaL' to S' 
 oTt ecTTLv olov (ptXelaOaL, Bed tovto (^iXelTai. kol 
 KtvBvvevei^, w ^v6v(f)pov, epQiToofievo^i to oatov, o t'l 15 
 TTOT eaTtv, Trjv fiev ovaiav fiot avTOv ov ^ovXeaOai 
 BijXcocrat, 7rd6o<^ Be Tt irepl avTOV Xiyetv, o Tt ire- 
 B TTOvOe TOVTO TO ocTiov, ^tXelaOai virb TrdvTcov Oecov' 
 o Tt Be ov, ovTro) etTre?. el ovv cfol (f)iXov, /x?; fie diro- 
 KpvyjrTj, dXXd irdXiv elire i^ ^PX'1'^> '^^ Trore 6v to 20 
 oatov ecTe (^tXeliat viro decov ecTe OTtBrj irdayet' ov 
 yap Trepl tovtov BtotaofxeOa' dXX! elire irpodvp.w'^, tl 
 
 eaTtv TO T€ oatov koI to dvoatov ; 
 
 ET@, 'AXX', (o Xa)KpaTe<;, ov/c e^^o) eycoye ottco? 
 act eXiTO) o vow. Treptep^eTat yap tto)? t^/jllv del dv 2$ 
 7rpo6(6/jLe6a, Kal ovfc eOeXet jxevetv ottov dv IBpvaa)- 
 fieda avTo. 
 
 ^12. ToO TjpieTepov Trpqyovov, cw ^vOv^pov, eotKev 
 C etvat AatBdXov ra vtto aov Xeyojuteva. koI el fiev 
 avTa iyco eXeyov Kal iTtOefJCTjv, Laco<; dv fie eTrecrArcuTrre?, 30 
 
l8 nAATHNOS XIII ii c 
 
 w? opa Kol ifjLol Kara rrjp iKelvov ^vyyevecav rd iv 
 T0?9 \6joL<; epya aTToBcSpdaKei, koi ovk idiXei fiiveLv 
 OTTOV av T^9 avra of} vvv be aai ^yap ai v7roueaeL<; 
 elaiv' dWov hrj tlvo^ Set aKWfJLfJbaro^. ov yap 
 
 35 iOeXovcTL crol fiiveiv, w? koI avrw croc Bok€l. 
 
 ET0. ^Fj/jloI Be BoKel a')(eh6v tl tov avTov crKoofJL- 
 fjLaro^;, w XcoKpare^, heladau rd Xeyo/jueva' to ydp 
 irepiievai tovtol<^ tovto kol /jltj pueveiv iv rw avrm 
 OVK iyco el/JLL 6 evridei^, dXkd crv jxoi hoK€l<;, 6 
 
 40 AaiSako^' eVet i/jLov ye euexa efxevev dv ravTa b 
 ovTco^;. 
 
 SO. J^LvSvvevo) dpa, c2 eratpe, eKeivov tov avSpo<; 
 BeivoTepo'; yeyovevat Trjv Te^vrjv toctovtw, ocrw 6 fxev 
 Ta avTov fiova eTTolei ov [xevovTa, eyoo Be Trpo? rot? 
 
 45 efiavTOV, ft$9 eoLKe, kol Ta dWorpta. Kal BrJTa tovto 
 pLOi Trj(; Te')(y7]<^ eaTL KOfi'^OTaTOV, otc d/ccov elfu o"o^09. 
 ifiovX6fM7]v ydp dv fxoL tov<; X6yov<; fiiveiv Kal 
 dKLV7]TQ)^ IBpvadai, fjudXXov rj 7rpo9 tj] AacBdXov E 
 ao(j)ia TO. TavTaXov '^prjfMaTa yevecrdat. Kal tovtcov 
 
 50 /jiev dBrjV' eTreuBrj Be fxoi BoKel<; crv Tpv^av, avT6<; <tol 
 ^VfjL7rpo6v/iirjcro/jLaL [Bet^aL] 07ra)9 dv fie BLBd^y<i Trepl 
 TOV ocTLOv Kal jXTj iTpqaTroKdfjf^r)^. IBe ydp el ovk 
 dvayKalov aoi BoKel BiKatov elvai irdv to oaiov. 
 ET©. "E/Aot76. 
 
 55 All, Ap ovv Kai irav to OiKaiov oaiov, r] to fjuev 
 OCTLOV irdv BiKatov, to Be \ BiKauov ov 7rdvoaiov,dXXd 12 
 TO fxev avTov ocriov, to Be tl /cal dXXo ; 
 
 ET0. Of^ €7rojxaL, do ^c6KpaTe<;, tol^; Xeyofxevotf;. 
 '2,Q>. Kal /jLr}v vewTepo^ ye (xov el ovK_eXdTTOVL rj 
 
 60 ocrw o-o(f)(6Tepo<i' dXX\ Xiyco, Tpv<j)a^ vtto ttXovtov 
 T/;9 cro<^ta9. dXX , w fiaKapLe, ^vvTeLve aavTov' Kal 
 
XIII I2D EY0Y<J>PnN. 19 
 
 ^ap ovZe '^aXeirov KaravoTJaac Xejco. Xejo) jap Stj 
 TO ivavTioy rj o ttoltjttj^; eTTolrjcrev 6 iroLrjaa^; 
 
 TtTJva he Tov 6^ ep^avra, Kal o? rdSe irdvT^ 
 e(f)VT€V(r€Vf 
 B OvK e'^eXet? elirelv' Xva jdp Beo<;, evOa Kal 
 
 alScof;. 65 
 
 iydo ovv TOVT(p hiacjiepofjiai tu> TroiTjrf}. elirco aoi oiry ; 
 
 ET0. riaz/i; 76. * ' 
 
 Sn. Ov BoKel /jLOL elvai, "va Seo?, evOa Koi 
 alB(6<;' TToWol yap /jloc hoKovcn koI voaov^ Kal 
 irevia^i Kal aXXa iroWd roLavra Behiore^; hehievai 70 
 fjLev, alhelcrdai he firjhev ravra a hehiacrtv. oij Kal 
 (Tol SoKel; 
 
 ET0. TIavv ye. 
 
 Xn. *AA,X' Lva ye aiBco<;, evOa Kal 8eo9 elvai' iirel 
 ecTTLv o(TTL<; alhoTj fjiev6<i n izpdyjxa Kal alaj/vvojievo^ 75 
 C od 7re(f)6^7]Tai re Kal hehoiKev dfia Bo^av irovrjpla'^ ; 
 
 ET@. AihoiKe fjuev ovv. 
 
 %n. OvK dp^ 6p9(X)<i ^X^^ Xeyeiv' tva ydp heo^, 
 evua Kai atoco'^ aXX Lva fjuev atoo)?, evua Kai oeo<;, ov 
 fxevTOi 'lva ye Seo?, TravTaxpv alhoo'^. eirl irXeov ydp 80 
 oljxaL 3eo9 alhov<^' /jLopcov ydp alh(io<f Beov";, wairep 
 dptOjiov TreptTTov, ooare ov-^ ivairep dptO/jLO'i, evOa Kal 
 irepLTTOv, Xva Be irepcTTov, evda Kal dptO/j-o^;. eirei 
 ydp TTOv vvv ye; 
 
 ET@. Tldvv ye, 85 
 
 Sn. To Tocovrov Tolvvv Kal eKel Xeycov ijpooTwv, 
 
 apa Lva oiKaiov, evua Kai oaiov, rj iva fxev ocnov, evua 
 
 D Kal BUaiov, lva Be BUatov, ov iravraxov oaiov' [xopiov 
 
 ydp TOV BiKatov to oaiov. ovtw (^wjiev rj dXXco<; aoi 
 
 BoKel; 90 
 
20 nAATHNOS XIII I2D 
 
 ET0. OvK, dXV ovTco. (f)aLV6C <ydp jxol 6pdoo<; 
 Xeyeiv. 
 
 XIV. 2n. "Opa 8rj TO fjLera rovro. el yap 
 
 fi€po<; TO oatov tov htKalov, Set hr) rjiJua^, 
 
 S.' What part?' ? „ ><- « \ »> / ,\ 
 
 E. (Z)c/;4)'That 0)9 eoLK€v, e^evp€LV TO iTOLov /JLepo<; av 
 
 concerned with „ «c> r~ \ tf >v f / 
 
 the care of the etTj TOV OLKaiOV TO OCTLOV. 6L fiev OVV (TV 
 
 gods.' , , « « p. . ^ r^ f 
 
 5 p,6 r)pcoTa<; Ti tcov vvv or), oiov ttolov /iiepo<; 
 
 iaTlv dpiOfiov TO dpTtov Kal TL<i wv Tv<y')(avei ovto'^ 6 
 dpiOfMo^, elirov dv on 09 dv /jurj aKaXr]vo<i y dW 
 laoaKeKrj'^' rj ov Bo/cel aoc ; 
 ET0. "EfjLOLye. 
 
 10 iSn. Hetpco Brj Kal crv i/ie ovtco StSd^ai, to E 
 TTolov /uLepo<; tov hiKaiov ocriov Igtiv, Iva Kal M.€Xr)Ta> 
 Xeyco/xev fjuijKeO^ »;m«*? dhiKelv jnySe dae,8€La<; ypdcpecr- 
 6ai, co<^ iKava)<; rjSr} Trapd crov fi€fMa67]K6Ta<i Ta re 
 evae^rj Kal oaia Kal Ta /jltj. 
 
 15 ET©. TovTo TOLvvv e/jLotye BoKel, oJ Sw- 
 KpaTe^, TO fxepo<^ tov BiKaiov elvai evae/Se*; re 
 Kal oaiov, TO irepl ttjv twv Oewv depaireiav' 
 TO he nrepl ttjv tcov dvdpooTTcov to Xolitov elvat 
 TOV hiKaiov fjLepo<;. 
 
 XV. Sn. Kal Ka\a)<; ye /mot, w Kvdv(f)pov, 
 
 (f)aivec Xeyetv' dXXd a/xiKpov \ tlvo<; ert 13 
 
 S. 'But what , 5. , , V N /3 / " 
 
 kind of care?" E. evoer}<i et/JLL Tijv yap uepaireiav ovtto) 
 
 'Such service as -^_^- ,, ■> f r, y / 
 
 a slave renders to gWiTTUL rjVTLVa OVO/Jia^ei';. OV yap TTOV 
 
 his master.' ^ "r'"^^ t / \ f v ^ "^ ^ 
 
 5 Xeyet^i ye, oiaiirep Kai ai irepi Ta aXXa 
 
 OepaireXai elaiv, ToiavTTjv Kal irepl 6eov<;. Xeyo[xev 
 yap TTOV — olov (pa/xev, Ittttov^; ov 7ra9 eiriaTaTaL 
 depaireveiv, dXX 6 Ittitlko';' y ydp ; 
 ET©. Udvv ye. 
 10 XH. 'H yap TTOV LTnrcKrj lttttcov Oepaireia. 
 
XV I3C EY0Y<i>PnN. 21 
 
 ET®. NaL 
 
 %fl. OvSe ye Kuva<i Tra? eiriaraTai OepaTrevecv, 
 aXX' 6 KwyjeriKO';. — 
 
 ET0. OuTco<;. 
 
 Sn. 'H yap TTOV Kvvrjyerifcrj kvvwv Oepaireia. 15 
 13 ETe. Nat. -^ 
 
 %n. *H he ^orfKaiLKi) j3owv. 
 
 ET0. Yidvv ye. 
 
 2,n. *H Be Sr] haioTi'i'^ re kol evae(3eia 6ewv, c3 
 Kv6v(f)pov ; ovTco \eyec<i ; 20 
 
 ET@. "Eycoye. 
 
 ZO. OvKovp Oeparreia ye iracra ravrbv StaTrpdr- 
 rerai ; olov roiovBe' eir dyaOco rivl eari koI ux^eXla 
 Tov Oepairevofjuevov, coairep opa<; Stj on ol 'iiTTroi virb 
 Trj<; L7r7n,/C7]<^ OepaTrevofievoi cocf)e\oifPTaL koX ^eXrlov^ 25 
 ylyvovTai' 77 ov BoKOvai croc; 
 
 ETe. "E/^otye. 
 
 Xn. Kal ol Kvve<i ye irov viro rrjf; KVpr]yeTiK7j<^ 
 Kol ol ySoe? VTTo Tr]<; BoyXaTCKtjf;, kol rdXXa iravra 
 C cocravTco^' t] eVl ^Xd^j] otei tov OepairevofJievov ttjv 30 
 Oepairelav elvat ; 
 
 ET0. Ma At' ovK. eycoye. 
 
 SH. 'AXV eV (jj(f)eXla; 
 
 ETa ncS? S' ov; 
 
 Xfl. 'H ovp Kal r) ooLOTjQS Oepaireia ovcra Oewv 35 
 wcfyeXla re ean 6ecov Kal /SeXriov^; tov<; 6eov<^ iroiel; 
 Kal (TV TovTO ^vy^copj](rat<i dv, co? eTreihdv tl octlov 
 7roL7J<^, ^eXriw rcvd tcop Oecov direpyd^et ; 
 
 ET0. Ma At" OVK eycoye. 
 
 ^fl. Ov8e yap iyco, w Ev6v(ppoVy ol/ial ae tovto 40 
 Xeyeiv' ttoXXov Kal Seco' dXXd tovtov Br) eveKa Kal 
 
22 nAATHNOS XV 13 D 
 
 avT) p6 fjbrjv , TLva TTore \e70t9 Trjv OepaTreiav twv 6ecov, D 
 ov'^ ri'yov[JLev6<; ere roiavrrjp Xeyetv. 
 
 ET0. Kat opOm 76, (w S(OKpaT€<;' ov yap 
 45 roiavrrjv Xiyco. 
 
 Xfl. Elet'* dWa TL(; Srj 6ecov Oepaireia etrj av rj 
 
 ET@. "^HfcTrep, co XcoKpare^;, ol SovXol tov<^ ^ea- 
 iTora^; Oepairevovaiv. 
 50 XXl. Maz^^ai/o)' V7r7]£6TLKi] Tt? az^, ce;? eoiKev, etrj 
 6eol<^. 
 
 ET@. Ilaz^u /xei^ oyi/. 
 
 XVI. Xn. "E;^ot9 az^ ou^» elrrelv, rj larpol^; 
 VTrrjpercKT] eh tlvo^ epyov cLTrepyacTLav 
 
 S. 'Whatgood- , ^ , , , „, , > 
 
 ly result does this TVy^aV€L OVaa VTTTjpeTLKI] ,* OVK 669 Vyieia^ 
 
 service produce?' ,, - — 
 
 E. (z?^/. 5) 'Hoii- oiei; 
 
 ness is to say and T-^rY\r\ vr' 
 
 5 do what is accep- ET(H). Ejy(Oy€. 
 
 table to the gods •^r^m/^/f «f \ 
 
 in prayer and sa- Zil. Li 06 ; 7] VaV7r7]yOL<; VTTTlpeTLKT] E 
 
 C'-'hce.' , , ,/ , / r , 
 
 et9 Tt^'09 epyov airepyaaiav VTTTjpeTCKij 
 ea-Tiv ; 
 
 ET@. ^rjXov on, w ^(lOKpare^iy eh ttXqiov. 
 10 Sn.. Kai 7; OLfcoBo/iioL<i ye ttov eh ol/CLa<; ; 
 ET0. NaL '^" 
 
 Xfi. EtVe Sr;, co apLare' rj Se ^eofc9 VTrrjperLKrj eh 
 TtVo9 epyov cLTrepyaaiav vTrrjperiicrj av eorj ; SfjXov yap 
 on av olaOa, eirei^rjirep ra ye Beta KoXXiaTa ye 0?)9 
 15 elhevai dvdpcoTrcDv. 
 
 ET0. Kat dXrjOrj ye Xeyco, co XctiKpaT€<;. 
 SXl. EtVe Srj 7rpo9 Ato9, t/ ttot' eanv eKelvo to 
 irdyKaXov epyov, o ol Oeol direpyd^ovraL rjjxlv virrjpe- 
 T<xt9 'x^pwjJLevoL; ''~~~~" 
 
 20 ET(h). rtoX-Xa Ka\ KaXd, co ^coKpare^;. 
 
XVII 14 c EY0Yct>PnN. 23 
 
 14 2n. Kal yap | ol crTparrj'yol, w cj^tXe' aXX' ofi(o<; 
 TO K€(f)aXaLov avrwv paSlco'^ av 6L7roL<;, on viKrjv iv tco 
 7ro\e/jL(p airepya^ovrai,' rj ov ; 
 
 ETO. Hft)? 3' 01/'; 
 
 %£l. IToXXa Se 7' olfiat koX KcCka Kal 01 25 
 yecopyoi' aW o/jico<; to Ke(^akaLov avTcov eaTiv Trj<; 
 d7r6pya(7ia<; rj ck rr;? 7^9 Tpo^rj. 
 
 ET©. Haw ye. 
 
 Sfl. T^ he hrj twv ttoWwv koI KaXcov a ol 6eo\ 
 airepya^ovTai; tL to Ke^aXaiov icTTt t^9 epya<JLa<^; 30 
 
 ET0. Kat oXlyov croo irpoTepov elirov, w 2ft)- 
 B /cpaTe<i, oTL Tfkelovo^; epyov ecTTlv dKpt^(io<; TrdvTa 
 Tavra ft)? e^et fiaOetV ToSe fievTOL ctol difkods Xeyco, 
 OTL edv jiev Ke'^apLC/jbeva Tt9 eiria-TijTaL rot? 
 6eoL<i Xeyeiv re Kal irpaTTeiv ev^^^o/Lcevo^; Te 35 
 Kal Ovwv, raOr' ecrrt tcl oaca, Kai aw^et to, 
 ToiavTa Tov<; Te tS/01'9 olkov<^ Kal to, kolvcL 
 T(dv TToXeoyv' TO. B evavTia twv Ke'X^apLafieveou 
 aae^rj, a Brj Kal dvaTpeTret airavTa Kal 
 diroWvcTLV. ' 40 
 
 XVII. 2n. 'H TToXv fjLoc Sid jSpa^VTepcov, co 
 ¥ivOv<f)poi>, el e^ovXou, elrre'; dv to 
 
 C K€<paXaC0V (t)V rjpCOTCOV. aXXa yap ov evaded my ques- 
 
 7rpouu/io<i /xe et otoa^ai, orjXo<; et. Kau 
 ydp vvv erreihrj eir avT(p rjaOa, dTreTpdirov' o et 5 
 d7reK£LV0}, LKavco<i dv rjSr) irapa aov ttjv oaiOTrjTa 
 i/jbe/jLad7]K7j. vvv 8e dvdyKr) yap tov epoovTa tS 
 epcofjievq) dKoXovOetVy otttj dv eKelvo<i vrrdyr)' tL Sr) 
 av XeyeL<; to oacov euvat Kai ttjv ocnoTrjTa; ov')(^l 
 iiTio-TyfjLTjv TLvd TOV Oveiv Te Kal ev'^eadai; 10 
 
 ET©. "E7ct)7e. 
 
24 nAATHNOS XVII 14 c 
 
 Sn. OvKOvv TO 6v€iv Bcopetadai iarc toU deol<^, 
 TO 5' ev^ecrOaL aiTelv Tov<i Oeov^' ; 
 
 ET0. Kal fiaXa, a> XoofcpaTe^s. 
 15 SI2. ^¥i7rL(TTrjjX7] apa ahijaecof; kol B6a6co<; Oeo?^ D 
 6(tl6t7]<; av eXr] e/c tovtov tov Xoyov. 
 
 ET0. Haw /caXctf?, co ^wKpare^;, ^vvrfKa^ 
 elirov. 
 
 212. 'Ei7rtdv/jL7jTrj<; yap eljxi, w (^i\e, Tp]<i cr?}? 
 
 20 (T0(f)ia<^ KaV 7rpoae)(^(o tov vovv avTy, waT6 ov '^^a/jual 
 
 TreaeiTai tl av eiTrrj^;. aXka /jlol Xe^ov, rt? avTT] rj 
 
 vTTTjpeala iaTl rot? Oeol^ ; alTelv t6 ^t}? avT0v<i koI 
 
 Zihovat €K€LV0L<; ; 
 
 ET0. "E7«7e. 
 
 XVIII. 2n. ^Ap' ovv ov TO 6p6co<; aWelv av 
 €17], Sv SeofieOa Trap' eKelvcov, TavTa 
 on your old defi- avToix; ahelv ; 
 
 nition 01 holiness 
 
 as the god-loved. gX®. "AXXaTi; 
 
 5 Sn. Kal av to hihovai opdco^, wv eKelvoi Tvy- E 
 '^dvovdiv heopbevoL irap r]pboov, TavTa iKeivoL<^ av 
 dvTtScopetadai ; ov yap ttov Teyvucov y av elr} 
 Scopocpopecv SiSovTa tco TavTa wv ovSev SecTaL 
 ET0. ^AXrjdrj X€y6L<;, co ^coKpaT6<;. 
 10 Xn. ^EfiTTopiKrj apa tl<; dv elr], co ^v6v(ppov, 
 Te'xyr] r] oaLOTT]^; Oeol^ Kal dvOp(07rot<; irap^ dXXrjXwv. 
 ETO. ^^/jbTTopiK'}], el ouTCt)? ySiov (TOL ovofid^etv. 
 ^n. 'Aw' ovBev ^Blov e/Jiotye, el firj Tvy-^dvei 
 dX7]9e<; ov. (f)pdaov Be fioL, Ti<^ rj wc^eXla tol<; 6eoZ<^ ■ 
 15 Tvyxdvei ovcra aTro twv Boopcov wv Trap* ijfiQiv Xa/ju/Sd- 
 vovaLv; d fiev yap BtBoacrtv, iravTU BrjXov' ovBev yap 
 TjfjLLV ecTTLV ayauov o tl \ av fit] eKecvot oaxriv a oe 15 
 Trap' ^fioov Xa/jL^dvovcnv, tI oo^eXovvTai ; rj toctovtov 
 
XIX I5C EYGY^PHN. 25 
 
 avTcov ir'KeoveKTOvfiev Kara rrjv efiiropiaVy ware 
 iravra rdyaOa^ Trap* avrcov Xafi/3dvofjL€P, eKelvoL 8e 20 
 irap rjfjLwv ovBev ; 
 
 ET0. 'AXV 0161, 00 ^COKpaT€<i, tot)? 660V<^ C0(f>6- 
 
 Xetadai dirb tovtcov d irap rjfLwv Xafi^dvovcrcv ; 
 
 ]Sn. 'AWa TL hi^TTOT dv elrj ravra, co ^vdvcj^pov, 
 rd irap rjpLOov Bwpa rot? 6eol<^; 25 
 
 ET0. T/ S' o'leu d\Xo y rif^y] re koX ^kpa kol 
 oirep iyoj dpn eXeyov, '^dpis ; 
 B ^12. ILe^apLCTfievov a^pa iariv, w l^v6v<f)pov, to 
 oaiov, dXX^ ov')(l cocpeXi/jLOv ovSe (plXov rot? 6eol<^ ; 
 
 ET0. Oljiai eycoye Trdvrcov ye /jbaXLara cj^iXov. 30 
 
 2iil. LovTO ap eariv av, cw9 €0lk6, to oatov, to 
 T0L<s 6eol<s <^lXov. 
 
 ET0. MdXcaTaye. 
 
 XIX. Sn. ®avp.da€i ovv Tavra Xiycov, idv crol 
 01 XoyoL (paivwvTai /jltj [jbevovTe<; dXkd j) a \ 
 ^ahi^ovT€(;, kol ijxe aLTcdcrec tov AaiSa- nothing to you. 
 Xov^ahi^ovTa^ avTov<; iroielv, avTO^ wv ttoXv ye 
 T€^VLKcoT€po<i TOV AaiSdXov KOL kvkXw TTepu6vTa<i 5 
 TTOLcov ; rj ovk alaOavei otl 6 X6yo<i rffilv TrepieXdcov 
 C irdXiv eh Tavrov tjkel; /jbe/jLvrjaat yap irov otl ev tm 
 irpoaOev to re oaiov koI to 6eo(f)LXe<i ov TavTov r]iiiv 
 i^dvr], dXX! erepa dXXijXcov' 7) ov fiefMvrjaac ; 
 
 ET0. "Kycoye. 10 
 
 Sn. NOz^ ovv OVK evvoel<;, otl to tol(; OeoU (f)[Xov 
 <f>7)<; ocTLOv elvau; tovto S' dXKo tl rj 6eo(})LXe<; yiy- 
 V6TaL ; rj ov ; 
 
 ET0. Yiavv ye. 
 
 Sn. OvKovv rj dpTL ov KaXco<; co/jLoXoyov/jiev, ^ ft 15 
 TOTe KaX(t)<;, vvv ovk 6p6(jo<^ TLdefieda. 
 
26 nAATHNOI EY0Yct>PnN. XIX 15 c 
 
 ET©. "EoLfcev. 
 
 XX. so. 'Ef dp)(7](} dpa rjjMv ttoXlv aKeirreov, 
 TL ecTTL TO oaLOV' CO? e<y(6, irplv av adOco, 
 
 -But tell me ^ ^ , , , o. / , v / 
 
 truly, what is eKcov GLvai ovK. aiTOoeiKiadW. dXKa LUrj D 
 
 Holiness?' E. , , , ^ ^ , r- / 
 
 'Another time, y^te aT L jXaCTr)^ , oXXa TTaVTL TpOTTW. TTpOCT- 
 
 oocrstcs. 
 
 5 ^X^^ '^^^ vovv TL jxaXiCTTa vvv eiire 
 
 TTjV oXrjOeiav. olaOa ^ydp, eoirep tc<s dWo<; dvOpwr 
 
 TTCOV, Kol OVK d(f)6TeOS 66, ScTTTep 6 TIp(0T6V^, TTplv 
 
 av et7r^9. el 'yap fjbrj fjSrjaOa aa^w'^ to re ocriov Kai 
 TO dvooTLoVy OVK eaTLV oTTftj? dv iTOTe iir6yeiprio-a<^ virep^ 
 
 lo dvSp6<; 07)t6<; dvSpa irpecr^vTrjv iraTepa hicoKadeiv 
 (f)6pov, dWd Kol TOv<; deov^i dv eB€iaa<i TrapaKLvBv- 
 veveiv, fJirj ovk opd(i)<; avTO 7roir]aoi<^, kol roi)? avOpco- 
 irov^ '^(J')(vv9rj<^. vvv he ev ol8a otl aa(f)co<; ocei elSevat 
 TO T€ ocriov Kol fJbYj' elire ovv, S ^eKmaTe Ev6v(f)pov, E 
 
 15 Koi firj dTroKpvylrr) o to avTo T^yec. 
 
 ET©. EtVau^fc? TOivvv, cu XwKpaTe<;' vvv <ydp 
 (TTrevSco TTOL, Kal jJbOL oopa dirLevat. 
 
 SXl. Ola TTOiet?, CO eTacpe' dir iXiruSof; jxe KaTa- 
 fiaXwv fieyd\r](; d'Trep')(eL, rjv eiyov^ co? irapd aov 
 
 20 fxa6(ov Ta re oaia Kal /jltj Kal ttj^ irpo^ yieXrjTOV 
 ypa(f)rj<; diraWd^ofjiai,, ivSeL^d/jLevo<; eKelvm otl ao(f)6<; 
 7]Srj Trap' Kvdvcppovofi \ Ta Oela yeyova Kal otl ovkctl i6 
 utt' dryvola<; ai^roo-^eSta^co ovBe KaivoTOfiw irepl avTa, 
 Kal 8^ Kal Tov dXXov filov otl d/jbecvov ^Laaoifirjv. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 EiJOucfipwv TJ irepl oa-Cov, ireipao-TiKos. So the title appears in 
 the Bodleian MS, except that ireipacrTiKos seems to have been added 
 by a later hand. Plato probably called the dialogue simply 'Evdu- 
 tppwv, in accordance with his frequent habit of naming his dialogues 
 after an interlocutor: e.g. Crito, Theaetetus, Protagoras, Phaedrus. 
 The words -^ irepl balov were added by the critic Thrasyhis, who 
 flourished about the Christian Era. Thrasylus classified the Pla- 
 tonic dialogues into dialogues of search (fijTT/ri/cot) and of exposition 
 {{/(prjyrjTiKoi): he subdivided the former into yvfxvaaTiKoL (including 
 fiaievTiKoi and TreipaaTLKol) and dycov LffriKoL (including iuoeLKTCKoi and 
 avaTpewTiKoi), while the latter or expository class fell into diosp-qTCKoi 
 (either (pvcrcKoi or XoyiKoi) and TrpaKTiKoi {tjOlkol or TroXirtKot). See 
 Grote's Plato Vol. i p. i6i. The other examples of peirastic or 
 'testing' dialogues were the Charmides, lo, and Meno: with the 
 last of these the Euthyphro has much in common : see Introduction 
 
 p. XXX. 
 
 The scene of the dialogue is in or near the porch of the King 
 Archon. For dramatic purposes, Plato seems to represent the 
 conversation as taking place soon after the interview with Theae- 
 tetus in the dialogue of that name: see Theaet. 210 D: vvv fieu 
 ovv diravTTjTiov /xol els ttjv tou jSaciXews (XTodv eirl ttjv Me\rp-ov 
 ypa(priv, tjv ,ue yiypairrai. On Euthyphro as a man see Introd. 
 p. xxii. 
 
 A. EU. 
 
28 NOTES ON I 2 A 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Socrates, happening to fall in with Euthyphro, relates to him 
 the circumstances of his prosecution by Meletus. 
 2 A 1. Tt v€«T6pov. Socrates had never figured in a law-court till 
 now, either as prosecutor or as defendant: see Apol. 17 D vvv k-^Co 
 wpQTov iirl dLKaffTTjpLOV dva^e^rjKa, ^rrj yeyouCbs ifSdofirjKOVTa. 
 The neuter comparative of vios (less frequently Kaivos) is preferred 
 to the positive, to express an objectionable novelty: Prot. 310 b /i-^ 
 TL V€U}Tepov dyykWeis; Hence veibrepov ti, veuTepifeiv, and peojre- 
 picTfjLos are used of revolutionary movements, on is the conjunction 
 quod Eng. t/iat : here however it retains more than it usually does 
 of its original pronominal use as ace. n. of ocrrts. See the editor's 
 Apol. App. II p. 123. Cron invariably writes on for both rel. (not 
 Tt) and conjunction. 
 
 2. Tas ev AvKcfu) — SiaTpi^ds. The Lyceum was one of the 
 three famous gymnasia outside the walls of Athens : the others were 
 the 'AKadrj/xeia (6 stades from the Dipylon or north-west gate : 
 Cic. de Fin. v i. i) and the KL'j'6cra/)7es (a little way N. E. from 
 the Lyceum, on the road to Al5peke). It was situated (see Milch- 
 hofer in Baumeister's Denkmaler l p. 182) on the right bank 
 of the Ilisus, near Diochares' gate, east of the city. Connected 
 with the gymnasium, which is said by Theopompus to have been 
 founded by Pisistratus, was a shrine of 'AwdWiov Ai5/ceios of very 
 early date (Plut. Theseus 27. 9). In later times it was famous as 
 the seat of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school. Socrates was 
 generally to be found in places of common resort, like gymnasia 
 and the market place : it is to the Lyceum that he betakes himself 
 after Agathon's banquet (Symp. 223 d) : and the Lyceum is also 
 the scene of the dialogues Lysis and Euthydemus. diarpi^etv and 
 diarpi^ai (originally simply of spending the time) suggest philoso- 
 phical conversation, as the most rational way of occupying one's 
 leisure: e.g. in Apol. 29 C i<f ^re pLrjKeTt ev ravry rrj ^rjT-qaet 
 diaTpi^eip fX7}bk (pi.Xo(ro(f)€'ii' : ibid. 37 C rds ifids dtarpi^ds Kai 
 Toi/s \6yovs. So axoXri has already in Greek come to be used for 
 a disputation and even for a 'philosophical school'. 
 
 3. T-qv TOW PacriXcws o-Todv. The porch of the King Archon 
 (arod /Saai'Xetos Ar. Eccles. 685) was the first porch in the dyopd on 
 your right as you approached the market place from the Ceramicus. 
 
I 2 A PJ.ATU'S EUTHVPHRO. 29 
 
 Pans. I 3. I TrpdoTT] de iariv ev de^iq. Ka\ov/xevr] aroa jSacrtXetos (se- 
 as you leave the Ceraaiicus). It was the duty of the King Archon 
 to maintain many of the religious duties that had originally belonged 
 to the Athenian King (compare the function of the AVjc SacroruDi 
 in the early Roman Republic) : among other religious offices, he 
 had charge of the mysteries, the kr\vaia and the torch-race: and 
 in accordance with the usual principle of Athenian law, he had 
 the presidency {ri'^ejxovia. dcKaaTTjpiov) of the Heliastic Court when 
 charges connected with his sphere of duties, impiety, for example, 
 were being heard (Gilbert Handbuch der Gr. Staatsalterthiimer I 
 p. 241). 
 
 4. Ktti <roi ye. ye does not go with Kal in the idiomatic sense 
 of Kal — 7e='yes, and', but with ov yap: cf. infra 2 B ou yap eKelvb 
 76 : 4 B 01) yap dv irov ye: 8 A oi) yap tovto ye, Schanz remarks 
 that Plato nearly always uses ye with ov yap. 
 
 8iKT]. diKT] is the general term for a case heard before an 
 Athenian law-court. There were two sorts of St/cat viz. the biKT] 
 idla (d7cbj' l8los) or diKTj proper, and the 8iKr) drj/j.ocria {dyihv 8r}fi6aios) 
 or ypacp-q. The first was a civil suit : the latter either a criminal or 
 a public process, in which the state (as represented by any Athenian 
 citizen in the full exercise of his rights) was prosecutor. An 
 accusation of (povos was a ypacprj : but Euthyphro here uses the more 
 general term, in order not to prejudge the nature of the case in 
 which Socrates might be concerned. In Socrates' careful distinction 
 between ypacprj and Si'/ctj in his reply Schanz sees a delicate sarcasm 
 on Euthyphro's vaunted accuracy in the use of names : see Crat. 
 396 D. 
 
 5. 6)(rir€p ejioi. The d'px'*'^ ^aaCkevs as public guardian of 
 religion presided in trials for (povos: for it was a 7'eligious duty to 
 wipe off the stain of bloodguiltiness : see 4 C Icyov yap to fxiacr/xa 
 yiyuerai., eav ^vvys ry TOiovTip ^vueidiJos Kal p.r] dcpoaiois aeavTW tc 
 Kal CKeivov rrj 8iKrj eire^iwv. 
 
 6. ovToi Si] — "Y^. 'No, Euthyphro, the Athenians do jiot'* etc. 
 76, following the emphatic 'Adrjualoi, should be taken with ovtol StJ. 
 So in Crat. 438 D ovtol drj diKaiov ye, cS "EuKpaTes. 
 
 « Ei50v<|)pov. B for the most part and T everywhere read 0; 
 Evdv(ppup throughout the dialogue^. Fritzsche compares similar 
 
 1 The Bodleian Ms of Plato is denoted by B ; T stands for the MS in the 
 library of St Mark's at Venice. These two are the best representatives of the 
 two families of Platonic mss. 
 
 5—2 
 
30 NOTES ON i 2 a 
 
 mistakes in the Laurentian MS of Sophocles e.g. Ajax 903 c3 raXai- 
 (j>pu}v: O. T. 1299 w tXtj/xiov. 
 B 8. tis ^oiK€ seems to shew that no interrogation is intended : 
 I have therefore removed the mark of interrogation placed by most 
 of the editors after yeypairraL. ere is clearly emphatic (as in line 
 ij): for which reason I print ypaiprjv cri tis, not ypa(pr)p ai tls. 
 Euthyphro, knowing Socrates' invariable awpayfiocrvuT], at once 
 leaps to the conclusion that he is the accused, and not the accuser. 
 
 ■yeYpaTTTai. y pdcpecr 6 at = to cause to be written down: ypdcpeiv 
 = to write, as in Theaetetus 142 D iypa\pd[ir]v tot' evdvs — 
 • VTropii>r)/j.aTa, vaTepov de — eypa(pou. Hence 7pd0e(T^at = ' to indict': 
 the name of the accused party being written down by the dpx'^t> or 
 his clerk: whereas ypdcpeiv = ^ to propose a motion' i.e. to write it 
 out oneself. Notice the two accusatives ypatpriv ypdtpecrdai ae : the 
 first is the accusative of the internal, the second of the external 
 object: Thompson Greek Syntax p. 66. yeypairraL alone would 
 have sufficed for the sense: but a certain rhetorical effect of surprise 
 and indignation is attained by repeating Socrates' ypaipr^v, at the 
 same time that the antithesis with bU-qv is thereby emphasized. 
 
 9. KaTa-YVcoo-ojAat. KaTaytyvwaKeiv is to see a weak point in 
 one: Apol. 25 a ttoXAtJi' 7^ /jlov KaTeyuujKas Svarvxiav: Phaed. ii6 
 C ov KaTayvu}(jop.ai ye aov oirep tGjv dWwv KaTayiyvcbaKOJ. ov ydp 
 irov is fcrand in one inferior MS, whence Stephanas read ou ydp 
 <rov ; but the omission of the genitive is accounted for by the 
 presence of cr6 in the next clause cbs (xi> erepov. Compare Thuc. vi 
 34. 8: eirepxovTat ydp rjimiv ws ovk dfivvovfievots, SiKa'iws KaT eyvw- 
 KOTes oTL avTovs ov fieTa AaKedaifiovicjp e(f)delpoixev. T here has 
 ws (TV ye eTepov. 
 
 1 1 . oXKa. <r€ dXXos. ' Interrogatio supcrvacanea est valde miran- 
 tis', says Wohlrab. aWos is used after erf poi' for the sake of variety. 
 So in Aristotle Ethic. Nic. ix 4. 1166*^ 7 eT^pwv pikv iiridvp-ova-Lv 
 ctXXa 8e j3o6\oPTai. Here perhaps the jingle is intended to suggest 
 Euthyphro's peculiar tricks of language : see Crat. 396 D and 
 Introd. p. xxiii. 
 
 14. ov8* avTos Trdvv ti yiyvuxrKO) = "ne ipse quidem satis 
 novi". On ov Trdvv see Riddell's Digest of Platonic Idioms § 139. 
 It means 'not quite' i.e. generally 'not exactly', though some- 
 times 'not at all' by the usual Greek vieiosis or ^/xcpaais. It is 
 however held by some scholars that ov trdvv occasionally = irdi>v ov 
 even without assuming meiosis: see Classical Review for 1887 p. 
 
I 2B PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 31 
 
 71. The addition of the adverbial ri makes the expression vaguer and 
 less emphatic. So Phaed. 57 A ouSets wdw tl eTix^P'-^t^i- ravvv 
 'Adrjva^e: Rep. IV 419 A edu ris ere (py fXTj wdw tl evbaifxovas ttoicIu 
 TOiJTOvs Tovs dudpas. 
 
 16. M€Xt]TOV. Apol. 23 E €K TOTUTOOV KOl MAtJTOS flOL iiriOeTo 
 
 /cat "Ai'VTos Kal Kvkwv. Meletus was the protagonist in the prosecu- 
 tion of Socrates: his crvv-qyopoL were Anytus and Lyco. Hence 
 when it is desired to allude to the prosecution briefly, Meletus 
 alone is mentioned: so in Apol. 19 B foil, and Theaet. 210 D tt)v 
 M 6X77x0 y ypa(pr]v, tjp fie yeypairraL. On Meletus generally see 
 the editor's Introduction to the Apology p. xxvi. Notice the 
 indifference which Socrates contrives to express by means of y^os 
 Tts and (bs iycpfxaL. 
 
 17. Twv 8t]jj.wv IIiTOevs. The deme UltOos was in the tribe 
 Cecropis. tCov St^/xwi' is a partitive genitive ; for nLT9evs = iK IliTdov. 
 The old reading was top drj/j-ov (ace. of reference) : Cobet Novae 
 Lectiones p. 671 rightly remarks "corrige t^op 8ri/j.o}p^\ and so B 
 and T. See Holden on Plutarch Themist. I § i iraTpbt yap tjv 
 "NeoKXeovs — ^peapplov tQp di^fMcop. Schanz remarks that this 
 gen. is not found on Inscriptions, and that in manuscripts it 
 genei^ally precedes the name of the deme. 
 
 v<3 €'x,€iv = meminisse : ip vy §x^ip = in animo habere i.q. to 
 intend. Contrast Apol. 20 B Tipa avTolp iv v^ ^X^^s eircaTdTtjp 
 Xa^eTp ; with Rep. yi 490 A i^yetTo 5' avTtp, ei P'^ ^X^ts, Trp^oTOP 
 fih dXrjdeia kt\. There is here inferior MS authority for e^ vy. 
 
 18. otov T€Tav6Tpix.ct by the usual attraction for tolovtop oi6s 
 eaTL TCTavodpi^. Cf. Soph. 237 C xct^^'roi' rjpov Kal ax^^^v d-jreip 
 o'lo} ye efxol iraPTdiracnp diropov = tolo{)t(^ olbs ye iydb elfii. Kiihner's 
 Griechische Grammatik ii p. 916. TeTavodpi^ implies long rigid 
 hair )( curls. Astrologers used to maintain that a man born under 
 the sign Virgo would be TeTUPodpt^ Xa/)07r6s Xei;/c6xpws aTrais 
 aib-qp-iav (Sext. Emp. adv. Math, v 95). For long hair as affected 
 by anyone who hoKel eipai tl see Aristoph. Nub. 545 Kayu} /xh 
 TotovTos dpr\p wp TroiT^TTjs ov KOfiQ. In Rep. IV 425 B Plato cites 
 short hair {Kovpai) as a mark of the well-conducted youth. Just so 
 the Ephors annually commanded the Spartans KeipeadaL top 
 fxvaTaKa Kal ireideadaL Toh p6/j.ols (Plut. Cleom. 9, on the authority 
 of Aristotle), although it was only the moustache that the Spartans 
 fell foul of: long hair in general was considered Dorian and 
 aristocratic, ov wdpv evyheLOP alludes to Meletus' youth: so infra 
 
32 NOTES ON I 2 B 
 
 in 2 c he is the tell-tale little boy complaining to his mother. It is 
 clear also from Apol. 25 D and 26 e that Meletus was young. 
 i-rriypviros )( c7ri(r£/xos=' somewhat hook-nosed': the word occurs 
 again Phaedr. 253 D in a description of the noble steed, just as the 
 horses in the Panathenaic frieze are eirlypviroL. In Rep. v 474 D 
 ^aaiXcKds is said to be a polite euphemism for ypviros, like iirixapis 
 for (TifMs. Here the 5^ seems to imply that Meletus made up for 
 deficiency in beard by amplitude of nose. On the whole, Meletus 
 gives us the impression of a Roman-nosed and angular young man : 
 Socrates was flat-nosed and rotund. 
 
 20. ovK €Vvo(5 : ewocD = vc^ ^x^ ' I remember ' : Polit. 296 a 
 ovK evvoQ) vvv 7' oOrws. dXXd, Srj marks the return after the 
 digression. The particle is also idiomatically used = ' at enim' to 
 introduce the objection of an adversary: see Stallbaum on Rep. 11 
 365 D. 
 2 c 22. TJvTiva; A previous speaker's question is invariably repeated 
 by the indirect interrogative. Schanz (following one inferior MS) 
 emends Laches 195 A where a question is repeated with Trpos tL', 
 
 to 7r/)6s O TL', 
 
 ^jJioiYC 80K61: without Cos, as in Crito 50 B 17 5o^'ei cot olov re 
 and Phaed. 108 D 6 /3tos p-oi. doKet 6 e/xos. In such cases inferior 
 MSS frequently insert ws. 
 
 23. ov <j)aii\ov 'no slight thing': (pavXou is a more genei^al 
 term than dyevi'rjs, which denotes lack of courage )( yevvdoas. Supra 
 iyvwKivai. (novisse) is 'to know': as ytyvihaKeiv (noscere) ' to perceive' 
 or 'learn'. 
 
 24. Tiva rpoirov 01 vcoi 8La<J)0€£povTai. For the terms of the 
 indictment of Socrates see Apol. 24 B lojKpaTT] ^-qcrlv (sc. 6 MeX-^ros) 
 dbiKelv TOi^s re v^ovs diatpd eipovra Kal 6fovi o&s ?} 7r6Xis vop-l^ei 
 OX) voixi^ovTa €T(pa 5e daifidvia Kaipd. 
 
 26. Kiv8vv€V€i <ro<f>6s tis etvai : Kivdvvevei = 8oKe2 as often in 
 Plato: the word must originally have been used only where the 
 predicate involved something evil = Ktv5vu6s ean with inf. as in 
 Lysias Kardi ' Ay opdrov § 27 <roi 5^ — klpSwos tjv ^aaapiadijvai. 
 <To^6s ('clever') is sarcastic, as often e.g. in Crito 51 A 97 ovtojs ct 
 (ro<f>6s; The word (like 4>povTi(XTi]s) was almost a nickname of 
 Socrates (see Apol. 18 b): here it suggests the sophists, as in Meno 
 75 C tCjv ao^Cbv — Koi ipiariKiov kuI dywpiaTiKQv. Meletus is 6 Kard 
 I'^ovi cro(p6s : see infra on line 32. 
 
 Kttl Tqv €|X'»iv dp.a0iav — 8(.a<}>0€CpovTos. dixaOrjs is regularly 
 
I 2 D PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 33 
 
 used as the opposite of (TO(f>os. Notice the implication that vice is 
 due to ignorance {aiiadia). This doctrine is frequently regarded 
 as peculiar to Socrates : but it is embedded in the Greek language. 
 Take for example the words aixadrjs d-rraiSevTOi dyvib/j.ojf. Primarily 
 these words denoted a want of intellectual cultivation : but in 
 practice they are often used of deficient moral culture : dixadr,^ 
 (see Verrall on Medea 224) = 'boorish' 'unfeeling': d7roi5ei;Tos is 
 'rude' and dyvwixuv 'unkind'. An untutored intellect (from the 
 Greek point of view) implies moral delinquency : since in the 
 flourishing period of Greek life intellect and will are not discrimi- 
 nated. The same point of view comes out in Plato's theory of 
 education (Rep. vi — vii) : true education awakens ewiaTriiiri, and 
 does not implant opdr] 56^a : and iwiaT'qiJ.r] means the regeneration 
 {irepiaytjyr]) of the entire man, moral as well as intellectual. As to 
 the syntax, note ifxriv { — i/xou) with diacpdeipovTos. 
 
 28. «s "irpos (JLT^xepa irpos rr[v iroXiv. Had Plato chosen to 
 make the simile an identification, he would have omitted the second 
 irpds as Cobet requires. See on Crito 46 c: "If it is wished to 
 bring the objects compared into the closest possible union, uxrirep 
 (cjs, Kaddwep) with the preposition is placed first, and the preposition 
 itself written only once: Rep. VIII 545 e cus irpos iraTdas ij/xds 
 Trai^oijaas Kal ipecrxv^ovaas". Where uawep with the preposition 
 precedes^ Cobet (Variae Lectiones p. 165 foil.) would in every case 
 delete the second preposition : but he defies the MSS. Otherwise 
 both prepositions are inserted : and in case the object compared 
 comes first neither preposition may be omitted e.g. irpbs rrjv x6\iv 
 ws irpos /MT]Tepa. Schanz emends two curious cases in which the 
 
 Jirsf preposition is omitted with preceding uawep, viz. Phaed. 67 D 
 eK\vop.h-r)v Cixxirep decr/xoiv (leg. €K decr/xuii' with T) and Tim. 79 A 
 peTv ioairep av\i2vos (leg. 5ia aiiXdvos) 5id rov crwyuaros. Archer- 
 Hind retains uiairep av\(2vos. The motherhood of the state is the 
 leading motive of the Crito (see the editor's introduction to that 
 dialogue): Socrates spurned the temptation to break her laws as 
 parricide. On this view rested during the most flourishing period 
 the entire fabric of Greek civic life. It is worthy of remark that the 
 Cretans called their country firjTpis (Rep. IX 575 d). 
 
 29. Twv iroXiTiKcSv is neuter, and goes with apx^crdai. 
 
 30. opOws 7ap €o-Ti. ecTTt of course is not equivalent to ^xet, 2 D 
 for 6p0Qs (which would in English be printed with marks of quo- 
 tation) = to opdQs dpx^'^dai. Schanz compares (inter alia) Symp. 
 
 /^^ 
 
 A^ 
 
 OF THB vT^ 
 
34 NOTES ON i 2 d 
 
 183 D /caXcDs ywez' ir parrbixevov KoKbv, alaxp^^ 5^ alaxp^v. 
 aiaxP^^ /^-^ oDj' ecrrt irovqpif re Kai iTci'7]pQ)s xop'^fc^fl'j /caXdJs 5e 
 
 31. €Trip,e\r,6T]vaL : true to his name MAtjtos: so infra 3 A 
 eTTifieXTjOels. Cf. Apol. 25 C (where see note), MeXTjre — afx^Xeiav 
 — lxe[xe\7]K€v and 26 B MeXTjrw tovtojv ovtc fieya ovre fxiKpov ttw- 
 TTore €fx^\r)(T€v. In Aristoph. Ran. 990 — 991 there is perhaps a 
 similar pun on Meletus' name, kcxv^otcs fxa/xinaKvOoL, /xeXiTTiSai 
 (v. I. /xeXrjTLdaL) KadrjVTO'. cf. ibid. 1302. For similar plays upon 
 words in Plato and the principle which they involve see on Crito 
 46c and especially 47 B {tQ eTrKTrdTTj Kal eiratovTi). It should 
 be remarked that iiri/jLeXeTadat was almost a technical term of the 
 Socratic ethics (Crito 51 a): Socrates himself habitually professed 
 eTTifieXeTadaL dperijs. 
 
 32. -yewpYov d7a6ov. Herewith begins the agricultural meta- 
 phor, continued in eKKadaipei and in ras QXaa-ras: compare Rep. 
 IX 589 B Tov ■iroXvK€(pd\ov BpifxfxaTos i TrifieX-rjaeTai (Sairep yeojpyos, 
 TOL fxkv TfpLepa Tpi(pb}v Kal Ttdaaevojv, to, 5^ aypia airoKwKvwv (pveadai. 
 The yewpyds is the (TO(pb$ Kara (purd (Theaet. 167 b) : so Meletus 
 poses as 6 /card v^ovs (ro<p6s. As to the subject matter, note in 
 the first place the implication that the politician should make the 
 citizens morally better : in the best period of Greece politics had ah 
 ethical purpose^ see Aristotle Etli. Nic. I 10. 1099** 30 ff. avrr] 5^ 
 (sc. 7] ttoKltlk'^) irXeiffTTjv eirifieXeiav Troieirat rod iroiovs rivas Kal 
 dyadoi/s tovs TroXiras iroirjiraL Kal irpaKTLKoi>% twv KaXQy. In fact 
 ethics and politics were not separated in Plato's time, since t6 
 vbixipLov — To b'iKaLov — the law of the state is the law of morality for 
 the man. (Introduction to Crito, p. xiii.) Only from this point 
 of view can we see the true unity of the Republic, which, though 
 it is called TroXire/a, is almost as much ethical as political. It was 
 only when man was forcibly torn from the state by the loss of civic 
 freedom that Aristotle wrote an ethical treatise as distinct from 
 politics. In the second place, observe the paramount importance 
 here assigned to the care of the young : sound education seemed to 
 Plato the only possible salvation for a state: ev rpacpivruv Kal 
 rpeipoixevwv tQv viwv iravra tj/jlIp /car opdbv irXeT (Legg. VII 813 d). 
 
 33. Kal 8t] Kai introduces the application as in Crito 47 c 
 ovKovu Kal rdXXa — oiirajs— /cat 8r] Kal Trepl tQv diKaiiop ktX. i'crwj 
 infra = ' doubtless ' (sarcastic) . 
 
 3 A 34. ii|Jids €KKa9a£p€i. Socrates as a noxious weed, or per- 
 
I 3 A PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 35 
 
 haps as some pestilent monster preying on the young plants: cf. 
 Arist. Hist. An. IX 625** 33 ra 5^ yivbixeva O-qpla iv tois afxrjixcn 
 Kai \v/xxiy6/J.€va to, Kijpla al /xev xpT/crrat fxeXiTrai i KKad aipovcriv . 
 Hirschig's cKKadapel is unnecessary, and in fact less forcible and 
 accurate. 
 
 35. T0V3 Twv veW Tas pXacrras 8iacj>0€LpovTas. There is 
 much irony in this clause, expressed by placing it after tlie verb 
 eKKadaipei, and adding the words ws cp-qaiv. Fritzsche well compares 
 Apol. 34 A : evprjaere — Tavras ifxol ^orjdeiv irolfjiovs rw 5ta- 
 (pdeipovTi, Tip KUKa ipya^o/xev (p Toiis otKeiovs avruiv, ti's (paai. 
 M^XrjTos Kal "AwTos. For the general idea Schanz compares Legg. 
 VI 765 E wai'Tos yap St) <pVTOv 17 TrpdoTT] ^Xdarrj /caXws bpp.rjdei(xct 
 irpos aperrjp ttjs avTou (f>v<xewi KvpiiordTi] reXos iwLdeTvaL to irpoa- 
 (popou and ibid. VII 8130 quoted above on 2 D. The words twu 
 vewv are bracketed by Schanz, following Gomperz, chiefly on the 
 ground that ras j3\acrras = rous veov^ (with the additional agricultural 
 idea) can alone form a correct antithesis to tCov irpea^vTepwv: but I 
 think the words are right, for it is quite in Plato's style in passing 
 from the simile to the application to choose words applicable to 
 both (ras /SXacrras to agriculture, and tlov viiov to the young : cf. 
 note on Crito 47 b) : moreover raj /SAaoras tQv vk(jiv is more than 
 Toi>s veQV% or rds ^XdaTas alone since it means the development or 
 ' sprouting ' of the young. The idea contained in the four words is 
 afterwards expanded in the Phaedrus: where philosophic "Epws is 
 viewed as that which fosters the sprouting of the wings of the soul 
 {ttjv ^Xda-TH]!/ Tov irTepov) : Phaedr. 246 C foil. For a similar juxta- 
 position of the comparison and the thing compared, see Ale. I 
 134 D — E els TO delov Kal Xa/xir pbv 6pS>vT€s, — els to ddeov koI (Xko- 
 Teivov ^XeirovTes. [Liebhold in the Wochenschrift fur Klassische 
 Philologie 1888 no. 40 p. 1226 also retains rwy vecju, regarding it as 
 an echo of the words tovs veovs in the indictment : but he can 
 hardly be right in changing ras /SXacrras to roi)s /SeArttrroi;?.] 
 
 36. ^irciTtt ji,€Td TOtJTo. Not exactly a case of the <jxiI^^ ^k- 
 irapaWrjXov. 'iireiTa corresponds to TrpcoTov /j.4p (^veLTa and elTa are 
 more common than ^weLTa d^ and etra 5e') as ' in the second place ' 
 to 'in the first place': while /j.eTa touto = fxeTd to -tj/j-ds eKKada'tpeLu. 
 Compare Aristoph. Ran. 1026 elTa didd^as Il^paas fieTa tovt'' 
 €iri6u/j.elv i^edida^a ktX. 
 
 39. dp|a|Jieva) so. MeXTjroj: rco dp^a/.ievcx} would make the 
 statement general. 
 
36 NOTES ON ii 3 a 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Introduction is here continued. Euthyphro is indignant 
 that Socrates should be accused of heterodoxy and insult cast upon 
 the profession of the /xaz/rts to which both belonged. 
 
 2. oppa>8(5 is a very strong word, suggesting the physical results 
 of excessive fear, 
 
 drexvcGs ^dp |Ji.ot 8ok€i. dTex»'ws = 'literally', 'absolutely' is 
 used to intensify a statement, especially a simile or (as here) a 
 proverb : it is opposed to cx'^^^v ti, ^/x^paxv (with relatives only) 
 or ws ^TTos eiireiv, which modifies a universal affirmative or negative. 
 Distinguish dr^x^f^^ = ' inartistically ' : the English word ' simply ' 
 has both senses. Cf. Apol. 17 d and note. 
 
 3. dc|>' 'Eo-Tias ap\6(rQai. All offerings began and ended with 
 a libation to Hestia. In the economy of Greece, both political and 
 religious, Hestia was the central divinity; she is the heart of the 
 House and of the State. As a Goddess, she does not appear till 
 Hesiod and the Homeric hymns, where she figures as the first-born 
 daughter of Cronus and Rhea (Hes. Theog. 454) : she is simply 
 the personification of the Hearth. Every irdXts, being regarded as 
 a family in accordance with the usual Greek view, had a kolp:^ 
 earia, on wliich holy fire was always kept burning : it was situated 
 in the TrpvTavelov (Pind. Nem. XI i ttol 'Peas, d re TrpvTaveia 
 XiXoyx^^ 'Ea-Ti'a), which for that reason was the central point 
 without which no ttoXls could exist. Therefore the proverb d0' 
 'Earias apxecTdaL means to begin with the central or K^piov or 
 fundamental point: Ar. Vesp. 845 — 846 IVa d0' 'Ecrrias dpx^- 
 fjLevos eiTLTpi-^oi tlvo.. Euthyphro implies that Socrates is the 
 corner-stone of Athens. Plato claims exactly the same honour for 
 his master : as the ^rue earia of Athens he too should be supported 
 in the Prytaneum (Apol. Ch. xxvi) : cf. Gorg. 521 D dt/xat /ner' 
 oXiyuv 'Kdrjvalixjv 'iva /x-^ diru fiSvos iirix^ipelu ry ios dXtjdws iroXiTiKij 
 rix^rj Kal Trpdrreiy to, TroXtrt/cd fidvos tCov vvv. But Euthyphro 
 resents the accusation of Socrates because he feels himself attacked 
 through him : Socrates is to him a ixdvTis, and fxavriKifj he regards as 
 the safety of the State. See Introd. p. xxi. 
 
 4. KaKovp^yeiv tt^v irdXiv. KaKOvpyetv is opposed to vXelcrTcvv 
 Kal fxeylaTuv dyadcov airios — yevijaeTai. Notice the implication that 
 
II 3 B PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 37 
 
 evil treatment makes a man worse: KUKovpye^v = KUKOf iroieiu (as in 
 Rep. I 335 E foil.): this is an essentially Greek view, well illustrated 
 by the transition of meaning in irov-qpbs and fioxGripb$ from 'afflic- 
 ted' to 'depraved': see the editor's note on Crito 47 E where 
 allusion is made to Simonides Frag. 5. 10 — 13, avbpa 5' ovk ^ari fx-q 
 01) KaKov efj.fx.evai, 6v dfiaxo-vos avficpopa KadeXr]. The converse view, 
 that prosperity means goodness, is implied in the usual equivocation 
 on eS irpaTTeiv — to 'do well' and 'fare well': see Aristotle Eth. 
 Nic. I 1098^ 20. The principle on which this view rests is found 
 in Hom. Od. XVIII 136 — 137 to?os yap poos ecTlv eTnxdoulcjv dvdpu- 
 ir<j)v oXov er' rifnap dyrjai iraTrjp dvdpCjv re dei2v re. 
 
 5. Kai [101 Xiyi. Kai before Imperatives = 'pray ': Apol. 24 C 
 KaL fxoL oevpo ciV^ = agedum die mihi. 
 
 Ti Kai TTOLouvrd (ri. Kai suggests that Socrates cannot possibly 
 have done anything to corrupt the youth. See on ri yap Kai 
 (prfffOfiev in 6 B. 
 
 7. aroira, us outw y (XKOvo-ai. The charge is droTrov, because 3 P. 
 gods should make men, not men gods, ye is placed after the 
 emphatic ovtco, and belongs strictly speaking to ws. So Lysis 
 216 A eP ye, ^(prj 6 Meve^epos, uis ye ovrcjcrl dKovaai. ovTCt) is 
 idiomatically used for * at first sight ', ' on the first hearing ', and 
 
 the like. So Crat. 397 A ei dpa ■rjfjui' eirifiapTvprjaeL avrd rd opofxara 
 fiTj irdvv dirb rod avTOfidrov outojs eKaara Kelcrdai. For cIjj with 
 inf. in this sense (as in ws ^ttos elireip) see Goodwin, Moods and 
 Tenses, p. 207. 
 
 8. iroiif]Ti]v elvat 0€wv. It is worth while to notice the gradual 
 development of the metaphor from the mint, kulpos rather than 
 veos is used of new coinage: cf. Ar. Ran. 720 es re rdpxo.'iov 
 vofXKTfia Kai TO K a IP OP xp'-'^'-'^^- Presently in dpxo-i-ovs ov popA^opra 
 the metaphor comes into sight : for pofxi^eiv and its derivatives 
 mean not only to ' believe in ' or ' worship ', but also ' to use as 
 current coin'. See Ar. Nub. 247 — 249 (a passage precisely similar 
 to this) iroiovs Oeoiis ofxe? av; irpLirrop yap deol Tjfuu vofiicrfx^ oxjk iari. 
 T(^ yap ofxpvr' ; ?) aidapeoiaip, wcnrep ev ^v^aPTii^ ; In the reply of 
 Euthyphro the metaphor is explicit: Co% oZp KaiPOTOfxovvros aov 
 irepl TOL Beta ktK. 
 
 10. TovTwv avTcuv ?v€Ka, (i's <}>T]o-iv. The precision of tovtwv 
 avTCip eveKa (summing up ws Katvovs — vop.l^oPTa) followed emphati- 
 cally by ws (prjcnv (echoing the (pr]ai with which the sentence begins) 
 insinuates that Meletus was not actuated solely by a zeal for the 
 
38 NOTES ON ii 3 b 
 
 national faith. In the indictment against Socrates (for which see 
 above on 1 c) it is clear that the religious accusation was introduced 
 only to give a foothold to the graver charge of corrupting the youth: 
 i.e. the religious charge was ancillary to the social and political. 
 At the same time it should be remembered that owing to the 
 constitution of the ancient state heterodoxy was equivalent to 
 treason. In Apol. 23 e — 24 A a personal motive for the prosecu- 
 tion is assigned : Me'XT^roj /xot eiredeTO kol "Avvtos koL Avkcjv, 
 MAt^tos fx^v virep t(2v iroiriTuiv dxO ofxevos, "Autos Oe vir^p tCou 
 drj/Miovpywy Kal twu iroXiTiKui^, AvKUiP be virkp t(2v pyjTopojw. 
 
 ir. |iav9avw on 81) a-v to 8ai|idviov — yCyvea-Qai. It is barely 
 possible that fxavdavw is intended to suggest /jAvtis: Euthyphro (as 
 appears in Cratylus 396 d) was addicted to the etymological pun. 
 6tl 8ri is 'because forsooth', cf. 9 B fiavdavu)' on ('because') cfol 
 doKiZ ktX. Socrates regarded his Saifjioviov as a species of ftai'Ti/c?; — a 
 divine sign (aTjfxe^oi') or voice {(pu^prj), vouchsafed to him as a proof 
 of the divine care : see the editor's Apology pp. xxvii and 88. Me 
 certainly did not look upon it as a new divinity: but it is clear from 
 Apol. 31 I) [de'iov Tt Kal 5ai/j.6vLov — o 8r] Kal ev t-q ypacp-^ eTriKiofKp- 
 8uv MAtjtos eypaxf/aro) that it was so misrepresented by Meletus, 
 wilfully, if we may trust the sarcasm of ort §77 and infra ws odu 
 KaivoToiJiovvTo^. <ravT<^ is written in preference to aol, because = 
 aol avT(Z i.e. *to you alone': avros often = solus. Socrates held 
 that he was almost if not quite the sole possessor of a ' divine 
 voice ' (Rep. VI 496 C 1) yap irov tlvl dWcp rj fxrjdevt twv ifiirpoadev 
 y^yove). 
 
 12. €Kao-TOT€ is *on each occasion': the voice did not speak al- 
 ways, but only as occasion arose — forbidding, not encouraging: 
 Cic. Div. I § 122 divinum quiddam — cui semper paruerit, nunquam 
 impellenti, saefc (not semper) revocanti. Notice that yiyveaOai is 
 "the technical expression for the appearance of Socrates' daifxoviop^^ 
 (Schanz): see on Crito 46 B. 
 
 13. KaivoTojJLOuvTOS. Ncw coinage is apt to be inferior to old 
 (Ar. Ran. 717 ff.) and Kaiuorofie'iv in Plato (who employs the word 
 only as a metaphor) always denotes a change for the worse, like 
 Kife'tv of revolutionary change. 
 
 14. a>s 8iaPaXu)V Sij: 5?/ is ' therefore'. dia^aWetv was a regular 
 term in Athenian law for the opposite of a fair and honourable 
 accusation [Karriyopelv): cf. Thuc. Ill 42 eH /x^u elireiu ovk dv -qyetrai 
 Trepl Tov fxrj koXov SvvaaOai, ev 5k diaftaXwu eKirXrj^ai dv ktX. 
 
11 3 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 39 
 
 15. elScis oTt evSicipoXa— TToXXovs: since the TroXXot, for whom 
 riato had no great respect (ot 76 iroWoi, us eiros eiirelu, ov8h 
 aiffdavovraL Prot. 317 a), judge by the canons of opdij bo^a and not 
 eiri(TTr}iJ.r), in which they do not partake. Witness (among the 
 ancients) Anaxagoras, Socrates and Aristotle : each of whom was 
 condemned for impiety. 
 
 16. Kttl ejAov "yap toi : /cat (also) goes with ejnov : rot is 'let me 3 ^ 
 tell you'. Observe how Euthyphro recognises in Socrates a kindretl 
 spirit: "we are both /jAvreLS (see infra tj/jlTv iraai. rols tolovtoi.s) — 
 
 iiie they laugh at, you they accuse — in both cases envy is their 
 motive". The Athenians were right in laughing at Euthyphro, but 
 Socrates was a far more serious antagonist — more serious indeed 
 than he himself knew. His teaching contained the germs of ethical 
 and political doctrine destined to contribute to the downfall of 
 Greek civic life, while it at the same time paved the way for some- 
 thing higher. See Apol. p. xxviii. 
 
 18. KaTa-yeXwcriv «s [Jiaivo|A€vov. As if the fiavris were 
 fiaviKos: for the word jxaivo^uvov naturally suggests uavris: see 
 Phaedr. 244 C : tw iraKaiQv ol to. ouo/aara Tidefiei'ot. ovk aiVxpov 
 ■fjyovvTO ov8e oueidos /xaviap. ov yap oV rfj KaWiaTTj Texvy, jj to jxeWov 
 KpiveraL, avTo tovto rovuofJiaefMirXeKouTes /j.aPLKTjv eKaXecxav. — 
 ot 5e vvv direipoKoXus to rav eire/x^dWovTes fiavTiKTjp eKoXecrau. 
 In the same passage Plato recognises four varieties of serviceable 
 madness whereof two are fxavTCKT] ivdeos and fxavTiKiq 1) tQv kp-cppo- 
 viop (working through signs and omens). Euthyphro's variety was 
 tJ twi' efjL(pp6vu)v. 
 
 KaiTot = ' quanquam ' 'and yet' followed by dXX' o/jlus as in 
 Phaed. 68 E (quoted by Schanz) KairoL <pap.ev ye dovvarov eluai, 
 dXX' ofxuis kt\. 
 
 20. TOis ToiovTois, i.e. rots /ndureaL. The words at the same 
 time express the grounds of the envy. 
 
 dXX'— Uvat. Notice the threefold occurrence of dXXct in three 
 lines : in the first and last case it forms the natural adversative to 
 the negatives : in the second it has the effect of a spirited exhor- 
 tation. 
 
 21. ofjtoore livat. A Homeric phrase (II. XIII 337 o/j-oa^ ^Xde 
 fjdxv) meaning ' to come to close quarters ', ' grapple with '. ofxos 
 in Homer = 6 avros : so that o/xoae^is ravrov, shewing the same 
 suffix as in eKela-e, aWoae, iroTepwcre, erepwae etc., a suffix confined 
 for the most part to pronominal 'stems, except in the Homeric kvk- 
 
40 NOTES ON II 3 c 
 
 Xocre (II. IV 212) and v-^poae (II. X 461). Kiihner's Griechische 
 Grammatik I p. 731, Anm. 5. Plato employs the phrase as a 
 metaphor not unfrequently, e.g. Euthyd. 294 D bfibcre ^r-qv to?s 
 epcoTrjfxacnp, cf. Phaedo 95 B OfirjpiKws ('as Homer's heroes do') 
 6771)5 iovTts. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 In this chapter Socrates is careful to point out the difference 
 between himself and Euthyphro. Euthypliro the Athenians laugh 
 at : Socrates they prosecute, because the latter proselytises, while the 
 former is content with merely displaying his cleverness. 
 
 1. (3 <})i\€ Ev0v'<}>pov, aXXd. More emphasis is thrown on aXKa 
 by placing the vocative first. Schanz compares the position of the 
 vocative before an imperative followed by M e.g. Phileb. 48 D c5 
 Il/jcurapxe, Treipu) de avrb tovto TpLXjj Te/xveiv. 
 
 TO [i€v KaTa"y€Xao-0T]vai. The antithetical clause is to be under- 
 stood as ' but to be accused is '. In 3 D — E infra the antithesis is fully 
 expressed: ei ineu odu, 6 pvv 5t] ^Xeyov, fieXXoicv fiov KarayeXav ktX., 
 ei 5^ airovdaaovTaL kt\. For fieu with no corresponding de 
 clause cf. Apol. 21 D iXoyi^opmjv on tovtov fxev toG avd pojirov 
 iyo: (X0(p(J)T€p6s elpa: ibid. 17 B and note. 
 
 When the ignorant laugh at the wise, the wise may retaliate 
 with laughter less ridiculous than theirs, says Plato (Rep. vii 517 li): 
 for the ignorant come short in matters of far graver moment than 
 the philosopher (Theaet. 175 c foil.). 
 
 2. ovSev irpd-yixa is idiomatic for 'nothing', 'a matter of no 
 importance': so in 3 E [ovdkv eVrai irpciy/xa 'will come to nothing'), 
 and not rarely in Plato. 
 
 4. ScLvov: 'clever' with the secondary notion of an 'uncanny, 
 unsettling tendency '. 
 
 5. (ji-q (i€VTOi SiSao-KaXiKov ttjs avTov (ro<|>ias. See infra on 
 3 D iyu} 8^ ^o/SoOyuat /xrj ktX. 
 
 •2D 7' TOiovTovs sc. ao(poC^s Trjv avrov aocplav. toioutos is frequently 
 used to avoid the repetition of an adjective : see on Apol. 26 A tu)i> 
 ToiouTiov Kal aKovalojv . So erepos tolovtos often = 'just such another' 
 Euthyd. 298 D — E, Gorg. 493 B. 
 
 OvfJlOVVTai sc. TOVTif}. 
 
 €Kt' owv <|>66va> — £1't€ 81 dWo Ti. ovv has the effect of 
 
Ill 3 D PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 41 
 
 'perhaps': cf. Soph. O. T. 1049 ^'■''^' o"^" ^^' o-lP^v etre KavOdd^ 
 claiSibv. Akin is the use of ovu after relatives as in oiroaocrouu, ovo'' 
 
 OTTWdTlOVV. 
 
 No doubt some Athenians may have been envious of the prose- 
 lytising beivbs: but others were indignant on political grounds (5i' 
 aXXo Ti), because such teaching seemed to weaken the authority 
 of law, by promoting inquiry into its basis. See the speech of 
 Cleon in Thuc. ill 37. 4 ol /xev yap tQp re vbfxwv aoc/xbrepoL 
 ^ovXovTai (Paiveadat. — Kal CK rod tolovtov to. ttoXXo. <T(pd\\ova l rots 
 TToXets. Socrates himself did not call in question the authority of 
 the laws ; for he defined to dtKaiov as to po/xi/xov (see Introduction 
 to Crito p. xiii) : but some of his associates, as for example 
 Alcibiades, were ready to submit the laws and constitution of their 
 country to the test of reason. See Apol. Ch. xxi. 
 
 9. TOVTOv ovv tripi. to^tov is tov dcdaaKoKLKov ttjs cro<pias elvai. 
 Euthyphro is not the man to cast his pearls before swine. Note 
 the emphatic e/ie. 
 
 10. ov Trdvv= 'not exactly': see on 2 B above. 
 
 11. o-TraVlov a-iavrov irape'x.ctv : 'shew yourself rarely' not 
 'make yourself scarce'. For this use of airduios cf. Legg. viii 841 A 
 cTTraj'iy ydp aS roJ roioi^ro; 5t' aiax^W XP'^f^^^^L ktX. 
 
 13. v-iro <}>iXav0p«'jrias : whereas the attitude of Euthyphro is 
 that of a ixtadvdpwiros. 
 
 14. lKKex.vji.€v«s iravrl avSpl Xe'-yciv. Apol. 33 A eyCo 8edi8da- 
 icaXos (different from didaa-KaXiKos supra) /i^v ovdevbs TrwTror' 
 kyevb[xrjv' el Be ti's fjt.ov XeyovTos Kal to, e fiavTov tt paTTOVT os eiri- 
 Ovfiei aKoveiv, CLTe yeuTepos etre irpea^vTepos, oidepl irwiroTe icpdourjaa, 
 ovde xPVf^^'-'''^ P-^v Xa/j-jS dpcop diaXiyofiai, fxrj Xa/a^duui/ de ov, 
 dXX' 6fJ.o'L(j)s Kal TrXovaiif Kal TevtjTL Trape'xw e/navTbu ipojTciv ktX. 
 Socrates believed himself commissioned by God to preach to all 
 who would listen. Apol. Chapters vi and xvii. 
 
 15. ov [Jiovov dv€v p.i<r6ov: for Aristophanes misrepresents So- 
 crates in Nub. 98 oStoc di8dcrKovcr\ dpyvpiov t}v tis 8id(^ ktX. 
 
 irpoo-TiBcis (sc. /xicrdby) is not here used absolutely, as Wohlrab 
 and Schanz suppose. Josef Wagner (Die Athetese des Dialogs Eu- 
 thyphron, Briinn 1882 — 3, p. 26) shews but little sense of humour 
 when in arguing against the authenticity of the dialogue he asks, 
 apropos of this passage — "where could Socrates have got the 
 money to pay his audience, when in the Apology he can command 
 only a single mina?" 
 
42 NOTES ON III 3 d 
 
 1 6. cl' Tis (JLOv eQeXoi ciKoutiv. So B : T has e^eXet. Either is 
 right: but the reading of B gives the natural protasis to the 
 apodosis in irpoffTideis av rjdeajs (i.q. Trpocmdei-qv dp 7]5iu}s — the 
 participle being preferred in order to form a balance with ov ixbvov 
 avev fiLffOov). 
 
 17. vuv St^ = apriois is written by Schanz and Cobet vvvbr) : see on 
 Apol. p,7 c. The reference is to C above t6 ^lkv k ar ay eXaaOrjp at 
 iVws ovdep wpayfxa. Note that if Plato had omitted vvv S-Zj he would 
 probably have written \eyoo: cf. Apol. 21 A birep Xiyui (alluding to 
 20 e). 
 
 3 E 18. oi)8€vav €11] dT]8e's. arjdes is used as in Apol. 41 B duTiTrapa- 
 ^dWovTL TO. i/xavTou Trddr) irpos rd eKtlvuv — ov k dv drjSes eirj. 
 
 19. el 8^ oTTovSdo-ovTai. So T, rightly: B has <nrov8d^ovTas, 
 by an obvious assimilation to tral^ovTas koI yeXQvras. Note the 
 contrast between the optative el /xeWoiev and the future indicative 
 ei 8e (XTrovddaoi'TaL : the latter alternative is regarded as the more 
 likely. el with the future is common in threats and grave 
 forebodings. For the middle form (nrovbdaovrac see Rutherford's 
 New Phrynichus p. 138: "All verbs expressing the exercise of the 
 senses or denoting any functional state or process have the in- 
 flexions of the middle voice either throughout or in the future 
 tense". airov5diOi} does not exactly fall under this rule, but it is 
 a word in which the physical concomitants of enthusiasm (haste 
 and the like) were "primarily uppermost" (ibid. p. 409). 
 
 20. tout' riSr]. Note the emphatic position of toOto. This 
 use of ??'5?7 )( ovTTO} or ovkctl as the case may be is elaborately 
 illustrated by Cope on Arist. Rhet. A i 1354'' 7 (p. 13 of Cope's 
 edition) : it is like doimmy or iam in Lucretius. The rule may be 
 stated thus. In two or more cases where a certain predicate applies 
 to all or any of the others after the first, ribi] may be used in 
 applying the predicate: ovTro; is then rightly used in negativing the 
 predicate in the first case : similarly, oiWrt is used in staling that a 
 predicate which has been applied to one or more previous cases 
 docs not apply to one or more that follow. 
 
 OTTT) dTroPri<r£Tat. Naber would road oiroi, thus changing the 
 meaning, which is *^^hoiv it will turn out', not 'in what it will end'. 
 Schanz compares Apol. 19 a toZto p.ev 'irw oirri t(^ det^ <pi\ov and 
 Lysis 206 A SeSiws to /j.e\\ov ottt/ dTro^rjaeTai. 
 
 d8T]Xov irXijv vip.iv Tois [idvT€(riv. So in Apol. 42 A ddrjXov Travrl 
 vXrip i] T(^ Oe(^. In the emphatic vpuv Socrates refuses to recognize 
 
IV 3 E PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 43 
 
 Eutbyphro as a brother ii6.vti%\ contrast Euthyphro's remark in 3c: 
 (pdovomLv 7]/x?v Tracrt rots tolo^tois. Spoken by Socrates, the words 
 ttXtjv vfjuv kt\. might have been sincere : in Plato's mouth they would 
 probably have been ironical. Plato had no high idea of fiapriKifi : 
 see Politicus -209 c where priests and soothsayers are placed on the 
 same platform with slaves, artisans and merchants. ' I^ivination is 
 the gift of God to human folly ' says Plato in Timaeus 7 1 e : where 
 see Archer-Hind's note. 
 
 22. ovS^v (itrrai irpdy^t-a: see on ov5h Tpayjua in C above. 
 
 23. (TV T€ — otjxai hi. d^ (especially if followed by Kai) is not 
 rarely used after re, both in Plato and in other authors: e.g. Rep. 
 Ill 394 C ?v re T7J tQ}v iir(2v Toirjaei, TroWaxoO de Kai dWoOi: see 
 Madvig's Greek Syntax p. 172 Rem. 5. 
 
 Kara vovv=*ex animi sententia': as in Soph. 217 D et n's aoi 
 KUTCi vovv. 
 
 24. olfiat Be Kttl €|i6 -niv €Ji.t^v. The idiom oTfiai 5k Kai is 
 frequent in Plato, followed either by the accusative (with infinitive) 
 or by the nominative, since oTfiat is often merely parenthetical : 
 Schanz quotes {infer alia) Lach. 180 A ol/xai 5^ Kai Adxv'o- rduSe 
 and Crat. 402 B oTfxai 8k Kai 'Ha-to5os. i/j.^ is here preferred to 
 the more regular kyu) to prevent the doubt as to whether iyi!) is the 
 subject to ol/xai or to the infinitive (understood): the other possible 
 construction (the omission of ifii) is not chosen because an antithesis 
 is wanted to a^. Similarly in Soph. 234 E oTfiat, 8k Kai e/mk tuv 
 ^Ti iroppoidev a.(p€aTr]K6TUv elpai: and so regularly in Plato when 
 oi/xat 5^ Kai is followed by the ist pers. pron. with the infinitive, 
 not oi/iai 8k Kai iyu). There is only one previous allusion to 
 Euthyphro's 8iK7]: viz. in 2 A ov yap irov Kai <roL ye 8iKr) ris odaa 
 Tvyxdvei — wcTTre/) e/xoi. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 In chapters IV and V we are gradually introduced to the 
 subject of the dialogue — what is piety? 
 
 Chapter IV explains the suit instituted by Euthyphro — an 
 accusation of manslaughter against his father. Euthyphro allows 
 that to bring such an accusation implies a knowledge of rd Beta and 
 of rd oaid re Kai dvbcna. 
 
 I. €<rTiv 8€ 811 <ro£ ktX. The effect of the order is to throw 
 
 A. EU. 6 
 
44 NOTES ON IV 3 E 
 
 emphasis on -r) diKT). So infra in 4 A iaTiv bk tL rb ^yK\r]fj.a kt\. 
 *But your lawsuit, Euthyphro, what is it?' aoi is probably em- 
 phatic: for which reason I have accented it. 
 
 2. <j)€V'Y€is avr-qv tJ 8iwk€is ; auriqv is in both cases the internal 
 accusative: see Thompson's Greek Syntax p. 66. (ptvyeiv 'to be a 
 defendant' is used as the passive of didoKecv 'to prosecute'. So 
 Trdaxoj eKirliTTW dwodpycrKO} TrpoffKeifxai jxavdavu} etc. are used as 
 passives of iroiQ e/f/SctXXw aTroKTeivu} trpoaredeiKa SidaffKU etc. 
 
 4. rCva ; masculine (as Euthyphro's answer shews), and the 
 external accusative: so we find TvirTeiv tlvo. irXTjyds and the like: 
 Thompson Gk. Syntax p. 66. 
 A j^ 5. ail 8oKc3 |xatv€o-6at. av refers to 3 C KarayeXQaiv ws ixaivo- 
 fxivov. Phocion thought he was wrong when Athens applauded 
 him : Euthyphro thinks himself right when Athens thinks him mad. 
 av goes with fxaiveadai. Graser changes ov to 17V, not seeing that 
 riva is masculine. 
 
 6. TTtTojJievov Tiva 8ia)K€ts; = 'are you on a wild goose chase?' 
 Socrates playfully understands 8h1ik€lv in its literal sense. The 
 proverb to. TreTOfxeva didoKeiw might well be applied to a madman (aS 
 doKU) fxaiveadai) ; it is found also in Arist. Met. F 1009'' 37 — 39. 
 TTws ovK d^iov d6v/x-?](rai tovs (piXocro(ptii> iyx^i^povvras ', to yap to. 
 ireTO/xeva diiOKeLV to ^relv av elrj ttjv d\r)daav. In Aesch. Ag. 394 
 8iu}K€i Trats TTOTavov opviv and probably in Gorg. 471 c XV"^ ^'Pv 
 diijjKovTa e/jLTreaeiw Kal dwodaveiv there is an allusion to the same 
 proverb: cf. Euthyd. -291 B oiairep Td Traidia ret tovs KopvSovs 
 diLOKOUTa : Ar. Av. 169 dvOpcoiros 6puLS daTdd/XTjros, tt cTdfievos 
 and Theocritus VI 17 Kal <pevyei (piX^ovTa Kai ov <f>L\^ovTa diuKei. 
 
 7. 8€i is personal as in Apol. 30 D iroWov S^u) — dwoXoyelaOai. 
 
 8. €v |xdXa irp€crpviTt]s. To the same effect Tyrtaeus Frag. 10. 
 19 TOIL'S 5^ iraXaiOTe povs, wv ovk^tl yoivaT iXatppd ktX. eO 
 fidXa, originally an epic phrase (Horn. Od. xxii 190 ed jxdX' 
 dwoaTp^-ipavTe ktX.), is frequent in Athenian conversational style. 
 yu,aXa qualifies ev, not vi'w versa. fidX' ed is rarer, e.g. Theaet. 156 A 
 fidX' ev d/jLovaoi. 
 
 ro. 6 €|ids iraTijp — peXrio-Te. Notice the emphasis: 'My own 
 father '. ' Vcnir own father?' ^eXTiaTc is said with much sarcasm. 
 
 13. ia-Tiv hk tC — 81KT] ; the.order as in 3 E above. ^yKX-rj/jLa is to 
 eyKeKX-qixivov, the charge as distinct from the trial: Schanz quotes 
 Isocr. irepl tov ^evyovs § 2, rdj fi^i> yap 81 Kai virkp tuv Idltov 
 cy KX-qfjLaTixJv Xayxdvovat. The object of a SIkt] is placed in the 
 
IV 4 A Vhh:YO'S EUTHYFHRO. 45 
 
 genitive, which is here orij^inally adjectival: 'trials of manslaughter' 
 ((l>6vov) = ' manslaughter trials '. 
 
 15. 'HpciKXcis- A strong expression of wonder, much stronger 
 than merely to repeat the word <±>6»'oi'; (cf. supra 6 (tos, w /3e\- 
 TKTTe;). The expression is common in Attic conversation, with or 
 without w, e.g. Symp. 213 b w 'Hpd/cXets, tovtI tL rfv'. cf. Ar. Av. 
 277 wvat, 'Hpa/cXeis: Lys. 208 E "Hpct/cXcts, ••^i' 5' eyw, fxiov fi-q 
 TL TidiK-qKas Tov irarepa rj rriv [xrjTepa. ; Originally no doubt the appeal 
 was to Heracles as dXe^:'\'a/cos or auT-qp: so "AiroXXov is used in 
 exclamations ^''AtoWou airoTpbiraLe. 
 
 r\ irov — oirrj ttotc [6p0c5s] ^X^i-s. The difficulties of this passnge 
 are very great. There is no variant in the MSS. 
 
 Madvig (Adversaria Critica I 566) and Schanz assume a lacuna 
 in the first clause, in order to provide a subject to ^x"« for the 
 subject cannot be vaguely ' things in general ', nor can opdws ?x" 
 be the same as to opOhv ^xet. To insert evae^dv (as Madvig 
 suggests) would be prematurely to anticipate the mention of the 
 subject treated in the dialogue, viz. evae^eiv or oaioTTjs, which (after 
 the manner of Plato, who wished to preserve the semblance of a 
 conversation ; see on Crito 47 a) is reserved for a later stage (4 e). 
 At the same time, if ^xet is retained, it seems certain from opdQs 
 avTo irpa^aL that an infinitive is the subject to ^x^' • ^i"**^ '^^e only 
 relevant subject is 'to prosecute one's father for manslaughter'. 
 Either therefore to eyKaXeif (sc. Trarpt (povov) must be supplied from 
 eyKX-rifxa above, or we must assume the loss of some phrase to the 
 same effect, probably to eTre^teVat Trarpt (povov in view of the 
 frequent recurrence of these words throughout the chapter {oii yap 
 6.V irov — irre^yeLO-da (povov avT(^, and again cTre^teVat in B : in D t(^ 
 iraTpl (povov eire^epxojJiOii : and especially avQ(nov yap eTvai to vlbv 
 iraTpl (povov iire^ievaL in e). Now it will be admitted that while on 
 the one hand it is harsh to supply to iyKaXelv waTpl (povov from 
 ^yKk-qfia, the insertion on the other hand of the phrase to iire^tevai 
 waTpi (povov, whether after ^x^t or iroWwv — and the latter position 
 would be preferable — makes the sentence at once too cumbrous and 
 too precise. 
 
 But even if we allow that Ix^i has some such subject, expressed 
 or understood, a further difficulty presents itself in the precise 
 meaning of the words opOds avTo irpSi^ai. The clause introduced by 
 ov yap must either give the reason or the proof of the ignorance of 
 the many. Obviously, no proof is here given, and if a reason is to 
 
 6—2 
 
46 NOTES ON IV 4 A 
 
 be assigned, we should expect, instead of 6pdQi% avro irpa^ac some- 
 thing like dpdws avTO eyvuK^pai. I formerly thought of opdQs avro 
 rd^ai in the sense of ' to rank it rightly ', * rate it rightly ' (cf. 
 Euthyd. 279 C ttjv d^ <xo<plav irov x^pov rd^ofxev) ; but I now think 
 the error lies in ottt; ttot^ 6pdu}s ^x"* 
 
 First, as to dpdws. opdQs can hardly be right on any view, for 
 even if we retain ^xet, the only relevant meaning is ' the many do 
 not know the tru^h about to iire^dvai irarpl cpouov, for they cannot 
 opdus aiiTo irpd^ai.\ not * the many do not know how such a 
 prosecution is to be justified ' : the following ov yap clause can in no 
 way be viewed as a reason for the statement in the preceding clause, 
 if dpdus is retained there. I therefore agree with Madvig in 
 supposing that the word has been wrongly inserted from dpdw in 
 opduis avro irpa^ai. 
 
 Second, as to ^xei. Even with the omission of opdus, it is by 
 no means easy to supply the correct subject to ^x^i. If ix^is is 
 read, we obtain (I think) a satisfactory meaning and escape all 
 possible risk of obscurity. 'Good Heavens !' cries Socrates, 'surely 
 the many are ignorant of your condition : for it is not every one 
 who could do rightly what you do, but only one far advanced in 
 wisdom'. The force of ai)ro in avro irpa^ai is 'the thing in question' 
 viz. TO eyKoXeTv: and as regards the sentiment, we have already had 
 several indications of the indifference or contempt with which the 
 people regarded Euthyphro, e.g. 3 c orav ti Xe7w eV t^ eKKXrjaia 
 irepl tQv delojv, irpoXiyiov aiiTOts to. /x^Wovra, KarayeXwcriv ws 
 /.taivo/jL^vov, 3 D — E and 4 A. In accordance with his usual theory, 
 Socrates ascribes the injustice of the Athenians in their treatment of 
 Euthyphro to ignorance. 
 
 17. liriTvxovTos is followed by ehai in T. Schanz remarks that 
 where the verb substantive appears in only one of the two leading 
 Mss (B and T), we are justified in assuming interpolation. The 
 aorist (not the present) participle of (iriTvyxdvu {irpoaTvyxdvu), 
 Ti/7xd»'w) is regularly used as='der erste beste' = ers Tdv roWQp. 
 
 avTO 7rpd|ai: avrb is tovO' 8 crb Tr/jdrrets i.e. iwe^iivai Trarpl 
 (povov. 
 4 B 18. iroppo) — o-o(f>Cas IXavvovTos. So in Crat. 410 e noppoj 
 TjSr], o'/xat, (palvo/j-aL cro(f>Las eXavveiv. The metaphor is doubtless 
 from the race-course. 
 
 20. lioTTiv B\ 8t] twv oIkcCuv. Fot the order see on 3 e above. 
 In early times it was only the relations of a murdered man who 
 
IV 4 B PLATO'S EUTHYFHRO. 47 
 
 were permitted to exercise the right of blood-revenge : and when 
 the State undertook the punishment of manslaughter, the right to 
 act as prosecutor was confined to certain relatives of the victim, or 
 (if he were a /xerouos or SoOXos) to his TrpocrrdrT/s or SeinroTrjs. See 
 Gilbert's Handbuch der Griechischen Staatsalterthiimer I p. 365. 
 Two passages appear to contradict this principle of Attic law — viz. 
 Demosthenes (?) in Neaeram § 9 and the present passage. But in 
 the Demosthenic speech there is nothing to shew that the woman 
 killed was not the prosecutor's slave. Various theories have been 
 suggested to account for Euthyphro's position. Stallbaum con- 
 jectures that in the eye of the law Euthyphro may have been his 
 master. In Lipsius' edition of Meier and Schomann's Der Attische 
 Process p. 199 note 10 it is argued that the whole reasoning in the 
 Euthyphro is intended to conform to moral law but not necessarily 
 to the Athenian. I think the correct solution is to be found in 
 Euthyphro's fanaticism: he was just the man to lodge a charge 
 which the law would not receive, by way of protest. We have 
 seen similar protests in our own days : and it should be remembered 
 that Plato nowhere says that the archon received the charge. [So 
 also Liebhold (in Wochenschrift fiir Klassische Philologie 1888 No. 
 40. p. 1227) says everything points to Euthyphro's bringing the charge 
 even "ohne das formelle Recht dazu auf seiner Seite zu haben".] 
 
 6 T€0vfcws. The present dvyaKO} is hardly used in the best Attic 
 prose : airodvrjaKW takes its place. On the other hand reOvr^Ka, not 
 airoTedvqKa, is used. See Rutherford's Babrius p. 36. For dirodfyaKO} 
 as passive to airoKTeivo} see above on 3 fe, line 2. 
 
 21. TJ 8T)Xa 81] ; so Schanz, rightly understanding the words as 
 a question. ■^; = Latin An ? introduces a second question intended to 
 anticipate Euthyphro's answer to the first : see on Apol. 26 b 97 
 brjKov br] on kt\. ; Wohlrab (adopting Schanz's earlier reading) 
 prints a colon after d-^. 
 
 ov "ydp av ttov virip yi dWorpiov ktX. So T and Schanz : 
 in B ye follows ttov. dXXorptos : alienus:: oUelos: proprius. So- 
 crates implies that Euthyphro's conduct was not permissible on legal 
 as well as on moral grounds ; see on ^(xtiv 8^ 8r] tQv oiKeioju in line 
 20 above. 
 
 22. €ir€|]3€io-0a. According to Schanz (Prot. pp. Xiii ff. ) 
 Plato uses as imperfect of elfxi only the forms rja, rjeicrda, yei{v). 
 "QTrju {Evithyd. 294 D: the only case of the dual in Attic writers): 
 yfj-ev, — yaav (mss yeaap). Compare Cobet Var. Lect. 30S. 
 
40 
 
 NOTES ON IV 4 b 
 
 23. "ytXoiov is different from KarayiXaaTov as 7eXai' from 
 KarayeXav: see on Crito 53 A and cf. Symp. 189 B ^o^ovfiai — ovti 
 /iTj yeXo'ia eiwco — dWa /ult) KarayiXacxTa. The omission of the 
 copula is commonest in Plato with eariv : el and ecixiv are some- 
 times omitted : riv rarely : eXvai very often : parts of the conjunctive 
 and optative are very seldom left out. See Schanz Novae Com- 
 mentationes Platonicae 31 — 35 and Cope on Aristotle's Rhetoric 
 Vol. 2, p. 328. 
 
 ■25. ^KT£iv€V 6 KTctvas. A frcqucnt idiom in Plato: cf. Apol. 
 20 D rai'Ti /uot boKet bUaia X^yeiv 6 X^ywv. Notice that Kreivw is 
 rare in Attic prose : it is found chiefly in the older writers, or with 
 an archaic and solemn effect, as here. dTro/creiVw is generally used 
 instead. 
 
 26. tl n€v €V SiKT). eV Ukt) is an idiomatic adverbial phrase = 
 eudiKios. The cases of justifiablehomicide are enumerated in Gilbert's 
 Ilandbuch der Gr. Staatsalterthiimer I p. 363. They were these: 
 unintentional slaughter of an opponent in the games or of a comrade 
 in war; the killing of an adulterer discovered with one's wife, mother, 
 sister, daughter or legal concubine; and manslaughter in self-defence. 
 Meier and Schomann Der Attische Process 11 p. 377 add cases of 
 tyrannicide, and where one killed a man who had plotted to over- 
 throw the democracy with or without success, or who had occupied 
 a leading position under oligarchical or tyrannical government. 
 
 27. cire^it'vai — 6]x.orpa.TTeX<3<s ■^. This is the only point in which 
 Euthyphro's view transcends the standpoint of ordinary Athenian 
 morality. He sees that family ties have nothing to do with the 
 question of right and wrong: and so far Plato agreed with him. 
 But his motive in prosecuting his father is mostly (though not 
 entirely, see on 5 b) self-regarding, viz, a desire to escape the 
 fiiaafia coming from daily life with one whom he knew to be guilty: 
 whereas Plato, who regards punishment mainly in its corrective 
 aspect, suggests that one should prosecute one's friends rather for 
 their own sake, to set them free from the greatest of all diseases, 
 sin. Sec Gorg. 480 D avrbi' Trpwrov 6uTa KaTi)yopov kuI avrov Kal rCov 
 &\Xu)v oUeicj}' Kal eiri tovti^ XP^I^^^^^ "^V p'^TOpiKrj Siruis dv 
 .^raraSTjXwj' tCov dbiK-rffidTUv yiyvofx^piov diraXXaTTCOvraL toO fieyicTTov 
 KaKov, ddiKias. iduirep is not= 'although', a meaning which it 
 never bears, but 'that is to say, if. Euthyphro implies that one is 
 not bound to prosecute unless the guilty man lives under one's own 
 roof: only then is one exposed to fxiaa-fxa. It is in harmony with 
 
IV 4 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 49 
 
 his self-regarding morality to reason in this way. Schanz needlessly 
 (I think) changes the text to eavwep x<^= 'although indeed '. 
 
 28. l'<rov — (JLiao-fjia yCyvtrai : i.e. whether the person killed is 4 C 
 dWoTpios or olKelos. For the communication of the taint of guilt 
 Stallbaum compares Hor. Carm. in 2. 16 foil. ' Vetabo, qui Cereris 
 sacrum Volgarit arcanae, sub isdem Sit trabibits fragilemve mecum 
 Solvat phaselon. Saepe Diespiter Neglectus incesto addidit inte- 
 grum'; and Schanz Antiphon Tetr. I i. 10 dcvixcpopov d' vfuv karlv 
 Tovde fiiapbv Kal avayvov ovto. e^s re to, T^fxevT} tC)v deCov eia-Lovra 
 fiiaiveiv Trjv ayveiav avrOiv, eiri re ras avras rpair^ ^as iovra 
 <rvyKaTaTrifJLir\dvaL tovs dyairiovs. So in Soph. Oed. Tyr. 
 241 — 2 (hdetv S' citt' oiKOjv irdvTas, ws puda fxaros rovb^ rjixlv ovtos. 
 Plato himself, speaking of the slayer in much the same vein as 
 Euthyphro here, ordains (Legg. IX 868 e) KareXdCbv 8e 6 tl toiovtov 
 dpdcras to7s avrov iraKTiv iepu>v fxr] KoivcoveiTOi firjde o/j-orpdire^os 717- 
 peadco ttotL 
 
 29. Tw TOiovTw goes with ^vv^s rather than with ^I'l/etSws. 
 d<|>o<riois. The first clear hint is heie given of the subject of the 
 
 dialogue viz. to oaiov Kai to dvoaiov. 
 
 30. €irel o yi diroOavtov. eirei is virtually = ' although', 'and 
 yet': see on Apol. 19 E where is quoted Prot. 335 C iyoj 5e ra fiaKpd 
 TavTa dSvvaTos, eirel €J3ov\6/j.rju dv olos t elvai. Here too its force is 
 obscured by an ellipse : "(But neither was the victim quite dWoTpios) 
 for the murdered man was a day-labourer of my own". A TreXctrr/s 
 was a freeman, who hired himself out as a day-labourer (Oris cf. 
 15 a): Timaeus explains the word as 6 dvTl Tpo(pQ>v vir-rjpeTuiv Kai 
 irpo(nre\d^o)v. The word was used in Graeco-Roman times to 
 translate the Roman cliens: but there is no reason for supposing 
 that the employer was in any way the legal representative of the 
 TreXdxTjs. 
 
 31. e"y€«p"yov|JL€V. Euthyphro's father was perhaps a KXrjpovxos 
 in Naxos. If so, as the Athenians had to give up their KXrjpovxtai 
 after the battle of Aegospotami in 404, at least 5 years must be 
 supposed to elapse between the death of the TreXanjs and Euthy- 
 phro's indictment of his father. There was probably no v6/j.os rrjs 
 irpodeafxias relating to cases of (povos (see Meier and vSchomann Der 
 Attische Process li pp. 838 — 840) : but was Euthyphro's conscience 
 sleeping all this time? Or did he and his father occupy separate 
 houses? Most probably Plato does not mean the dates to be pressed 
 too closely. It is however possible that Euthyphro and his father 
 
50 NOTES ON iv 4 c 
 
 were farming in Naxos even after 404, not as kXtjpoC'xoi, but in some 
 other capacity. 
 
 32. irapoiviio-as ovv. ovu continues the story as in 6 ovv irarrip 
 below, vapoiveiy means to forget oneself in one's cups. With the 
 order in tcjj/ oUeTuJv rivi twv rifxtTepwv Schanz compares Apol. 33 D 
 r^v oIk^Iujv Tivas tQv iKcivuv. aTro<T<pa.TTeL presently is a 
 strong word and denotes a brutal murder. 
 
 34. o-vvStjo-as — KaxaPaXwv. For the collocation of participles 
 of. g A t$ av drjrevojv avbpo(f>6vo% yeuofxevos, ^vv8 edels inrb tov 
 deairoTov — <pddari reXevr-i^ffas. 
 
 36. €|t]"yTiTov. The i^T]yr]Tai formed a College of three mem- 
 bers, according to Suidas (cf. also 9 a), apparently under one head, 
 here called e^rjyrjTrii (/car e^oxw)' besides other religious duties, 
 they were especially concerned with purification from blood- 
 guilliness (ols /x^Xei, Kadalpeiv roi/s a7et rivl eviaxv^^^'''^^ Suidas I.e.). 
 SchoU in Hermes vi 36 foil, makes it probable that the members of 
 the board were partly chosen by Apollo as irarpios i^rjyrjT-qs : 
 apparently the Athenians selected 9 out of whom 3 were chosen by 
 the Delphic representative of Apollo, one from each triad. 
 
 6' Ti xpcfi] TTOieiv. So apparently B, followed by Schanz : Wohl- 
 raV) (with T) reads XPV- The latter is probably due to an assimila- 
 tion in tense to the historical present irifiirei'. after which the 
 optative in a subordinate clause is quite regular: cf Gorg. 512 A 
 \oyi^€Tai. odv OTL oiiK — ToijTiiJ de ^(.coT^ov iarl Kal tovtov dvrjffeiev 
 (so MSS: Schanz dvrjaei), where 6i>rja€i€v = uivr}<ra of direct speech. 
 4 D 38. wXi-yMpet T€ Kttl TJfJicXci. d/j-e\eiu is stronger than dXiywpeTi^ 
 (0X1777, wpa). 
 
 ovS^v 6v irpd'YjJLa. See for ovdeu irpdyfia above on 3 c. For 
 the collocation of genitive and accusative absolute Schanz compares 
 Rep. X 604 B (Ijs o{}t€ drjXov 6vT0S tov dyadov re Kal KaKov tG)v 
 TOiovTcop, ovT€ els rb irpbaOiv oiibkv ir po^a2vov rip x<^Xe7rii;s (p^poPTi, 
 ouT€ Ti Tuv dvdpwTTLvojv d^Lov ov fjLeydXrjs <nrov8T]s. I think et Kai 
 diroddvoL is simply 'though he should die' and not si vd periret, as 
 Wohlrab and Schanz take the phrase. 
 
 39. Sircp ovv Kttl ^TraOev: much as in Euthyd. 283 A o-nep ovv 
 KO-X avvi^t] iwiiv. 
 
 40. Twv 8€(rp.wv dTroOvflCKti : 5e(r/Aa = chains: 5e(r/xot = cases of 
 imprisonment (5ecr/x6s i.q. t6 8ehi(jQo.i). See Apology 32 C and 
 Rutherford's New Phrynichus p. 353: "The masculine and neuter 
 inflexions are not interchangeable, and though 8ea/j.oi is occasionally 
 
IV 4i> PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 51 
 
 used for 5e(r/i(x, no Attic writer ever employed dea/xd for dea/xoL". 
 Contrast infra 9 A TeKevrrjaas dia to, dea/xd with Rep. 1 1 378 D "Hpas 
 5^ dea/xovs virb i^eos kt\. On the form dirodvrjaKU} {noi diroOvqaKO}) 
 see Meisterhans Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften- p. 50. 
 
 42. ravxa hr\ ovv Kai. koL goes with the pronoun as in the 
 familiar naL Tavra is strictly speaking the internal accusative 
 after dyavaKTe? : its use here is akin to the use of ravra drj, rai/r' 
 dpa = 5id Tavra kt\., for which see on Apol. 23 B. 
 
 43. virip Tov dv8po(j>dvov : tov is justified not so much because 
 the person has been already mentioned, as because it adds to the 
 force of the indignation : ' in defence of that manslayer ' (slowly and 
 with emphasis). 
 
 44. «s <|>a(riv eK€ivoi. They doubtless maintained that death 
 was due to natural causes. 
 
 45. €1 o Ti ndXio-ra dircKTCtvev : 'were it never so true that he 
 had killed him': cf. 9c el 6 tl fxaXicrrd (si vel maxime) fie 
 ^vdiKppiav 5i8d^€i€v — ri /xaWov eyoo fxefiddTjKa kt\. In historians 
 and orators el rd /xdXiara is sometimes used in the same sense: 
 Demosthenes irepl rod arecpdvov § 95 crvKocpavTlas ovcras e'TrtSet'^w /xtj 
 ixbvov Tip ^ei/Seis elvat — dWd Kat rtp, el Ta fj.d\car^ rjaav 
 dXrjdeh kt\. 
 
 46. dv8po<j>dvov -ye ovtos. The ye shews that this clause is 
 equivalent to a clause expressing condition. 
 
 ov Seiv. The negative is repeated, partly because out' el 6 ti 
 fxaXiaTa is somewhat remote, but still more for emphasis. I think 
 ov 8eiv is the infinitive : the indirect is justified by the preceding 
 cUs (fyacLv eKelvoi., exactly as in Herodotus I 65 <I)S 5' avrol Aa/ce- 
 datixoviot, Xeyovai, AvKovpyov — e/c Kp^TTjs dyayiadai Tavra, where 
 see Stein, who shews that this anacolouthontic idiom is common in 
 Herodotus, and found also in Aesch. Pers. 188 totutu ardcriv tiv' ws 
 eyw '86kovv opdv, revx^i-v ctt' dWrjXaiai. See also Sophocles 
 Trach. 1240 dvrjp 65' d)s ^oiKev ov ve/xeiv e/xol (pdlvovTi /xoTpav, 
 with Blaydes' note. In Plato the idiom is comparatively rare : e.g. 
 Phileb. 20 D Tode ye fn^v, tos ol/xai, irepl avTov dvayKaLOTarov elvai 
 XeyeLv: Soph. 263 D and Euthyd. 280 d 8eTv (so BT : Schanz 8eT, 
 rightly I think, because the ths clause follows) dpa, ws ioiKCv. 
 Crat. 399 D wairep Toivw fjLOi. doKei tovtois e^rjs elval tl XRVf^^"- is not 
 a case in point, for wairep qualifies the whole expression : still less is 
 Crat. 384 C w<nrep viroTTTe^u} avrbv crKuTTTeiP. The idiom has a 
 colloquial effect. 
 
52 NOTES ON IV 4 D 
 
 Stephanus read Ziov, not hetv. The syntax would then resemble 
 u)S avbpo(f>bvov nai ovdeu '6v irpdyfia in line 38. Setf is retained by 
 Schanz and explained as a participle: de'iv : Seov :: TrXetf : irXiov. 
 The existence of such a participle is attested by some ancient 
 grammarians, and by Hesychius {deiv ' XPV^ dvayKoiov, irpeiroy, rj 
 TrpocrrjKov): and Hertlein (Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Phil, und Paedagogik 
 1867, p. 474) fmds another example of it in Plato's Charmides 164 E 
 (is TovTov fiev ovK 6p6ov bvTos ToO Trpoap-^fiaTOS — oiidi deiv tovto irapa- 
 KeXfveffdai dXXrjXovs , while other alleged examples of its occurrence 
 have been found in Xen. Plell. Vll 4. 39 KaTrjySpovv avroO <hs oeXv 
 6.irodave2i>, Lysias XIV § 7 daTpaTelas fxev yap diKaiojs dv avrov 
 oKCivaL — SeiXtaj 5e 6 tl 5e7i> avrov (so Stephanus: MSS Set eKaarov) 
 fxerd tQv ottXitixv KLvdvveveiv iinreveLv eiXero, and Ar. Frag. 220 
 (ed. Kock) ets rets rpi-qpets deiv (mss dei /x') dvaXovv raura Kal to. 
 Teixv KT^' 1 he whole subject is discussed at length in Jahrb. fiir 
 Philol. for 1872, p. 741 by Usener, who derives detv from Selov 
 (participle of Se/w, an assumed bye-form of 5^a;), like TrXeti' for 
 TrXf ioj' and ol/xai for oto^ai : also in cr/HLKpov, oXiyov, evbs deTv and the 
 like, he takes Selu as a participle, and ingeniously multiplies 
 examples by emending in Thuc. vi 12 evddd^ ehai to ^vda deiv. 
 But none of the examples hitherto cited seem to be enough to 
 establish the use in Attic Greek : I therefore agree with Kock (1. c.) 
 in looking on the usage as Byzantine. 
 A E 47* avocriov "ydp ctvai ktX. The second hint of the subject of 
 the dialogue, here in its negative aspect: the first or positive 
 indication comes in C idv — /jltj d(f)0<xioTs (i.q. 6<nop Troirjs dwo tovtojv). 
 Presently the subject is hinted at in both aspects: to deiov m ^x^' 
 Tov oaiov T€ tripL Kal tov dvoaiov: but it is not till 5 D that the 
 subject is first explicitly announced : X^7e Sri, tL (pfj^ elvat rb oaiov 
 Kal rb dvSaiov; Schanz regards the words dudaiof ydp — eire^Uvat. 
 as a marginal note: but without them the subject would not be 
 introduced so gradually as is Plato's wont. 
 
 49. TOV 6o-iov T€ ire'pi Kal tov avoo-£ov. irepl when it goes with 
 two substantives is regularly placed between them. Only irepl 
 and yeKa among Greek prepositions are permitted to follow their 
 case in Attic prose. Schanz says of rb deiov ws ^x^t 'verba inter- 
 polala esse videntur': in his annotated edition he conjectures that 
 they represent a marginal gloss rb Sclov ws ^x^'j 9e7ov and 6<riov 
 being frequently confounded. I think the words are genuine, 
 (i) because oiei iniaTaaOai irtpl tQv delwv follows immediately. 
 
IV 5 A PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 53 
 
 {:) because what Euthyphro means is that aviaiov yap eluai — 
 iire^L€vai is not a belief entertained by the gods (whence the 
 emphatic place of to deiov), but mere dv0 pibvuv (pXvapia /cat 
 ovdevos d^ia (Gorg. 492 c). to deiop ws ^xei simply means 'the 
 position of the gods', and is parallel to tQv deicov ottt} exet in 
 Socrates' reply. 
 
 50. w Ev0v4)pov — aKpipJis ol'tL €irt(rTa<r0ai. Here and in 
 a.Kpi^u!s eldeirju of line 58 there is perhaps an allusion to the 
 etymological meaning of evdvtppcju ' right minded '. 
 
 53. ws <rv X€Y€iS. The insertion of av shews that Socrates 
 accepts Euthyphro's narrative only provisionally. 
 
 54. oTTWs p.1^ aii (TV. oTTios fiTi after verbs of fearing makes the 
 object of apprehension appear more vividly as something to be 
 shunned. For parallel cases see Goodwin M. T. p. 82. av = vicissi»i : 
 lest you, who censure others for not knowing to oaiov, be yourself 
 guilty of TO dvbffLov. Presently irpdyfj-a is meant, to recal tovtwv 
 ovTU) irpax_6evT(jov : and Tvyx^^V^ irpaTTcov virtually = be really 
 doing: see Verrall on jNIedea 608. Plato himself would not have 
 considei-ed Euthyphro's father as deserving of prosecution for 
 murder : see Legg. IX 865 C eav fxev 5ov\ov KTeivrj vofxi'^iov tov 
 eavTov dieipydadai, tov tov TeKevT-qcravTOS beairoTrjv d^\a^ri irape- 
 XerctJ Kal d'^T]ixLov, r) diKrjv els ti]v d^iav tov TekevT-qaavTos vwex^TU} 
 5lw\tjv. 
 
 56. ov8€v -ydp av \i.ov o^ikos eiT]. B and T have fji.01 for /xov: the 
 emendation is due to Heusde, and most critics accept it. Stallbaum 
 rightly remarks: "Ferri non potest fioi. Nam o0eX6s fioi ia-riv est 
 '■ viihi prodesf'. sed 6(p€\6s /xoO ecrTiv /10///0 /mgi S7(m^'. Cf. Crito 
 46 A et Ti Kal fiiKpov •qp.Qiv otpeKos eirj. 
 
 57. oiSe TO) av 8ia<})€poi Ev6v<j)pwv. rw is of course dative of 
 amount of difference. diacpepeLv is 'to excel' rather than 'to differ' : 
 Crito 49 B eXdOofxev i)/xds avToi/s iraihojv ovSev dtacpepovTes. The 
 effect of diacpepoL 'Ev9v(ppo}p=5La(p4poi.fJLi iydj is to make Euthyphro's 
 conceit more conspicuous, by putting the praise as it were into the 
 mouth of a second party. Wohlrab compares Soph. Ajax 98 where 
 Ajax says oJcrr' ov vror' Atavd' o'ih^ dTifidcxovcr' ^ti. Cf. Iliad I 240 
 ■q TTOT 'Xxf-Wrios TTodri I'^erai vlas 'AxaiQu : Plautus Rudens 1245 
 ' minime istuc faciet nosier Daernoncs ' (the Daemones / know). Much 
 the same effect is produced by the pompous use of the article in 
 Theaet. 166 A yfkwTa Bt) tov i/xe ev Toh \6yois d-rridei^ev. 
 
 Twv iroXXwv dvBpwTTWv: contemptuously: nearly = 'the rout of 5 A 
 
54 NOTES ON iv 5 a 
 
 human beings': / am more than a mere &i'6po}iros, I am a deios 
 avrjp. 
 
 58. cl |xt]...€l8€£T]v. For the change from the third to the 
 first person, of. (with Schanz) Phaed. 91 c (T/xiKpov ^poi>Tiaai^T€S 
 ^ujKpdrovs, TTJs 8k aXrjdeias iroXv fiaWov, iav jxiv Ti vpup Sokw 
 dXrjdks Xiyeiv. The idiom is regular in Greek: see Jebb on Ajax 
 864. The second hand in T reads eldeir]. 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 forms a transition to the subject of the dialogue. See Introduction, 
 p. viii. Socrates proposes to become Euthyphro's pupil, so as to 
 learn the nature of piety and impiety, and shift the accusation from 
 Socrates the pupil to Euthyphro the teacher. 
 
 I. c2 6avfj.da-i€ Ev0u<j>pov : 'admirable Euthyphro' (sarcastically). 
 See on Crito 44 b a» dai/xouie "LibKpares. To be called davixdaLos is a 
 left-handed compliment: for davfxd^eip means 'to be surprised at' 
 as well as 'to esteem', like the old English 'admire'. This form of 
 address is common in Plato: e.g. 8 a, 8 D, Symp. 222 E, Crat. 
 
 3. Trpo TTJs •Ypa<j>7]S : Before either tlie dvaKpiais or trial proper 
 began, either party could challenge the other {irpoKaSeTaOai, irpoKX-rjcn^) 
 in the presence of witnesses to take some particular step. In case 
 the challenge was declined, evidence was given at the trial {iv ti^ 
 b.KaaTrjplLp'. see infra on 1?) that such a challenge had been given and 
 refused, with a view to prejudice the refuser's case. See for example 
 the form of /jLaprvpia in Demosthenes Kara. "Zretpdvov A § 8 'Zri^avos 
 — "Evdios — l!iKv0r)s — fxaprvpovai irapelvai irpbi t^ diaiTr]Trj Tiaiq. 
 'Axapvei, 6're irpovKaXeiTO ^opfiicov 'AiroWdSupov — dvoiyeiv 
 rds 5iadrjKas rets llaaiuvos kt\. In the present case the effect of 
 Meletus' refusal to accept the challenge of Socrates would be to 
 make it appear that Meletus' motive was not public spirit, but 
 private animosity: cf. Apol. 23 E MA77T6S fioi iirideTO — i'lrkp tQjv 
 TTotrjTQy axdofiffos. See Meier und Schomann Att, Process ii pp. 
 872 ff. 
 
 4. Xe'-yovra after fj.01 as in Crito 51 D (p Ev /xt) dpiaKunev rjueh, 
 i^eXpai XafSSvra rd avrou dinivaL. In both cases the accusative 
 is due to the i>receding infinitive. 
 
 OTi ^-ywY^.-.o-ds. Note the curious mixture of the direct and 
 
V 5 B PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 55 
 
 indirect speech. From %^(jy^e down to eldivai, or rather strictly 
 speaking down to Kal vvv, we have Socrates' ifsissima verba, ad- 
 dressed (in the hypothetical case) to Meletus: after koX vvv we 
 should expect iireiSri fxe aii (i.e. MeXijTos) — (pfjs — ^vdv<ppovo$ (in place 
 of (Tos): instead of this, Socrates wishing to address Euthyphro 
 directly says fxaOjjTT^s dr] yeyova (t6s: so that to prevent ambiguity 
 cKeTvos — (pTjai must take the place of av—cpT^s just before. 
 
 7. avTOo-xeSidtovTO, <|>Tj(ri Kal KaivoTO|ioi)vTa. For ai)ro<T%e- 
 Sia^eiv (to improvise, speak, think, act on one's own initiative and 
 hence hastily and unadvisedly) see on Apol. 20 C i^iva fxr] Tjixel^ irepl 
 <Tod avTO(jx^^i-o-^<^IJ^ev). The phrase is pathetically repeated in the 
 end of the dialogue (16 a) when Euthyphro has proved a broken 
 reed. For KatvoTO/xovvTa see on 3 b: there we find KaivoTO/xovvris 
 aov irepl ra dela, because the metaphor is more prominent {'a 
 coiuer of novelties in regard to divine matters') : here KaivoTo/uLovvra 
 irepl tQv de'nov {^coining novelties about' etc.). Cobet in Mnemo- 
 syne III (N. S.), p. 281 would bracket koI KaivoTOfMovvTa, holding 
 the words to be an interpolation from 16 A. He further adds: 
 " Graecuni est KaLvorofJielv, ut airovba^eiv, irepl tl non nepi tivos ut 
 KULvoTOfiQ irepl avrd et pag. 3 B u'S odv KaivoTO/xovvros aov irepl to. 
 de7a^\ But auToo-xeSta^et;' irepl aov in the Apology is enough to 
 defend the construction, and the occurrence of KaivoTO/xC} irepl avrd 
 in 16 A is really an argument for the genuineness of the words here, 
 since 16 A is intended as a reminiscence of this passage. The 
 indictment against Socrates is given in the note on 2 c. 
 
 8. na0T]T»)s S-q Yeyova cros. 8rj adds a touch of sarcasm ('why 
 of course'). The peculiar cadence is intended to throw ludicrous 
 emphasis on <r6s, as in Horace's ^ ridi cuius mus^ and Martial's 
 ' Unus de cunctis animalibus hircus habet cor'' (xi 84. 17). Notice 
 the implication that to learn rd etxre^T] is to be eiiae^-^s. 
 
 9. Kal...(j>ai-r]v av. Herewith Socrates as is his w^ont breaks 5 B 
 into direct speech. Kal of course goes with 4>air]v dv. 
 
 el |JL€v...Td Toiavra. Meletus would not be likely to : see on 3 c 
 orav Tl \iy(a ev rfj eKKXrjcrig, irepl tQv delwv KarayeXuxriv ws 
 fxaivofjL^vov. The position of Fjvdv<ppova after the pause is meant 
 to suggest ironically that Euthyphro was an authority on the 
 question. 
 
 10. Kttl 6p0us vonu5€iv...8iKdtov. The first Kal goes with the 
 third in the sense of ' both — and ' : ijyov being parallel to fx-l] 
 diKa^ov. The second Kai is 'also', i.e. 'as well as Euthyphro' and 
 
56 NOTES ON v 5 b 
 
 goes with e/ie. Schanz and Wohlrab omit the second /cat with B : 
 but as it is found in T and as a correction in B, and would more 
 naturally fall out than be inserted, I think it right. The old 
 punctuation was to. ToiaOra Kal opdQi po/xi^eip, kuI i/m^: Schanz set 
 this right. If any change were necessary, I should prefer to read 
 opdCos POfjLL^eiv Kui ifjL^ rjyov Kal fir] Slkcl^ov, assuming that Kai before 
 ifjt.^ was wrongly placed before opdQs in B: b then inserted it before 
 ifx€ without striking it out before dpdCi^. 
 
 6p0c3s vop-C^civ: ' to be orthodox '. vofxi^eiv is especially used of 
 belief in the gods : see on 3 k above. 
 
 11. «K€iva) TO) 8i8ao-Kd\a). t(} diSaaKciXci} is meant to explain 
 eKehip : a pause should b'e made in reading after eKeivu). This I 
 think more likely than to take eKelvip as = illi=:' that famous'. 
 
 12. Xax€ SCkt^v irpoTcpov y\ ky-oL. \ayxo.veLv dU-qv riui is to bring 
 an accusation against one. The original meaning was 'to obtain (by 
 lot) one's rights ' : hence to obtain leave to discuss one's rights. The 
 reason why Xa7xai'e«j' (to get l>y lot) was chosen in preference to 
 \ap.^a.veLv in this phrase seems to have been that in cases of 
 simultaneous charges the order of precedence was determined by 
 lot. Meier und Schomann ii 790 — 794. 
 
 cos Tovs irpeo-pvTc'povs 8ia4)0€ipovTt. It might fairly be argued 
 that it is worse to corrupt the young than to corrupt the old, and 
 that so far Socrates was worse than Euthyphro : but Socrates 
 means that to prosecute Euthyphro would be to get at the fous et 
 origo 7)iali, the corrupter of the corrupters. Euthyphro as Socrates' 
 teacher would be just as responsible for Socrates' ill-doing as 
 Socrates was for that of Alcibiades: and it was largely owing to 
 Alcibiades' misconduct that Socrates was accused: see Apol. § 33 
 and notes. Note the double meaning in diacpdeipovTi: taken with 
 ifjL^ fxiv, \i = KaKbv TTOieif, with eKelvou, /ca/ccDs Trote?!' (or worse); 
 and kukCos troieiv in Greek is KaKou Troutv. Cf. Rep. I 335 B foil, 
 and note on KaKovpyetv ttjv ir6\iv in 3 A above. 
 
 14. 8i8ao-KOVTi — vov0€TovvTt — KoXa^ovTi. The accusative 
 (found in B and T) is impossible. It is no doubt due to assimila- 
 tion, as Schanz remarks. povdereTv and KoXd^'eiy are combined as 
 in Gorg. 479 A ua-re /J-VTe vovd ereiadai. yti^re Ko\6.^eadai. 
 Euthyphro might have replied that he prosecuted his father for his 
 father's own sake: punishment being a corrective agency, as is 
 implied in 4 C ^a»' — jj-t] dtpocriols (xeavrdv t€ Kat CKeluov rrj 5t/cg 
 ^Tre^tc^j*, where see note. 
 
V 5 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 57 
 
 15. Kal av jiT] [Aoi TTtiOTjTai — -^^^^r\To.\. vi. Herewith Socrates 
 
 turns to Euthyphro again. The clause r) dj/r' eixoiv ■ypa.<p-r)TaL ai is 
 still under the influence of the negative of ixrjde. ypdcpeadai (cause 
 to be written down sc. in the archon's book) is 'to indict': see 
 above on 2 b. Notice the emphasis on ae (not (re). 
 
 16. \iyeiv Iv tw SLKao-Ttipio): see on A above {irpb t?}s ypacprjs). 
 The statement had to be supported by witnesses {ixapTvpeiv tt]v 
 trpoKXrjcnv). Meier und Schomann ii 872 note 293. 
 
 18. el apa |i€. The emphasis is on el: whence fxe (the reading 
 of B) not ifjue (T). Translate '?/ he tried etc.'. Euthyphro implies 
 that the supposition is unlikely : presently, in eyevero dv, it is 
 assumed to be impossible. Euthyphro's animation and self-confi- 
 dence increase as he hears himself talk. 
 
 19. oirT] (raOpos tcTTtv. aadpbs (lit. 'furnished with holes' hence c C 
 'unsound') is frequently used as a metaphor in Plato and in Greek 
 generally. It is no doubt a derivative from (Tjj^w {(xdia) 'I sift' like 
 aairpos from cqiru}. Conformably to this derivation it is combined 
 with TeTpT]ixevos in Gorg. 493 E {dyyeia TerpTjfjiepa Kal aadpa) shortly 
 after the allusion to the sieve of the Danaids in B. 
 
 20. Kal iroXv av — r\ ircpi Ifiov. The second apodosis is framed 
 as if the verb of the conditional clause had been in the past 
 indicative. The effect is to throw the growing self-confidence of 
 Euthyphro into stronger relief: if he had tried (but he dared not), I 
 should have turned the tables on him. Schanz quotes from 
 Xenophon an example of the converse change (from past Ind. to 
 Optative): Cyneg. 12. 22 el ovu elhelev toOto, otl dearai avTovs, 
 'ievTO av eirl tovs ttovous kuI ras 7rat5ei7(rety, aTs dXtV/cerat /xoXts Kal 
 Karepyd^oLVTO av avrriv. 
 
 23. Kttl e-yw Toi. /cat goes with kyu, not with tol. Socrates 
 pretends to share Euthyphro's confidence. 
 
 25. 6 M€'\t]tos oyTos : 'this person Meletus'. Socrates speaks 
 of him sarcastically as a nobody : see on 2 B oi;5' avrbs irdvv tl 717*'^- 
 CKO) — Tov dvdpa ktX. Infra, in ovde 5ok€l opdv, ov5^ belongs to opdv : 
 cf. the usage of ou (pr]/j.i (Goodwin Gk. Gr. p. 263. 3, note). 
 
 26. opdv — KaretSev. Schanz draws attention to the pun on 
 Meletus' name : here is a MeXrjTos d/meXris ! After o^^cos T has 
 drexvCos, which, if right, can only intensify o^icjs, as if 'literally with 
 so keen an eye'. But o^^ws in connection with sight is no longer 
 sufficiently metaphorical to be coupled with drexvujs. Karetbev is 
 'caught sight of 'descried': blind to Euthyphro, Meletus could see 
 
58 NOTES ON v 5 c 
 
 only Socrates. It is implied that personal animosity inspired the 
 prosecution : see note on 3 B line 8 ad fin. 
 
 28. vvv 8t] . See on 3 D. The reference is to 4 E — 5 a. 
 
 •jTotdv Ti — d'XXwv; The subject of the dialogue is rather SctkSi' re 
 KoX avocriov than evae^is re Kai dcre^h: it is presently stated more 
 precisely in 5 D. evae^ii and dae^is are used here on account of 
 the preceding da-e^eias: so infra in 12 E. Of the two words Saiov 
 and evae^es, oaiov is the wider, euae^is denoting more especially the 
 fulfilment of religious obligations : but throughout the dialogue 
 €vffe^€?v and daejSelv are used as the verbs corresponding to dcriou 
 and dv6<nov. On the difference between ttoTos tis and iroios Cobet 
 remarks: " differunt enim certo usu ttoios et iroios rts, ut iroTos cum 
 irrisione dicalur — iroios /xdyeipos; — ttoios tis ubi serio quaeritur de 
 alicuius personae aut rei ingenio, indole, natura aut genere" (Nov. 
 Lect. p. 276). 
 5 D 30. r\ ov xavTov ccttiv — dv6(riov etvai. See for ravrbv note on 
 10 E below. Here and in 6 D — E Plato uses language which he 
 afterwards used in connection with the theory of Ideas: but in 
 neither passage is it necessary to suppose that the Ideas are already 
 part of the Platonic doctrine. See Introd. p. xxviii. 
 
 What Plato means is this: &<nov is always and everywhere the 
 same, possessed of some one form [Idia) or character : similarly with 
 dv6(TLov'. and these two, oaiov and dvocnov, are always and every- 
 where the opposites of one another. So far there is nothing that 
 goes beyond the Socratic doctrine of Xoyoi. 
 
 31. avTo avT« : with Tavrov. The juxtaposition of ai'r6j avrov 
 is regular: Rep. Iii 411 C avSpeiorepos yiyverat avrds avrov. 
 Beware of taking avro with oaiov in the sense of 'The Idea of 
 Piety'. 
 
 32. iravris evavrCov. So the MSS. Schanz reads wdv rovvav- 
 tIov : but irdv Tovvavriov in Plato is generally used adverbially. The 
 fiiv is concessive; the unholy, while (though) it is the opposite of 
 all the holy [rod oaiov iravrbs is virtually = toO iy irda-rj irpd^ei. oaiov), 
 nevertheless resembles it in this point, viz. that it is like itself, etc. 
 The resemblance of the unholy to the holy in this one point is 
 presently brought out still more clearly by the words Kara t^u 
 oaidrrjTa, i.e. like holiness, as holiness is like ?/self. /card in this 
 sense is common in Plato, e.g. Apol. 17 b o/xoXoyoiTjv dv ov /cari 
 Todrovs ehat ft-fjfrwp. Missing the precise force of the jxiv and 5^ clause, 
 the editors (Schanz, Fritzsche and Wohlrab) read dvoaidrriTa with 
 
VI 5 D PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 59 
 
 T for the bot.uTT]Ta of B, taking Kara ttjv dvoaioryjra as = 'in virtue 
 of its impiety'. So also Bonitz Platonische Studien^ p. 241. Prof. 
 Josef Wagner (Zur Athetese des Dialogs Euthyphron, p. 22) derives 
 an argument against the genuineness of the dialogue from the mis- 
 taken reading Kara rrjv dvoaioTrjra. An additional argument for the 
 reading /card rr/i/ oaioTrjra is contained in the words of 6d — E: 
 i(f)7)(rda yap tov fxia ideg, to. re dvoaca dvoaia elvai /cat rd oaia Saia: 
 that 8<na are oaia fiiq, Idia has noi been stated precisely if /card rnu 
 dvoaioTTjTa is read here. Finally, the Scholiast read /card ttjv 
 oa-LOTTjTa, and explained it as I have done : his note is /card ttjv 
 oaLOTTjTa ' aurrl tov o/xolcos, TrapairXrjixiojs Ty baLOTfjTi.. See also on 
 ixlav Tti>a i5iav and on the whole passage, Introduction, p. xxviii. 
 
 34. picXXT) : on this idiomatic use of fieXXu see Madvig, Gk. 
 Syntax, p. 94, Rem. i. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The subject of the dialogue is now propounded: what is to 
 6cLov and to dvocnov ? Euthyphro's first answer puts a special case 
 in place of a general definition : to ocriov is to act as I act now, to 
 dvbaiov is not so to act : witness the treatment of Cronus by Zeus. 
 Before pointing out to Euthyphro his mistake, Socrates professes his 
 disbelief in such legends about the gods, and suggests that this is 
 perhaps why he is put upon his trial. 
 
 The habit of putting the particular for the general (TroWd 7rote?v 
 e'/c TOV efos Meno 77 a) in a definition is frequently illustrated in the 
 Socratic dialogues. A good example is Theaet. 146 c — D. What 
 is iTn(7Trj/j.r)? asks Socrates. Theaetetus replies: mathematics, 
 shoemaking, etc. — these, all and each, are eTncrT-Qixi]. Other 
 examples are Xen. Mem. iv 2. 13 foil.: ibid. 3 iff.: Hipp. Major 
 287 E fF. : Lach. 190 E ff. : Meno 71 e ff. See Grote's Plato Vol. i p. 
 317 ff. The mistake consists in a simple conversion of the universal 
 affirmative : to do this is pious (thinks Euthyphro), therefore all 
 piety is to do this. 
 
 4. Tw dSiKovivTi — elajJLapTCivovTt. The second participle 
 (which is to be taken with all the three alternatives) is logically 
 subordinate to the first. The construction of d5t/cu) with a participle 
 is common enough : and there is no reason for rejecting d8i.KovvTi as 
 Schanz suggests, or reading koI 17 for 17 after ddtKovvTi with Fischer. 
 Euthyphro states his principle thus: 8(nov is to prosecute 6 dSt/ccDv 
 
 A. EU. 7 
 
6o NOTES ON VI 5 D 
 
 (which contains the notion of law-breaking, as well as of injusiicc: 
 see on Crito p. xiii), whether his sin {i^a/xapTovovTi.) is in connec- 
 tion with manslaughter or sacrilege etc. i^a/xaprdvovri is necessary, 
 because manslaughter was not always 6.5ikov or illegal : see on 4 B, 
 line 26 above. lepoavXia on the other hand was always punished 
 with death : see Isocrates Kara Aoxirov § 6. r} ti &\\o goes closely 
 with irepl UpCiv kXoTrds and irepi is to be taken with ti as well as 
 with /cXoTrdj. 
 5 E lo. Tov vop.ov oTiovTcas ^x^'- SothcMSS. Schanz reads I'o/itVoi' 
 for fSfj-ov after Baumann : Hirschig reads oaiov. The idiom is like oUd 
 c€ tLs el: and 6 p6/j.os ovtcjs ^^et is just as good Greek as t6 vdfufwu 
 ovTijs ^x^'' Probably Plato uses the noun vdfxos rather than the 
 adjective po/xi/xov (conformably with daLOf above) because it is more 
 personal and direct. v6/xov is written rather than oaiov for two 
 reasons. In the first place, Plato wishes to indicate that vo/xos and 
 nothing else determines Euthyphro's view of to 6<xlov: in the second 
 place bfflov would be inapt here, because the example quoted is an 
 act of Zeus, who could hardly (I think) have been called ocrios by 
 Euthyphro without presumption : for which reason he is presently 
 called not oaios, but tCjp 6eQv Apiaros Kai diKaioTaros. vo/xos is here 
 simply the law of Athens. Euthyphro's position is : the conduct 
 of Zeus is sanctioned by Athenian law, Zeus is worshipped by the 
 State, and I am simply following out his example. 
 
 11. oTi TavTtt — 'Y''"yv6(X€va. Schanz brackets this clause. I 
 believe the words are genuine : they explain 6 Kai dWois TJ5r] eiTrof . 
 Euthyphro is a little indignant that his conduct should be called in 
 question : he has already told others that this affair will be managed 
 rightly {opdQs i.e. StKaiws or legally) in his way (ovtu i.e. by prose- 
 cuting his father), dpdds goes with yiyvofjLeva, and ovtu, logically 
 considered, is equivalent to a participial clause 'if done thus'. 
 
 12. fJLi] tiriTpcTTtiv explains oiirioi ?x^' above. 
 
 13. avTol -ydp 01 avQpwiroi: yap like enim is often introductory: 
 here it explains T^Kp.rjpLov. See on Apol. 20 E Xaip€<piopTa ydp iare 
 irov. The force of avroi is *of themselves', ?///;-<?, though laymen 
 )[fidvT€is: cf. infra 6 B rt ydp kuI (priffofxep, otye avroi 6fj.o\oyov/j,€v 
 irepi avTUP fiTjdh elS^pai; As Euthyphro's argument is : the Athenian 
 law approves my conduct, we might expect ^Ad-qvaloi for dpOpufvoi : 
 but here again Euthyphro's point of view comes out: he is no 
 cosmopolitan: for him the Athenians are oi dpdpioiroi and Athens the 
 world. 
 
VI 6 A PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 6i 
 
 14. T«YX<^vo^^"' vo}xC5ovT€s i.e. do really think, by the usual 
 Attic litotes: see on 4 E line 54 above. 
 
 16. vUts KaT€'iriv€v ovk Iv 8ikt]. For the form iiteis see on 6 A 
 Crito 45 C. The forms of the second declension are preferred in 
 
 the singular: in the dual and plural vlri vieis etc. are preferred. 
 Schanz everywhere prints this word without the t : and so it 
 generally appears in Inscriptions of Plato's time : see Meisterhans 
 Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften- p. 115. Notice KaTairlvb) 
 used in connection with solids; the effect is to make Cronus's feat 
 disgusting as well as unjust. For KaTeirivev a late hand in T re::ds 
 KareTTLev. The imperfect denotes as usual the repeated act. Hesiod 
 is the literary source of this article in the Greek creed : Theog. 459 
 Kal Tovs fj-eu KareTrive Kpovos /xeyas kt\. For ii/ oLkti see above on 
 4 B line 26. 
 
 17. KaKcivov 7€ av — Ikt6}1€iv. Cronus mutilated his father 
 Uranus: Hesiod Theog. 176 — 182. 
 
 18. 8i' fe'repa ToiavTa. Uranus did not swallow his children, but 
 hid them away in the bosom of the Earth : Hes. Theog. 156 ff. On 
 the idiom erepa roiavTa, see Apol. 26 A and note. With Euthyphro's 
 reasoning here compare the Furies in Aesch. Eum. 640 — 641 irarpos 
 TrpoTCfj-o. Zeus fxopov, t(^ C(^ Xoyo)' avrbs 5' tdrjcre irarepa wpea^vTrju 
 Kpovov, and Aristoph. Nub. 904 ff., 1079 ff. 
 
 20. TO, IvavTia — Trepi lnou. evavTia Xeyovcri without the article 
 would mean to ' state contradictory views dot/i about the gods and 
 about me'; since ivavria Xeyeiu is idiomatic for 'to contradict': the 
 meaning here is contradict themselves by giving one view about the 
 gods and another about me. Note the implication that the rule of 
 conduct for gods and men is the same — a distinctive feature in the 
 Greek creed, where God is man z'n magno, and man God in parvo. 
 As the champion of Greek orthodoxy Euthyphro thinks it actually 
 impious that there should be one rule for Zeus and another for him. 
 See Introd. p. xvi, and ibid. p. xviii for the apologetic motive 
 which appears in this part of the dialogue. Socrates was accused 
 of setting sons against their fathers: Plato shews that the orthodox 
 creed, believed and acted on, errs in this way more than he. 
 
 22. dpci "ye : " assensum poscit " says Stallbaum, wrongly. The 
 particle apa merely marks the interrogation : see on Crito 44 e. 
 Socrates plays his usual role of the ignorant man seeking for infor- 
 mation. 
 
 24. 8vo^€pws iro)s a-iro8exo[xai. ttws is nescio quomodo, as 
 
 7—2 
 
62 NOTES ON VI 6 A 
 
 Fritzsche remarks. In Rep. II 377 D Si. I'lato rejects all these 
 crude stories as false and pernicious. God is altogether good and 
 never lies: ibid. 379 b and 380 i). In particular he emphatically 
 rejects the stories about the unnatural conduct of Cronus and Zeus: 
 ibid. 377 E dpdus ^x^' '^'^ 7^ ToiaOra fx^/LKpeadaL. — trpdrov fxev to 
 fityiaTov Kal irepl rwv /xeyiaTOJV \f/€v5os — ws Ovpavos re eipydaaro 
 d(pr]ai dpdrai ai'Toi' 'Hcrt'oSos, 6 re aD \ip6vos tos eTL/xuiprjaaro avrbv. to. 
 8i dri ToO Kpovov ?pya Kal irdOr) virb rov vUos, o^5' dv ei rjv d\T}6i}, 
 (pfiT]'' SeTv pa5i(j}S ovtu} XiyeaOai irphs d(ppovds re Kal v^ovs kt\. In the 
 doctrine that God is good, latent in this passage, Bonitz finds the 
 key to the positive teaching of the Euthyphro — the answer to the 
 question left unsolved in 14 a: see Introduction, p. xiv. 
 
 810 81]. So Schanz with T: B has 61' d. The antecedent is 
 the entire clause rd roiavra — d7ro5e'xo/xai. Special stress is to be 
 laid on (prjcrei: it is implied (as above in 3 b) that the accusation of 
 impiety is a mere blind. There is no need for Madvig's conjecture 
 idea drj. 
 
 16. rta €v clSoTi. There is irony in the participial clause : Ci^. 
 note on 3 A above. 
 6 B ^7. i\\i.iv: not for e'/xot, but equivalent to 'us laymen' )( yud/rets. 
 So presently o'i ye ai/rol ofioXoyov/uLev irepl avrdv ix7)5kv eid^yai. The 
 sense is much the same in 12 E: TreipQ Kal av ifj.e ovtu SiSd^at — 'iva 
 Kal MeXrjTU} X^ycjfxey fxrjKiO' rj/uids d8(.K€?v /xrjde daefBeias ypdcpeadai, 
 ws iKauQs TJ5r] irapd aov ixcp.a6r)KbTa^ Td re evae^rj Kal oaia Kal rd /xtj. 
 
 t£ "ydp Kal <j)tj(ro|i€V. Cf. 3 A tL Kal TroiovvTa. "Qui tl XPV 
 \4yeiv interrogat, is quid dici, non an aliquid dici debeat quaerit; 
 sed qui tI xPV xdt X^7eti', is non solum quid, sed etiam an aliquid 
 dicendum. sit dubitat" Hermann, quoted by Fritzsche. 
 
 28. avTol — fi.T]8Jv elSc'vai. avTol of course goes with eld^uai: 
 see on avrol ydp ol AudpuTroi in 5 E above. A negative infinitive 
 dependent on verbs setiiiaidi el declarandi in Greek generally takes 
 ou : ixi] is sometimes used by Plato, with the effect of intensifying 
 the negation, just as t6 ixT]bh is stronger than ovMv \ cp. infra 12 b 
 ttoKKoI ydp /iot boKovai — dediivai /x4v, aldelaOai dk fxrjdev TavTa a 
 deSiaaip. Schanz quotes another example with o/xoXoydv : Phaed. 
 94 C ovKovv aD Cop-oKoyqaaiicv — fXTjiroT' dv avTTjv — evavrla q.^uv oh 
 iiri.Teivoi.TO kt\. 
 
 29. dWd )ioi clir^ — ■Y€'yov€vai ; The situation here reminds one 
 of the words of Phaedrus (Phaedr. 229 C) dXX' e^7r^ irpbs Ai6s, w 
 Sci>KpaTes, (TV TovTo t6 fjLv6o\()yT}/xa ireiOei d\r}dis eTvai ; Ueberweg 
 
VI 6 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 63 
 
 (Untersuchungen iiber die Echtheit etc. p. 251) needlessly sees in 
 this correspondence an indication that the Euthyphro is spurious. 
 Zeus as the god of friends had a temple in Megalopolis, seen by 
 Pausanias and described in Book viii 31. 4. Socrates, as might be 
 expected from the high value he set on friendship, frequently 
 invokes this god : see Ast's Lexicon Platonicum s.v. 0iXios. 
 
 tSs dXT]0ws : see on Crito 46 d. ws dXrjdQs, Tip 6vTt. and tq 
 akqdeiq. are used by Plato chiefly in his earlier dialogues : in his 
 later works he prefers a.\-r]9Cjs, tvTUi and dXrjdeia : Schanz in Hermes 
 (1886) XXI 3. pp. 439—459. 
 
 3-2. 01 iroXXoi. 'XoLTToi is a variant in T for iroWoi: but the 
 ignoi'ant multitude are here contrasted with the eh rexvLKoi dvTjp 
 or /xduTis, who is familiar with articles of faith not generally 
 known. 
 
 33. Kttl 7r6\€nov dpa. So B : the editors read dpa for apa. 
 Koi is 'also' and apa asks the question. Hitherto only two examples 
 of Euthyphro's orthodoxy have been given : Socrates now proceeds 
 to ask whether he believes the other stories of poets and painters 
 about war between the gods etc. Compare Rep. ii 378 C fi". 
 
 T« ovTi. See on ws dXrjdQs in line 29 above. 
 
 34. Kttl ^x^po-s y^- So B: T omits ye, perhaps taking Kai 
 before 7r6\efxov as 'both', in which case it could not be followed by 
 Kal — y^. 
 
 36. rd T€ aXXa Upd. dXXa means 'besides': for iepd is 6 C 
 'temples'. 
 
 37. KaTaireiro^KiXTai: sc. ToiaOra (ace.) : for KaraTrou'tXXetv like 
 verbs of clothing takes two accusatives. We are not to understand 
 Ota or oLois, as Schanz says: the Greek rule is rel. + conj. + ana- 
 phoric (demonstrative) pronoun, not rel. + conj. + rel. See on Apol. 
 40 A. The relative clause is now changed into a main sentence. 
 
 Kal 81] Ktti: introduces a climax as in Apol. 26 D, /cat 5t] Kal oi 
 veoi ravra irap ep-ov ixavddvovaiv kt\. 
 
 Tois }j.€"ydXois IIava0TivaCois. There were two Panathenaic 
 festivals, one annual and less gorgeous (to. Hai'a^'^j'ata rd Kar' 
 iviavTou, or simply ra Ilaz/a^jji'ata in Inscriptions, also called by 
 writers Havad-qvaia rd p.iKpd or p.LKpd I[avadT]va(.a), the other held 
 once every four years, in the 3rd year of every Olympiad (Ilaj'- 
 adrjvaia rd p.eyd\a in Inscriptions, called also by writers rd 
 Ilaj'a^Tii'ata rd fieydXa or ra p-eydXa Ilavadr)vai.a). At the latter, 
 if not also in the former (the evidence is contradictory), a robe. 
 
64 NOTES ON VI 6 c 
 
 woven by Athenian maidens and depicting the triumph of Athene 
 and the Olympians over the giants, together with other celestial 
 fights, was carried in procession to the Acropolis and presented 
 to the statue of the goddess in the Erechtheum, Plato alludes to 
 the same ceremonial in Rep. ii 378 c iroWox) 5e? '^i^avToixax^o.^ 
 re fxv9o\oyr]T^ov avrois Kat iroLKiXreov kt\. The subject is repre- 
 sented on the Parthenon frieze: see Baumeister's Denkmiiler des 
 Klassischen Alterthums 11 p. 1185. From the beginning of the 4th 
 century B.C., if not earlier, the robe was stretched like a sail upon 
 the rigging of a ship, which ran on rollers in the procession. Preller's 
 Griechische Mythologie'* i p. 243. 
 
 39. dvd"Y€Tat : dvd because of the rising ground of the Acropo- 
 lis, not because the robe was an offering {duddrf/jLa). It is not 
 unlikely that dva- in dvddr]/j.a and the like originally referred to the 
 ' high places '. dyu is preferred to (p^pu because of the accompany- 
 ing procession. 
 
 41. ji-i] |xovov yi. So B: T has fi6va. Strictly speaking, the 
 sense is adjectival, but in Greek ixovov, irpQiTov etc. are occasionally 
 used for the corresponding adjectives. Schanz quotes Meno 71 c 
 TavTa-^dtrayy^XKioixev ; fir] fxbvov ye kt\. Kiihner Griechische 
 Grammatik II p. 236 Anmerk. 3. 
 
 42 . apTi : in B above. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 In this chapter Socrates recalls Euthyphro to the point; 'Your 
 definition is no definition: give me the cWos cp Trdvra rd ocria oaid 
 iaTiv\ Euthyphro replies: rb tois deols Trpoa<pi\h = o<xiov : to toIs 
 deoLS /XT] Trpo<T(pL\^s = dp6(nov. 
 
 Socrates is sincerely anxious to convince Euthyphro of his 
 impiety, but it was useless to try to do so directly: a preliminary 
 training in logical method was necessary. See Lechthaler Die 
 6<n6TT)s bei Plalon (Meran 1879) p. 21. 
 
 I. dXXct TavTtt — 8iT]Y7J<r€i. Herewith Socrates dismisses the 
 point. In Plato's expressed disbelief in these mythological tales we 
 see the germ of his hostility to poetry, afterwards developed in the 
 second, third, and tenth books of the Republic. 
 6 D 5. TO irpdxepov viz. in 5 l). 
 
 9. Kal dX-qBirj -ye kXtyov. I'he imperfect of verbs oi saying is 
 
VII 6 E PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 65 
 
 sometimes used where we should expect the aorist : cf. iXe^ov in 
 15 A. Goodwin (M. T. p. 8) notices this usage in Herodotus and 
 Thucydides: but it is not less common in Plato, or indeed in Greek 
 generally. 
 
 10. dXXd Ydp=*but in point of fact': see note on Apol. 
 19 C. 
 
 I '2. Kal Y^p e<rTiv oVia. Schanz with T omits oaia, reading 
 icTTi. It makes Euthyphro's answer more emphatic if o(sia is 
 retained. 
 
 15. iKctvo avTo TO elSos — |xia ISe'a. eXZo% and Ihka. are here 
 practically synonymous : the only difference is that etSos views the 
 thing in question more as to its content, i5e'a more as to its form. 
 Hence eiSos is more naturally used as the object of 5t5a|ai than 
 lUa. 
 
 19, avTi]V 8i8a|ov r-qv ISe'av. a\iT-T]v (as its position shews) is 6 E 
 'by itself, unencumbered by the accidents of a special instance. 
 
 So auroi 7ap e(r/iej' = 'we are alone'. 
 
 20. diropXc'irwv — irapaSei'yfJLaTi. These words are almost tech- 
 nical terms in Plato's theory of ideas, irapadeiy/xa in particular being 
 common especially in the latest phase of that theory. Here there 
 is no allusion to the theory as yet unborn: there is only a faithful 
 description of Socrates' rule of conduct. Cf. infra 9 D line 2 £ : also 
 Crito 46 B and especially Phaedo 100 A virodefifvos iKacrTore \oyov 
 (the X670S sought after in the Euthyphro is to oaiov) 6v av Kpivuj 
 eppiofMeuearaTOv eTvai, a [ikv av fj.01 5oKy tovt(^ avfxcpcjveiv, Ti6r]/jLL cus 
 dXrjdT) 6vTa — d 5' dv fi-q, ws ovK dXrjOi]. See Introduction p. xxviii. 
 
 24. Kal ovTCD (TOi (|>pd(r<i>. Euthyphro's readiness to suit his 
 manner of answering to the wants of his audience is a point which he 
 has in common with the sophists of Plato's dialogues. Cf. Gorgias in 
 Gorg. 449 C: Kal yap av Kal tovto ev iaxLV Civ (pr]fj.'L, fxrjSeva dv iv 
 Ppaxvrepois e/xov Tavrd el-jreiv. 
 
 i*j. ia-ri ToCvvv — dvdo-iov. Euthyphro's second attempt at a 
 definition is more successful. He avoids the former mistake of 
 putting the particular for the general : but flaws hardly less serious 
 remain. The worst (not pointed out till Ch. XII foil.) is still due 
 to simple conversion of the universal affirmative: because all 
 holiness is dear to the gods, it does not follow that all that is dear 
 to the gods is holiness. Euthyphro in fact puts a Trd^os of holiness 
 in place of its ovala. On this definition in general see Introd. 
 p. xix. 
 
66 NOTES ON vii 7 a 
 
 7 A 29. Tra-yKaXtos expresses Socrates' satisfaction that Euthyphro 
 has escaped his former error. Just so in the Theaetetus (148 B), 
 when Theaetetus and his friend shew that they have surmounted 
 the first difficulty of defining, Socrates bursts out: apiara 7* dvOpu}- 
 irojv, (S iraldes. 
 
 31. dXT|0c3s is preferred to the more natural d\-i]9ij {dXi^dishsiS 
 some inferior MS authority) from assimilation to 7^a7^-aXc(;s, a;s, and 
 ovTU). us aKr}6ios (the reading of T) is impossible: the meaning 
 would then be ' if however you have really answered '. 
 
 lirtKSiSalcis. Stallbaum quotes Prot. 3^8 E afxiKpLv tI /jloi 
 efXTToduv, 8 5t]\ov oti Jlpuraydpas pg-diios eTre^oiod^ei, eTretSr; Kal to, 
 vroXXd ravra e^eoiSa^e. 
 
 32. ecTTiv : emphatic, hence the accent. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Socrates proceeds to examine Euthyphro's definition. He first 
 endeavours to remove an ambiguity in the expression roh deols: and 
 in so doing contrives to shew that Euthyphro's definition is un- 
 tenable fro^ Euthyphro's own standpoint, while from a higher and 
 indeed essentmilj^ monotheistic conception of God it is less object- 
 ionable, though still inadequate. 
 
 In this Chapter Socrates reminds Euthyphro that there are gods 
 and gods : what one god loves another may hate, in which case the 
 same thing will be both holy and unholy, which is impossible, 
 because holiness and unholiness are opposites. See Introduction 
 p. xix ff. 
 
 1. tC Xt'-yop-ev. Xiyofxev is 'mean', as often: see on Apol. 21 B. 
 
 2. TO \i.kv 0eo<|)i\€S T€ — d'vOpwTros. T€ is displaced from its 
 natural position after t6, partly because of /xh, and partly because 
 oaiov is thus more easily supplied. It is worth while noticing why 
 avdpunros is introduced. What Socrates desiderated was the eI5os (^ 
 •Kavra rh ocria oaia eariv: now ocrm are of two sorts — men and 
 deeds : applied to men, oVioj has a subjective sense ; applied to 
 deeds, an objective: the subdivision is therefore necessary to 
 illustrate iravra to. oaia. 
 
 3. 8£0|JLio-^s is equivalent to fxr] irpoa(l)i\^s 6eoh. The neutral 
 condition of indifference is not admitted: if the gods are not with 
 us, they are against us. Just so dj'w^fX'jJj is rather ' hurtful ' than 
 
VIII 7 A PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 67 
 
 'useless': and in like manner d^ovXos, clkoitos, afxe/xTTTos, d(f)dovo$ and 
 other words have a positive meaning in Greek. See Alcibiades ii 
 138 D foil, and especially Protag. 331 A foil, ovk dpa iaTiv oaioTijs 
 olov dLKaiov elvai vpayfia, ov5^ 8LKaiocrvvrj olop oaiov, ctW olov fir] 
 offLOV ' 7) 8^ 6(Ti6tt]s olou ixT] diKaiov, dW ddiKov dpa, to d^ apoffiov ; 
 Still more clear is Rep. IV 437 C ri Sat ; to d^ov\etv koI fxr) ideXeiv 
 fjLifjd^ iiTLOvfieiv OVK eis to dircodelv Kal direXavveiv ott' aur'^s (sc. t/Js 
 \pvxn^) xal els diravTa TavavTia eKetpois drjcro/xev ; irQs ydp ov; 
 This style of reasoning is indeed disallowed by Diotima in Symp. 
 20r E — 202 A: OVK eiKpTiixrjcreis ', ^(prj' 7} oi'et, rt dv /x?; koXov y, 
 dvayKoiov avTo elvai aiaxpov ; /maXiaTd ye. t] Kal < 5 > dv fir] aocpop, 
 dixadis ; ri ovK "^aOrjcrat otl ^(ttl tl /j-eTa^v aocpias Kal dfxadias ; but 
 only with a view to make room for the Platonic doctrine of dpdr] 
 do^a. It was very prevalent among the Greeks, and may perhaps 
 be illustrated by the Solonian law requiring every one to take a 
 definite side in political questions. There are fewer merely negative 
 notions in Greek than in English : 'All men are not wise' meant to 
 a Greek 'all men are fools'. The whole subject is discussed by 
 Theodor Kock in Hermes xviii p. 546 ff. (Ein Kapitel aus der 
 formalen Logik, angewendet auf Aristoteles und Platon). 
 
 4. ov ravT^v 8' icrriv. This explanatory clause (introduced as 
 usual by 5^) is inserted to prepare for the rediictio ad abstirdiun of 8 
 A KoX oaia dpa Kal dvocna ra aink dv etrj, Co EvOixppov, TotjTO) t<^ \6yij}. 
 "5^ stands in the third place, to avoid the union of ov and 5^". 
 Schanz. For to ivavTLLOTaTov ('altogether its opposite') cf. Lysis 
 215 E TO ydp evavTicoTaTOv Tip ivavTicoTaTip elvai fidXiCTTa 
 4>i\ov. evavTLwraTov without the article would have a different 
 meaning: the article implies that unholiness has but otte opposite, 
 holiness. For TavTov see note on 10 E. 
 
 6. ov\ ovTws <€l'pT]Tat>; The reading is here very difficult. 
 I adopt Hermann's emendation — a solution which had occurred to 
 me independently. The MSS read : ovx ovtws ; outw /xiv odv. Kal 
 e5 76 (paiveTaL elpTjaOai. 8okQ, c5 "SiUKpaTes, etpTjTai ydp. Fritzsche 
 and Wohlrab retain the MS reading, except that they reject elp-qTai 
 ydp after St6/cpaTes, and insert it after ovTia /xev odv : Schanz now 
 rejects etprjTai ydp 171 toto : formerly he bracketed the whole passage 
 from /cat eD ye down to the first etprjTai ydp. Ast, Heusde, Hoene- 
 beek, Maresch and Badham have each of them different suggestions. 
 Hermann's correction seems to me at once the easiest and the best 
 in point of sense. After ovx ourws we naturally expect e'iprjTai, for the 
 
68 NOTES ON viii 7 a 
 
 statement has been made already in 5 D t6 avb(Jiov aZ tov fxh ocrlov 
 IT avT 6s evapTLov, where vavrbs ^j'afrtoj' is practically equivalent to 
 evavTnl)TaTov. I conjecture that the corruption arose thus. After 
 5oKu), w Sw/cparej, the words etprjrai yap were added on the margin 
 by a copyist, perhaps with a reference to 5 D above, to indicate 
 that the statement had been made already. Being afterwards 
 introduced into the text, they were the occasion of the omission of 
 eiptjTaL after ourws, the more readily, inasmuch as elpijadai, etprjrai, 
 and presently eiprjrai. yap occur in the immediate vicinity. 
 
 8. Kal efi -y^ ({>aiv€Tai clpTJo-Gai is added by Socrates because 
 the assertion was previously made by Socrates, not by Euthyphro 
 (5 d) : Socrates wishes to have the sentiment approved by Euthy- 
 phro, in order that he may contribute to his own discomfiture. 
 13 9. 8oK(5, for which Schleiermacher suggested 5oKeif is not rarely 
 used in the sense of doKei fioi, e.g. Rep. V 473 D o6k iari kukCov 
 iravXa — rais irdXeai, 5okQ 5' ov5^ t($ avOpojirlvi^ y^uei. A distinct 
 usage is 8oku) for 8ok€i fioi 'it seems good to me' e.g. Agam. i6 6Tav 
 S' adbeiv ij pnvvpeadai doKu. See Mr Arthur Sidgwick in Classical 
 Review (April, 1889) ill 4, p. 148. 
 
 13. €l'pT]Tai yap: viz. in 6 a — C. 
 
 14. ^x.^pav 8^ Kttl op^ds: opyai (irae) are the particular 
 ebullitions of the permanent state ex^pa. The singular ^x^P^t" is 
 kept probably out of a desire to conform to ^x^P<* j"^t before. 
 For a similar reason ^dpav 8k Kal opyds is placed first in the 
 sentence. 
 
 15. w8€ 8^ oTKoirwjicv. Once more the reasoning is from man to 
 God: see above on 6 a line 20, and Introd. p. xvi. 
 
 16. ircpl dpiOfiov. Three things are mentioned on which a 
 dispute is capable of easy and sure settlement, viz. number, size, 
 and weight. They all belong to the material universe, being things 
 wv hv Swdofieda dirpi^ toXv x^P^^^ \a^iadai. Schanz aptly quotes 
 Xen. Mem. I i. 9 8aip.ovdv 5k (sc. I<p7] 6 "^UKpdrrjs) Kal tovs 
 fxavTevofxhovs a roh dvOpdbirois ^SoiKaf ol deol /xadovcri diaKplveiv ' olov 
 kt\., ij d i^ecTTiv dpidfiriaavTas ij fx-erpriaavTas ^ ar'^ffavras 
 eld^vat, TOVS rd TOiavra irapd tuiv Oeuu irvvdavoixevovs ddi/xLara Troieiu 
 riyeiTo. See also Rep. X 602 D op' ovv ov to /xerpe'ii' Kal dpid/xeiif 
 Kal IcrrdvaL ^orjdeiai xapt^crrarat Trpos avrd e(pdvr)(xav, uiare yurj 
 dpx(tv iv Tj/juv TO (}>aLv6pL€Pov /xei^ov 7} ^XaTTOv 7) Tr\4ou rj ^apvTcpov 
 ktX.; and Alcib. i iii 1? foil. tI ovv; 8okov<tL aoi 5ia(p4p€(Tdai ol 
 TToWol Tro76v laTi. XiOos 7} ^uXof ; To find a /nirpov for immaterial 
 
VIII 7 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 69 
 
 things like justice, piety, etc. was the whole work of Socrates, and 
 absorbed a large sha:e of Plato's philosophical activity. 
 
 diroTeptt irXcfw : at first sight we might expect oTrorepos ttXcW, 
 but thmgs are ir\eiw, hardly a number. The plural is used, because 
 'more' implies more than one. 
 
 17. iroioi. This older form of the optative of contracted verbs 
 is so frequent in Plato as to be almost regular. In Aristophanes, 
 the longer forms {-oItjv -oItjs -oLt]) are regularly used in the singular : 
 see Rutherford's New Phrynichus p. 442 foil. 
 
 18. ircpi yi Twv ToioviTwv goes with rax^ ^ diraWaye7iJ.ev. 
 The ye contains a sinister hint that after all some subjects would 
 remain on which they would differ still, piety for example. What 
 is here called \oyLajj.6s is called dpLOfnjTLKr) in Ale. I 126 c did 
 tIv odv T^x^W o[xovoovcn.v at 7r6Xeis irepl dpidfxovs ; 5id rrjv dpLd/x.-/]- 
 
 21. (Ji€f|ovos Kttl IXaTTOvos forms one idea: hence there is but 
 one article. So toO ^apvT^pov re /cat Kov(f>OT^pov below. The two 
 opposites fall under one category — size in the first case, weight in 
 the second. Aristotle was fond of saying tG>v ivavrlcov i] avTT] 
 
 12. cttI TO [ACTpeiv. So Schanz with T: B has/x^T/)toj'. Formerly 
 Schanz read fxerpou. [lerpetv is better, in view of Kal iiri ye to 
 iardvai which follows. Compare Ale. I 126 C — D 5td rii^a 5e 
 T^x^W eKaaros avrbs avri^ ofj-ovoei irepl cnridajXTJs Kal 7r?7xews, 6- 
 ■wbrepov fxel'^ov ; ov did Tr)v jxeTpTjTiK'qv ; 
 
 7.6. 8iaKpi0€i|Ji€v av. T has diaKpLOelrj/xev dv: but the longer 
 form seems not to be used by Plato in the plural : compare dTraXXa- 
 yelixev in line 19 above. See Rutherford as cited on line 17 above. 
 JSchanz suspects that rax^ has fallen out before diUKpLdetfiev. Its 
 occurrence before the verbs d7raXXa7e?/iej' and Travcrai/Jieda in the two 
 previous examples seems at first sight to confirm his suspicion : on 
 the other hand, the threefold repetition of the adverb is somewhat 
 offensive. Naber supplies paSt'ois : but Plato may well have left out 
 the adverb here : in the nature of things the operation of weighing 
 could not have lasted long. 
 
 28. lirl Tiva Kpicriv i.q. i-rrl rtVoj Kpl<nv. So in Latin haec 
 dispiitatio is used in the sense of hums rei disputatio. The meaning 
 cannot be * to what criterion ', since the criterion is ex hypothcsi 
 unknown, never having been reached : the question moreover is not 
 what test, but what thing, Schanz reads eVt Tiva Kpiaiv. but if 
 
70 NOTES ON viii 7 c 
 
 TLva were the indefinite pronoun, it would naturally have followed, 
 not preceded Kpiaip. The indefinite TLva is too weak a word to 
 bear the stress of the sentence-accent, which will infallibly fall on 
 it, if it precedes Kpiaiu. 
 
 29. i\QpQC y€. vSo B : T has ex^pol re. 
 
 30. d\i.iv is easily restored from ^fxev of B and etr^fxev of T 
 (with 77 erased). 
 
 D 31. TO T€ S^Kaiov — KaKov. The difficulty of finding a standard 
 by which to determine what is just etc. was continually present to 
 the mind of Plato : but he sometimes draws a clear distinction 
 between the case of ayadbv and KaKbv on the one hand, and 
 diKaiov etc. on the other. Thus in Theaet. 172 A it is said that the 
 "incomplete Protagoreans" (perhaps to be identified with Socrates: 
 see Dr Jackson in the Journal of Philology vol. xiii pp. 249 — 250) 
 will probably allow that the doctrine TrdvTOJi' fx^rpov dvOpujiros holds 
 good, not only of present sensations, but also of the notions koXo, 
 Kai alaxpoi, SiKaia /cat ddiKa, ocna koX firj, but noi of crv/uLcpipovTa and 
 the opposite, i.e. dyada Kal kuko, (for Plato, like the Greeks 
 generally, always equates dyaOdu and (jvix<pepov, naKbv and ^Xa^epdv). 
 Cf. Prot. 322 D — 323 c. A close parallel to the present passage is 
 Alcibiades i 112 A ff., where Socrates says it is precisely Trepi twv 
 5iKal(i)v Kal dbiKuv dvOpihiruv Kal TrpayixaTOiv that the Athenians do 
 differ : and just as here Kal dyadbu Kal KaKbv is put on the same 
 plane with 8lKaiov and the others, so there Socrates proceeds to 
 identify diKaiov with avfKpipou through the middle terms /caXd and 
 dyadd. Grote refers to Eur. Phoen. 499 — 502 
 
 €1 ndcTL ravrbv KaXov ^(pv (To<p6v 6' afw, 
 OVK rjV av dfJL<pi\€KTOS dvOpuiwoLS ^pts ' 
 
 vvv 5' ovd' ofioLOP ovdeu ovt' laov ^poroh, 
 Tr\r)v 6vbfx.acn.v, to 5' epyov ovk ^ariu rdde. 
 
 Compare also Aristotle Eth. Nic. i i. 1094^ 14 ff. rd 5^ Ka\d Kal 
 TCL diKaia — Toaa\jTriu ^x^' 5ia<popdv Kal TrXdvrjv ware doKciv vSfiu} jxbvov 
 elvai (pvcreL 8^ firj. TOtavTijv 5^ riva Tr\dvr)v ^x^* ^^^'- t dyadd did to 
 TToWoh <xv[x^aiveiv ^Xa^ds (ztt' avTwv • tj5t] ydp Ttves dwujXovTO 5id 
 irXovTov, ^Tepot 8^ 5i' dv8p€lav. Notice by the way that the intro- 
 duction of t6 SlKaiov and similar ethical notions at this point 
 prepares the way for the second division of the dialogue, in which 
 t6 oaiou is viewed as a part of to SlKaiov. As regards the Greek, it 
 should be noted that the omission of the article before KaX6v and 
 
VIII 7 E PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 71 
 
 the following adjectives is intended to reduce the notions to an 
 ethical unity. Cf. Gorg. 459 D ro SiKaiov Kal to abiKov /cat to 
 aicrxpof Kul to kuXov kuI dyadbv Kal KaKbv. 
 
 34, avTwv. Not wv : see on KaTaireiroiKCKraL in 6 C above. 
 
 35. oTttv "yi"yvw|X€0a. This limitation (as Schanz remarks) is 
 inserted because it is not every dtacpopd which leads to ^x^P^ '^'^^ 
 opyai ; a 8La(popd about the weight of an object, for example, causes 
 no ill-feeling, as we have been told. The editors compare Phaed. 
 68 D ovKovv (po^ip fxei^ovuv KaKwv viro/xefovaiu avTuv ol dvdpe'ioi. tov 
 ddvaTov, oTav virofiivwacv. 
 
 37. dXV 'da-Tiv avT-i]. avTrj is in the predicate. Note the 
 accent on ^cttiv: it is frequently accented at the beginning of a 
 sentence. 
 
 39. 01 0€oi kt\. Observe how here again the reasoning is 
 from men to gods : see on 6 A line 20 supra and Introd. p. xvi. The 
 clause eiTrep tl Biacp^povTaL indicates Socrates' disbelief in the quarrels 
 of gods. The caveat is more express in 7 e /caret tou a op \6yov, 
 (is ai) (pris, 8 A tjs ^ocKeu, and 8 D cos 6 cros X070S. 
 
 40. 8id ravra. So B : T has Sl avTd TaOra as in 8 D ovkovv 
 aird ye TavTa /cat oi deol 7reir6i--6a<nv, but here there seems no reason 
 for so much emphasis. 
 
 43. d'XXoi dXXa 8iKaia, Schanz follows Hirschig in adding 7 E 
 Kal aSiKa after 5t/caia. He compares Alcib. I in E where B has 
 
 Twv dLKaiiou Kal ddlKwv while T omits /cat ddiKuu : also Theaet. 1 72 B ei/ 
 rots 5i/catots /cat ctSt'/cots Arat oaiois Kal dvoaioLS, where /cat ci5t/cots (not in 
 BT) has inferior MS authority. Plato's almost invariable rule in such 
 enumerations is to use both the positive and negative notions in each 
 case if he uses them in any: but here I think the omission of Kal ddiKa 
 may be defended. If of two gods A thinks a just, and B thinks b 
 just, it follows that A thinks b not-just, i.e. (according to the usual 
 Greek view : see on deo/j-Laes in 7 A above) unjust. So that /cat ddiKu is 
 unnecessary to the sense, and Socrates is justified in saying presently 
 TavTa 8e ye, cos crv (prjs, ol ixev diKaia TjyovvTac, ol 8e ddiKa. Kal 
 aicrxpd and /cat KaKa have been added in the other two cases perhaps 
 because they are further removed from aXXot dWa. 
 
 44. ov -ydp dv irov. Schanz remarks that this is one of the few 
 cases where Plato uses this collocation without a following ye. 
 
 48. '^KaoTToi: plural, because we are considering the case not 
 of god against god, but gods against gods (aXXot dWa in line 43 
 above) : eaTaaia^ov above implies factions. 
 
72 NOTES ON VIII 7 e 
 
 49, ravTa Kal <}>i\ou(rtv. Observe how in the ancient view of 
 life the emotions (here love) are made to depend on the intellect 
 (xaXd yp/ovvraC) : see on koX rr\v i/Jirjv afxadlav in 2 C. 
 8 A 57. TavT apa. Here and in the next line ravr^ is easily 
 restored from ravT or ravr of the MSS. 
 
 61. Kal o<ria apa — av cI't] : which will contradict 7 A ov ravrbv 
 5' eariu, dWa to h-avrnbraTov, to offiov T<p avoa'up. Protagoras 
 however would have accepted tlie conclusion and said : A thing is 
 pious for the gods who think it so, impious for those who think it 
 impious. Notice the emphatic place of to^ti^ t<^ Xoyij} — on your 
 theory, but on no other. 
 
 63. Kiv8vv€v€i. Euthyphro's assent becomes less hearty as he 
 sees his approaching discomfiture. From irdvv 76 in 7 E to Kivdui^evei 
 his answers betray increasing caution. Cf. Prot. 360 C irdw ye — 
 ufJioXoyei — avp^cpr] — eirevevaev—^^r] — irdw fxoyts ivTavda iirevevaey 
 — avTos, ^<pr], irepavov. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The ambiguity in Eulliyphro's definition being now clear, 
 Socrates prepares the way for the amended form of the definition 
 (viz. that piety is what all the gods love). 
 
 This he does in the present chapter by eliciting from Euthyphro 
 the assertion that all the gods agree in desiring to punish wrongful 
 manslaughter. 'Exactly', says Socrates 'but will they agree what 
 manslaughter is wrong, and what right?' 
 
 1. <5 6av|xd(ric. See on c3 6av/xd<ne ^vdv(f)pov in 5 A. 
 
 2. 8 TVYxdv€t — dvocriov. So 13T. Schanz reads c^J for and the 
 change is approved by Apelt. In favour of Schanz's text might 
 perhaps be quoted 9 C dWd yap ov to^t(^ i^dvr] &pTi wpiafieva t6 
 6<nov Kal nrj : only there tovti^ depends on iJipiafiha. I think the 
 MS reading is right. The meaning is: what I asked was not a 
 thing which, while one and the same (without undergoing any 
 change), happens to be both holy and unholy: whereas what you 
 gave in your answer was d€0(pi\h = o(Tiov, which is at the same time 
 0eo/j.Lcris = du6aiov. Tvyxdvei 6^ go together and oVioV re Kal dvb<Jt.ov 
 are the predicate. Tainbv is pronounced with emphasis and a slight 
 pause made after the word: otherwise 6v would be taken with 
 Tai]Tbv. A similar passage is Rep. IV 435 A ye ravTov dV rts 
 
IX 8 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 73 
 
 irpoaeiTToi fieli^ov re Kal eKarrov kt\. ; where Dobree would add ov 
 after ^Xuttov. Here I do not think any change necessary: but it 
 would be easy to insert 6v after avSaiov, and so relieve ravrdu of its 
 weight of meaning, at the same time giving a balance to the sen- 
 tence which would compensate for the (only seeming I think) lack 
 of euphony, and correspond closely to the twofold copula in deocpiXh 
 ^, and deo/xiffh iariv. In Rep. IV 425c ij ovk del to o/j.oloi' ov 
 ofioiov irapaKoKei some MSS omit 6v. 
 
 5. wo-T€, w Ev0u<j)pov ktX. applies the result arrived at to 8 B 
 Euthyphro's special case. The shock of the insinuation is calcu- 
 lated to make him protest that all the gods approve his act and so 
 lead up to the amended definition. 
 
 6. KoXdt«v is a more delicate word than ri/xupwv : chastisement 
 has the good of the chastised in view. 
 
 7. Ttp |j.€v AiC. A touch of humour: Zeus had not been over- 
 kind to his own father. See 6 a. 
 
 9. 'H4>ai<rTa). See Pausanias I 20. 2 : Xeyerai de rdde vrro 
 'EXX^fwi', COS "Hpa plypai. yei'6/j.ei'ov "Hcpat-aToy, 6 de ol /xvTjcnKaKuv 
 ireixxpai dQpov xp^'^ovv dpSpov dcpaveTs dea/movs ^x'"''"'** "^"^ ^W P-^" 
 iirei re eKade^ero dedecrdai ktX. Dionysus finally made Hephaestus 
 drunk and brought him back to Olympus to release his mother. 
 The return to Olympus was frequently depicted on Greek vases : 
 see Baumeister's Denkm'aler I p. 643. Plato alludes to the incident 
 again in Rep. II 378 D "Upas 5e dea/xovs viro vleos ktX. 
 
 11. Kal €K£ivois Kara ravrd i.e. tovto 8pwu rtp fxei> (plXov Troteis 
 rep de ixdpof. 
 
 12. irepi yi totjtov : ye exactly as in irepi ye ti2v tolovtcov 7 B. 
 
 13. 8ia(f>ep€(r6a(. ws ov. Verbs meaning 'to contradict' are 
 regularly followed by a clause with ws [otl) giving what is main- 
 tained, not what is contradicted : hence the ov. So presently dp.- 
 4>L<x^ryrovvTos cJs — ov Set dlKTiv didovai'. of. 9 D and see on Apol. 31 B 
 line 46. 
 
 14. 8£kt]v 8i8ovai — dSiKcos. Notice the verbal play. He who 
 does not render justice in deeds must render justice in punishment : 
 the tale of justice must be made up. So 8 e ra; ye ddiKovvri boriov 
 blK-qu. The form of expression implies the remedial view of 
 punishment. 
 
 16. dvGpwircov. Once more Socrates solves the difficulty by 
 reasoning from men to gods: see above on 6 A line 20. 
 
 18. oiXXo dSiKws iroiotvTa is equivalent to aXXo ddiKoOuTa. As 8 C 
 
74 NOTES ON ix 8 c 
 
 an injury is supposed to be slill in force till compensation is made, 
 the present is used in spite of dTOKTebavra preceding: see on Crito 
 50 c. 
 
 20. oiSlv \i.lv ovv TravovTai. fxh ovv is corrective (immo) : see 
 on Apol, 26 B. Cobet has pointed out that ov iraverai and ov5ev 
 vaverai differ exactly as fiucvi non facit and Jinem milium facit 
 (Nov. Lect. p. 500). 
 
 12. iravra Trotovcri Kal X^-yovcri: a common phrase in Plato, 
 occasionally with the singular -Kav. e.g. Apol. 39 A iro-v TroLeiv Kal 
 X^yciv. <|>€i)YOVT€S is here conative like 5t56»'at= 'offer' : Schanz 
 compares Gorg. 479 b ol ttju BIktjv (pevyovres. 
 
 24. "^ Kal ofioXoYouo-iv. Euthyphro has made two assertions : 
 (i) many say t6v dSi'/cws diroKTeivavTa rj &Wo ddiKcos iroiovi^a ov d€7v 
 diKTjp Sibovai, (2) irdvTa iroiovai Kal X^yovcri (^evyovTes rrjv diKrjv. 
 Socrates refutes (2) first, and the refutation of (i) follows from that 
 
 of (2). 
 
 25. OV BiZv ^a<rC: oij (paai deTu would be more usual (as in 
 cv ^aaiv dSiKdv presently), but less emphatic. Perhaps the unusual 
 order is responsible for the corruption ov5^v (for ov delv) in B. 
 
 27. OTj8a|ic5s TovTo yi : has the idea of ei;0^/iet! No! they 
 stop short of that. To admit (ofJioXoyelv) that one's client has 
 broken the law (ddiKe^u) would be tantamount to giving up the case: 
 at the same time Socrates does not say that advocates do not some- 
 times defend clients whom they believe to be guilty. 
 8 D 33- ovK apa tKcivo y* — ciXtjOtj Xe'-ycis. These words are brack- 
 eted by Schanz (after Schenkl). They occur in the Mss, except 
 that (Js — d/j.<pi(TpT]Tova-LV is omitted in B (obviously by mistake), and 
 replaced by a later hand. They are necessary to the sense, for so 
 far only the second of Euthyphro's assertions has been expressly 
 contradicted : it is equally necessary to reject the first expressly. 
 In C above Euthyphro has said that men continually dfxcpLa^TjTovcxLv 
 a»s t6i> ddLKovfTa ov 5et d'lK-qv SidovaL: Socrates now says no! ovk 
 &pa dfJi(Pi(r^r]TovaLv ws ov tov ddiKovvTa dei dtSovai blK-qv. Plato is 
 especially careful to make the refutation complete, and in terms 
 likely to recall the statement of the doctrine refuted : cf. 8 a koI 
 Saia — X07V with 7 a ou ravTOV 5' ^<ttIv — ai^off'Kf. 
 
 35. TO t£s «o-Tiv ktX. to goes with the entire clause as in 
 Aristotle's well-known to tL ■^v elyai. Goodwin's Greek Grammar 
 p. 201, note 7. 
 
 38. ovKoiiv avTGi yi TttvTa. Socrates now makes the applica- 
 
IX 8 E PLATO'S EUl'HYFHRO. 75 
 
 tion to the case of gods : that of men was but an ilkistration. The 
 general reasoning reminds us of Pliny's Panegyiicus § 72 et sane 
 priorum principum exitus docuit ne a diis quidem amari nisi quos 
 homines ament. 
 
 40. 01 fie'v <|)aoriv aXX' aWovs a8iK€iv is a main sentence and 
 does not depend on eiwep. aW dWovs is my emendation for 
 aWriXovs. I believe that oXKtjXovs is corrupt. Fritzsche remarks 
 *' Mira brevitas. Nam animo haec obversantur : ddiKoucriv dWrjXovs, 
 Kul oi fxiv (paaiv {ddiKelcrdai), ol Se ov (paaiv {ddiKe'Lv) '\ But the Greek 
 will not bear this stress of meaning. The first thing to notice is 
 that dWriXovs if right must be the subject to dSiKelv : the sense will 
 not allow the subject to be supplied from oi iJ.iu, and besides it is 
 irrelevant to name the object of the wrong-doing: the sole point is 
 that the wrong-doing should itself be named (aStKeif has no external 
 object wherever it occurs, from tL de ; in B above to the end of the 
 chapter). This being so — is it possible to say in Greek : the one party 
 say that one another are doing wrong ? It is just as impossible in 
 Greek as in English, unless this 'one party' means to accuse itself, 
 as Schanz's translation of dXXrjXovs (die einen die andern) makes it 
 do. In Isocrates Panegyr. 168 occur these words : wVre Kal 
 fxaXXov xO'i-povaiu eirl Toh dXXrj'Xoiv kukoIs t} tols avrwi' Idiois dyadois. 
 Cobet (Var. Lect. p. 519) substitutes dXXoov for dXXrjXcov, wrongly 
 (as I think) in this passage, adding " communis librorum error et 
 frequens". In Xen. Oecon. Ch. XX § 5 he replaces 8i.a<f>€povTei 
 dXXrjXcjv by dLa<p€povT€s dXXoov, this time rightly, although Holden 
 hesitates to accept the emendation. "Quam saepe dXXcov et oXXtj- 
 \o}u confundantur notum est omnibus" (Nov. Lect. p. 596). In 
 view of the last of these passages one might feel inclined to sub- 
 stitute dXXovs for aXX'»7\oi's here : I believe however that Plato 
 wrote dXX' dXXovs. One set of gods say : A (another god) is wrong 
 in this, B Mrong in that : but A and B deny that they are wrong. 
 The phrase is doubtless a reminiscence of 7 E Kai tuv dewv dpa — 
 dXXoi dXXa diKaia Tjyovvrai. 
 
 41. w 0av(xa<ri€: see on 5 A. Here the appellation is strictly 
 in point. 
 
 42. ovSels 0VT6 0€«v — 8iKT]v. ye before ddiKovvn makes the 
 words equivalent to ' bccatise he is a wrong doer'. 
 
 44. TovTO |x€V dXT]6^s Xe^tis almost = Toi)To p.kv dXrjBeveis. 8 E 
 Presently T has to ye KecpdXaiov, which may be right. Schanz quotes 
 Phileb. 48c eoTt d^ wovrjpla yu.eV rts to Ke<pdXaiov. Euthyphro's 
 
 A. EU. 8 
 
76 NOTES ON ix 8 e 
 
 guarded reply is not meant (I think) to indicate that there were 
 some who openly professed the doctrine that 'he shall take who 
 has the power, and he shall keep who can', though there were such 
 men at Athens (see Calliclcs's speech in the Gorgias 482 C foil., and 
 Rep. I 338 E foil.) : it is merely a way of surrendering salva vere- 
 cundia. Notice y-iv without a following 5^ : Euthyphro implies 
 that Socrates is not akuays right in what he says. Cf. Apol. 21 d 
 TOVTQV yXv Toiv dvdpuTTOv iyoj aocpJjTepds el/xi. 
 
 46. dXX' ^KaoTov -ye. So T : B has e/cdorwi' by an accidental 
 assimilation to tQv -wpaxG^vTo^v. 
 
 48. d'irep d|x<j)i<rpTiTov(riv 0€o( : the usual caveat : see on 7 d 
 line 39 above. 
 
 7rpd|€(6s Tivos irept. "Asyndeton explicativum " says Schanz. 
 See on Apol. 22 a ■^ ixi]v iyu) ^iradbv ri tolovtov ol jxev fxaXia-ra 
 evSoKifxovvTes ktX., and for irepi postponed, ibid, on 19 C and supra 
 4 E. The emphatic place of Trpa^ews ('it is about an action that they 
 differ') is meant to suggest the antithesis — ''not about the right of 
 punishing a wrong action'. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Socrates now asks Euthyphro what ground he has for holding 
 that all the gods will think his father guilty of wrongful man- 
 slaughter, and approve the conduct of the son. Euthyphro shirks 
 the question: he reserves his reasons for the judges. 
 Q A I* ^O*- vvv: so Schanz now reads. The reading is easily elicited 
 from Wi vZv of B and Wi rolvvv of T. vvv when illative is enclitic. 
 Other examples quoted by Schanz from Plato are Gorg. 451 a: 
 Alcib. I 114 D Idi vvv. Politic, 294 D 0^/)e vvv. 
 
 2. cocfxoTepos : ao(p6i (like cppovTiaTrjs) was almost a nickname 
 of Socrates : see note on Apol. 18 b and supra on 2 c. 
 
 T£K|i"qpiov. As Wohlrab remarks, we have here an indica- 
 tion of the inquiry raised in the next three chapters. Had Euthy- 
 phro been able to give a satisfactory TCK/xripiov why all the gods 
 approved his conduct, he would have been able to separate the 
 ovaia of oaiov from its iraOos (viz. t6 ^eo0tX^j). 
 
 ■irdvTes 0€oi : without the article : contrast Travres ol deol in 9 E, 
 where see note. 
 
 4. TcOvdvai as passive to the perf. of airoKTdvo) : see on 0cv7ctJ 
 avTT]v ij 5iiJ}K€i.s in 3 K above. 
 
Xgh Vl^hl^O'S EUTHYPHRO. 77 
 
 0T]T€vwv dv8po4>dvos 7€vo[i€vos. Compare the account in 4 c. 
 drp-evuv is logically subordinate to y€v6fj.€uo$ : 'being guilty of man- 
 slaughter while a day labourer'. 
 
 6. <J>0d(rT) TcXexmjo-as: the words almost suggest that he died of 
 set purpose (like a Chinaman) to spite Euthyphro's father. 
 
 7. 8E(r|id: see on tuu dea/xwv cLTrodvycrKei in 4 D. The nom. 
 (ace.) plur. dea-fxa is said not to occur elsewhere in Plato. 
 
 €^T]Yi^T(3v : see on 4 c. Here the entire college is alluded to : 
 in 4 c only 6 e^TjyrjTrjs, probably the president. 
 
 9. op0«s ^X*"" Hirschig reads exeiv : but the ws of us Troyres 
 6eol rjyovvTai is still carried on. Notice the contempt expressed by 
 Tov ToioijTov 5-q just above. 
 
 10. l'0l recalls tdi wv with which Socrates' appeal began. 
 
 11. iravTos |idXXov: 'more than anything' is constantly used q b 
 by Plato in the sense of 'assuredly'. See on Crito 49 B. The 
 phrase is probably selected here because Traires is to follow : ' beyond 
 
 all doubt all the gods etc.'. 
 
 15. dXX' l'<ra)s ovk oXC-yov ktX. Euthyphro evades the difficulty 
 after the usual fashion of self-confidence nonplussed. 'I could an 
 I would : but it's no mere bagatelle, and it would take time'. So in 
 14 B when he retreats for the second time: /cat dXiyov aoL irpoTcpov 
 dirov — oTi. irXeiovos ipyov carlv aKpL^ws Travra ravra ws '^x^'- 
 fxadetv. Plato professes contempt for the man who has cxoXtJ for 
 "splitting differences between two degrees of the infinitesimally 
 small, such as a tobacco pipe or the Roman Empire, a million of 
 money or a fiddlestick's end ", and none to probe a question to the 
 bottom. See Theaet. 172 d foil, on the axo\v of the true 
 0t\oVo0os. 
 
 16. lireC : sc. were there time. Here evret is virtually equivalent 
 to ' although ' : see on 4 c above. 
 
 eiriSctlai: suggests a long, somewhat windy sermon, rather than 
 a cogent proof {dirodec^at). The word is regularly used of a 
 sophistic display (e7rt5et|ts). Prot. 347 E ^(tti fievroi, ^<pr} (sc. 
 TTTTTtas), Kal ejxol \6yos irepl avTov eS ex^v, ov vpuv e7ri5ei|w, du 
 PovXrjade. 
 
 18. [lavGdvo) • oTi ktX. See on 3 B. The sentence gives a 
 sarcastic reason for Euthyphro's ovk oXlyov ^pyov. Socrates pretends 
 to be ready to give Euthyphro as much time as the judges would 
 allow him. 
 
 19. €v8€i§6i. Notice that it is Socrates who uses ivdelKUVfiai, 
 
 8-2 
 
78 NOTES ON x 9 b 
 
 Euthyphro who says eiri5eiKvvfii: see last note but one. ddiKa pres- 
 ently is 'illegal' as well as 'wrong'. 
 
 20. ol Geol a1ra^^T€s : ' the gods one and all ' : the emphasis adds 
 to the irony. On the article see Trdi^Tes ol deoi in 9 E and note. 
 
 '22. iavTTip dKovbio-C "yc: Euthyphro fears interruptions: indeed, 
 like Phocion, he almost regarded them as a proof of his merit : see 
 3 C Kai i/xoO yap toi, brav ti X^yu iu rg iKKXtjaiq. Trepl tuv deicjff — 
 KaTaycXwaiv ws fiaipofi^vou. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 In this chapter Euthyphro at last emends his definition thus: 
 Holiness is what all the gods love, unholiness what all the gods 
 hate. 
 g c I' tcivrrep cv SoKfis Xe-yeiv. The Athenians liked above all 
 things a clever orator: see Apol. 17 A /idXtcrra 8^ avrdv iv iOav/xaaa 
 Twv ttoWGjv wu ixpeiKxavTo, tovto ev <^ iXeyov Cjs xPV L'/iSj evXa^elaOai, 
 jXT] vtt' ifioO e^airaT7]d7JTe, ws deiPoO 6vtos Xeyeiv. 
 
 2. iviv6r\a-a. So B : T has exo/^^t'- "perhaps'', says Schanz 
 "by interpolation, owing to the genitive". The genitive is of 
 course a gen. absolute. 
 
 3. Kal irpos cjJLavTov o-kottw. A familiar incident with Socrates: 
 sometimes his earnest thought rooted him to the spot (Symp. 174 
 D), on one occasion, it is said, for twenty-four hours (Symp. 220 b). 
 The syntax is as in Apol. 21 d irpbs ejxavrbv €Xoyi^6/ji.T]v : the ego 
 is as it were divided into two beings, one of whom talks to the 
 other. So Plato used to say that thought was the soul talking to 
 itself: Theaet. 189 E to 8k 8iavoe7crdai. ap' owep iyCj KaXeis ; tL 
 KaXijov ; Xdyou ov avrri irpbs avTrjv i] ypvxn 8t.€^ipxcTai Trepl tov av 
 cKowy: Soph. 263 E: cf. Phileb. 38 D. The same self-dissecting 
 process underlies the meaning of the Latin words conscius and 
 cojiscieniia (see Nettleship's Passages for Translation into Latin 
 Prose p. 14). 
 
 cl o Ti )j.d\i(rTa: see on 4 D above. 
 
 5. 01 6€oi aTravT€s: see on 9 B and 9 E. 
 
 6. t£ ^dXXov ktX. Socrates proceeds to shew Euthyphro that 
 t6 deofuah and r6 d€o<piX4s are only accidents of t6 avocnbv re koX 
 oaiov : we want their essence. 
 
 8. TOVTO TO ^p-yov viz. your father's act of manslaughter. 
 
XI 9 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 79 
 
 9. dXXd "ydp ov tovtw — i^6.vy\. This passage is most difficult. 
 There is no important variant in the MSS. 
 
 We shall best understand the meaning by recapitulating the 
 situation. Socrates says in effect: "Even supposing I allow that 
 all the gods hate your father's act, are we any nearer to the know- 
 ledge of TO o<ji.6v re Kai dvdaiov? That his act will be deo/xLO'es I 
 am willing to allow: but" (this is the implied antithesis to deoniah 
 fiev) "is it necessarily dvocriou? Is deofiicres of the essence of dvocriov, 
 or is it not merely a irddos thereof? This will best be settled, if we 
 formally amend your definition to 'what all the gods love is oaiou, 
 and what they all hate dv6ai.ov' and examine it in this amended 
 form". That is to say, Socrates is about to point out a new and 
 more serious error in Euthyphro's definition, even when it is 
 construed in its most favourable light : viz. that it puts the irddos for 
 the oixrla. This chapter therefore is the transition to the following 
 two chapters. 
 
 But what of the words dXXa ydp ov roxnt^ k<pdvr\ dpri wptcfxha to 
 offiov Kal /xTj' TO ydp deofjuaes 6v Kai ^£o0iX^s ecpcwr}} I believe them 
 to have been interpolated by some scribe who failed to grasp the 
 situation. For, on the supposition that they are genuine, Toim^ 
 must have for its antecedent either {a) deofxicres or (<^) to '^pyov. If 
 {a), then Plato is guilty of thoroughly confused thinking. The only 
 argument on which dv6a(.ov has hitherto been denied to be identical 
 with ^eo/i«res, is that all the gods do not hate the same thing, or, as 
 the explanatory clause puts it presently, to deofiLdes ov /cat deocpiX^s 
 ((pdi-q. But this is just the argument which Socrates has declared 
 that he is ready to give up : he will allow, for argument's sake, that 
 all the gods do hate the act of Euthyphro's father. Moreover, it is 
 intolerable to have three cases of the pronoun tovto within four 
 lines, whereof the first and third refer to the same thing, and 
 the second to something quite different. In the third place, oJcrre 
 before tovtov is hardly intelligible except on the supposition that 
 dXXa ydp — icpdv-rj is either spurious or else a complete parenthesis. 
 If therefore deo/jnais is the antecedent to tovt(^, the entire clause 
 must be rejected. If however the antecedent is (d) tovto to ^pyov, 
 as Schanz believes, then another view is possible. The meaning 
 will then be : suppose I allow that all the gods hate this one 
 particular act of your father's, yet does this bring us nearer to a 
 general definition of piety and impiety? That is to say, Socrates 
 feels that Euthyphro has not yet shaken himself clear of the 
 
8o NOTES ON xi 9 c 
 
 personal elements in the case : he is still anchored in the harbour 
 of ' Piety is doing what I am doing now '. The reference in a/srt 
 will in that case be to the refutation of Euthyphro's first attempt 
 in 6 D. This is Schanz's view and seems at first sight to be sup- 
 ported by the emphasis on tovto and roirov in the words rovTo 
 TO ?pyov, and uare toOtov dtptrjfxi ae: on the other hand, so far as I 
 can see, there is on Schanz's view no antithesis latent or expressed 
 to the fJL^v after deofiiff^s, and the position of the words in cos oi deol 
 airavres tov tolovtov ddvarov rjyovvrai adiKou elvai seems to shew 
 that more emphasis was intended to fall on oi deoi diraures than on 
 TOV ToiovTou Odvarov : moreover, if the antithesis is between the 
 particular and the universal, we should expect the statement of the 
 universal presently in d to be more emphatic e.g. irdvd' o<t dv 
 irdpres ol deol fjLLaQaiv, dvoaid iaTi kt\. Even on Schanz's explana- 
 tion it is necessary to reject the words to yap deofxiah 8v /cat 6€0(pi\h 
 i<f)dv't} (so Schanz, following Kleist), because they refer to the 
 refutation of the second definition, whereas (on Schanz's view) the 
 reference throughout is to the first. Schanz's explanation suits the 
 passage taken by itself quite well: but it seems to me a flaw in 
 Plato's art, if after the first definition has been quite refuted on the 
 ground of putting the particular for the universal, and an error 
 pointed out in the second definition, he should harp back again 
 upon the first definition, without at the same time preparing the 
 way (as I conceive him to have done) for discovering another 
 grievous error in the second. 
 
 II. w<rT6 TOVTOw cu)>tT]|ii cr€. Tovrov sc. TOV ^pyov: viz. your 
 father's act. d(pir}fji.i is a legal term for acquitting: Rep. v 451 n 
 d<plefji,iv <xe uHJirep <p6vov. 
 D 12. €l povXci. Asyndeton as in 8 E Trpa^fwj tivo^ irepi v. note 
 in loc. Here T has Kal el. 
 
 ij-ycfcrOwv : the MSS have iqyeladuaav, corrected by the second 
 hand in B. "The Imperative suffix -uaav does not appear till 300 
 B.C. Till then we meet only with forms in -uv (-vtuv -aduu). The 
 proportion in the frequency of the two formations is : 
 
 Before 300 u.c. -ivv : -o}aav=iii : o 
 After 300 B.C. -wj' : •b}aav= 3 : 22", 
 
 Meisterhans Grammatik der Att. Inschriften^ p. 132. Cobet (Nov, 
 Lect. p. 327) had already remarked: "Nunquam dixcrunt Atheni- 
 enses Kpiviadvoaav — sed Kpiviadwv omnes". 
 
XI 9 E PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 8i 
 
 13. ctXX* dpa TovTO kt\. Socrates suggests that the definition 
 should be amended so as to identify holiness with what all the gods 
 love. To some extent this is an approximation to Monotheism : for 
 if irdvTei 01 deoi always agree, then they are essentially one (to 
 Betov) ; although in the words 6 8' av oi fiiu (piXQaiv, ot 5^ /jlio-Oktiv 
 kt\., a diversity of view is still permitted to them. For iiravopdib- 
 fieda followed by a clause giving what is asserted, not what is 
 corrected, see on diacpipeadai, ws 01) in 8 B above. eTravopdwfieda 
 (conj. delib.) is a probable restoration for iiravopdov/xeda of B and 
 T: but iiravopdovfjieda is not necessarily wrong, since Greek some- 
 times uses the present where we should use the future, especially in 
 questions e.g. Rep. 11 373 D rj irui X^yo/jLeu; see also Kuhner's Gr. 
 Gramm. II p. 120 and compare note on a7ro5exw/xe^a infra in 9 E. 
 Presently X07V is simply ' definition '. 
 
 15. 08' av — d|i4>6T€pa. This clause is really tantamount to a 
 surrender of the definition, if d/xcpoTepa is taken seriously : a thing 
 cannot be both holy and unholy. But ovderepa rj afxcporepa is only a 
 way of saying that where the gods differ in their likes and dislikes, 
 there is no question of hoHness involved. For the expression cf. 
 Rep. II 365 E oh rj dfKfyoTepa 7} oiS^repa ireLariov. The plural 
 is regular : in afxcporepa it is logically right, while in ovd^repa it is 
 probably due to a desire for uniformity, made easier by the Greek 
 tendency to use neuter plurals as a single notion {(pavepd iari 
 etc.), as in the case of rd '^repa {ddrepa) Phaed. 68 C ^iXoxpw^To^ 
 Kat (pLXoTi/xos, rjTOL TCL '^Tcpa TOVTOjv T] /Cat dfKpoTe pa. 
 
 19. ri ■ytip KwXvti. Euthyphro talks with the airy tone of a 
 man whose mind is already made up. The editors quote an exact 
 parallel from Charm. 163 A ri yap KiiiXvei ; ^(prj. ovd^v ifxi ye, 
 7Jv 8' iyd, aXX' opa firj eKelvov KoiKiei ktX. 
 
 20. TO (Tov (TKoirei cl : is exactly equivalent (as Schanz remarks) 
 to (TKoirei el av ye. 
 
 21. €1 TOVTO ■uiroGe'p.tvos. See on 6 E, line 20 above, ourw sums 
 up the participial clause tovto viroOepievos. The usage is frequent in 
 Plato e.g. Gorg. 457 C ov pq.8io}s duvavrai — fj-adovres Kal dida^avTes 
 eavToi/s ourw 8LaXvecrdai rds avuovcrias: Prot. 310 D e^ al. 
 
 23. aXX* ^w-ye <|)aCT]v. Euthyphro now states the amended 9 b 
 definition viz.: " Holiness = what all the gods love: what all the 
 gods hate = unholiness". 
 
 24. irdvTts ot 0€oC. From 9 a to 9 e we find Travres deoi four 
 times (a, B, D, e) : iravres oi deoi twice (d, e), ot ^eot dnavres twice 
 
82 NOTES ON XI 9 E 
 
 (b, c). a study of these passages shews that vduTes deol and iravres 
 oi deoi differ just as 'all gods', and 'all the gods' : the latter is the 
 more regular and formal expression, for which reason it is used in 
 the suggested definition (d) and in the first part of Euthyphro's 
 formal statement thereof, ol deol airavres is the most emphatic. 
 
 27. ovTws — diroSextoiieGa: so B. T has dirodexo/xeda: see on 
 iiravopd defied a in D above. Here the conj. is of course necessary on 
 account of the preceding iiricrKOTrQ/xev. dwodexi^/J-^da in this sense 
 regularly takes a genitive: strictly speaking tovto is carried on as the 
 direct object, and the gen. depends on diro-. ovtus is 'simply' 
 'without more ado' as in pq-dioos ovtu Rep. ii 378 A and Symp. 
 
 176 E OVTO) TTLPOVTOS TTpOS TjbovqV. 
 
 28. edv (jLovov <})fj t£s Ti ^x*iv ovria. What precisely is the 
 meaning of tl and the reference in ovtwI If the text is right, the 
 situation is this. A man uses Euthyphro's definition as his \6yo^, 
 and asserts that a particular act (rt) squares with this definition 
 (^X^"' ovTU}) i.e. is deocpiXes or deopnais (as Euthyphro asserted of his 
 father's act) : are we to accept this on his word, or inquire what 
 sense there is in what he says ? If the latter, we should still ask 
 zuhy this particular act is deocpiXh (deofjua^s), and we should probably 
 (as the next chapter shews) be told, because it is ocnov^so that we 
 should be revolving in a circle. The result would be to shew us 
 that we have not yet reached the ovaLa oioaiov {dpoaiov), but only a 
 irddos thereof. To omit tc would make the text easier, but I do not 
 think this expedient necessary. 
 
 29. TJ o-KeirTcov ti Xiyn 6 Xe^wv; The question with which 
 Socrates began {ovkovu etnaKOTn^ixev aO tovto ;) is renewed : the 
 order \s a b a. By this means we are led to expect an affirmative 
 answer. Compare a more elaborate example in Crito 49 A — h, 
 where see note (line 14). 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Here and in xiii, Socrates tests the amended definition. In 
 the present chapter, arguing from analogy, he shews that 6<jiov is 
 not d€0(f>iK4s, because while a (pCKovixevov (whereof deo(f>Ckis is one 
 special kind) is a cfiCKovixevov {deo(f>CKh) oti ^tXetrai, ocriov is not 
 offiov oTi (piKeirai, rather ort 0(ri6i' iaTL (piXeiTai. 
 
 I. TCLva — €l(r6p.e9a. Schanz reminds us that raxa in prose 
 
XII IOC PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. Z^ 
 
 only means 'soon' when combined with a future tense. It is 
 especially common with etcro^ai. 
 
 3. <}>i\£iTat viro Tcov Qe(av = 6eo(f>i\is iariv. lO A 
 
 5. ovK 0I8' o Tt X^-yeis: the distinction between irddos and ovala 
 is not yet familiar to Euthyphro: compare infra in 12 A ovx ^irofiai, 
 t5 "ZuKpares, tols XeyofxevoLS. 
 
 7. Xe"yofJt€V Ti <})€p6|i€vov Kal ^ipov ktX. Socrates in the 
 Platonic dialogues frequently begins to build up an argument in 
 this way. Cf. Phaed. 103 C Oep/xov tl KoKe'is Kal xpvxp^v ; Meno 75 D 
 TeXevTTjv KttXeis ti ; where Fritzsche reminds us that the Xenophontic 
 Socrates shews the same tendency e.g. Mem. 11 2. i elwe /j.01, ecprj, 
 (a IT at, oladd TLvas dvOpdnrovs dxapiarovs KoXovfxivovs ; ibid. IV 2.22. 
 The distinction between active and passive is also found in Gorg. 
 476 B: compare also Theaet. 156 A ff. It is worth while noticing 
 that the examples chosen by Socrates {(pepofiepov, dyofxevou, opufjiepou 
 and their actives) are from the material world, in which the dis- 
 tinction of active and passive is less hard to grasp. The selection 
 of (pepo/j-evov as an example naturally suggests dybixevov as another : 
 they are often combined in the phrase (pepeiv Kal dyeiv. 
 
 II. Kal TovTov '^T€pov TO <j>iXo{iv is not essential to the argu- 
 ment, except in so far as it defines (pCKo^ixevov by contrast. 
 
 14. 8i6ti (}>€p€Tai. The word Stort is preferred to the more 10 B 
 usual OTL because it balances 5i' dWo tl better. 
 
 17. Ktti TO a-yoncvov Si], ^rj is 'then' and Kal 'also'. The 
 collocation is common in Plato. 5?? rarely follows Kal directly as in 
 Rep. VI 490c Kal 5ri tov dXkou t^s <f)i\oa6(f)OV 0i5crews x^pov ktX. 
 
 20. oiJk apa Sioti ktX. The illative dpa is justified because the 
 results are being summed up. Notice the order of enumeration. It 
 is exactly the reverse of that in which the illustrations were cited, 
 and produces a chiastic effect. Formerly (pepo/xeuou, dyoixevou, 
 6pwfj.€vov : now opufMevov, dyoixevov, (pepo/xevov. 
 
 21. TovvavTiov. Adverbial accusative in apposition to the 
 sentence : see on TovvavTiov toijtov irdv in Apol. 25 B. 
 
 25. KaTaSiiXov is said of something which comes gradually into 
 view. Cf. Polit. 291 A 6x\ov — 5s dpTi KaTddrjXos vvv 7][uv yiyovev. 
 /cord has the same force in KaTacpaipo/xac and /cara^aj'Tjj. 
 
 PovXofiai. idiXcj would be impossible here: ^ovXo/xai is even 
 frequently used by itself in the sense of ' I mean'. 
 
 26. d Tl — irdcryii. The second ti is not the nom., but the 10 C 
 ace: thus the full expression would be ^ d ti irdax^t ti. The words 
 
84 NOTES ON xii lo c 
 
 are an attempt to express the grammatical notion of passive. 
 Among passive verbs, some are yiyvofieva (e.g. opaaOai), others 
 Trdcrxoj'Ta (as dyecrdai, (p^peaOai) : though in the last analysis they 
 may all be viewed as ir&axovTa, and hence their name. 
 
 32. TO <))iX.ov(icvov is rather Trdaxoj' than yiyvo fievov. 
 
 33. 1] Trdtrxov Tt viro tov : the rt after yiyvo/xevov is to be re- 
 peated with Trdcrxoi'. 
 
 35. Kal TOVTO apa. toOto is rb <f)CKoi[xevov^ and rb (pcXdv/xevov is 
 understood as the subject to ianv in the next line. 
 
 36. viro cSv 4)tX€iTai. Short for vTb tovtuu wv : in such cases 
 the preposition is idiomatically left out before the relative e.g. Rep. 
 Ill 402 A iv airacLv oh iari. See Kiihner's Gr. Gramm. ii p. 
 478. As regards the hiatus, Fritzsche on Meno 77 A quotes Cic. 
 Orat. 44. 151, who remarks that Plato was not careful to avoid 
 hiatus not only "in his sermonibus, qui didXoyot dicuntur — sed in 
 populari oratione, qua mos est Athenis laudari in contione eos, qui 
 sint in proeliis interfecti" (alluding to the Menexenus). 
 
 10 D 40. d\Xo Ti. aXXo Tt '^; = numquid aliud quam? = nonne? ■^ is 
 often omitted. See on Apol. 24 C. B and T both have dW on. 
 
 45. e<mv — <j>iX€iTai. The subject is still to oaiou. 
 
 49. Kttl 9€o4)i\^s < TO 6eo<)>iX€s > . With Bast, who is followed by 
 Fritzsche and Schanz, I have added the words within brackets. If 
 the MSS are followed, the only possible subject to (pi\ov/x€v6v (sc. 
 virb deQv) iari is rb oaiov. However, not only is the argument faulty 
 on such a theory, but the words of Socrates in e, where he restates 
 the admissions made, are conclusive in favour of regarding not 
 oaiov, but rb deocpiXis as subject to eVrt. And as it is impossible to 
 supply the words from the context, they must be inserted. Then in 
 E, rb fx^u oaiov 5id tovto (piXeiadai, otl oaiov iariv kt\. corresponds 
 to 8i6tl apa oaiov iariv, ^iXeirai kt\., and rb 64 ye 6eo<pi\^s otl 
 tpiXeiTai viro deCjv, avri^ tovt(^ t(^ (pCKeLcdai. d eocp iX^s elvai corre- 
 sponds to dXXd fiiv 5?) bioTi ye (piXe^rai viro deuf, (piXoiu/xevov €(Ttl Kal 
 ^eo0iX^s<To deo<piX4s>. Compare also ir A Kai 8ia to 
 deo<p(.X^i etvai ecpiXelro dv to 6 eo<piXis, el 8^ 5id Tb (piXeicrdai virb 
 6e<j)V TO GeocpiX^s deocpiX^s ^v ktX. 
 
 53. icTtpov toCto tovtov. For the collocation Fritzsche com- 
 ' pares Meno 87 d ^/xoiye SoKet toOto fieTa tovto (rKein^ov elvai. 
 
XIII II A FLATO'S EUTHYFUJ^O. 85 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 The mistake committed by Euthyphro is here presented as the 
 substitution of a irados of to '6<nov for its omia. After a complaint 
 from Euthyphro on the bewildering nature of Socrates' dialectic, 
 Socrates remarks with a view to a new definition, that 'all holiness 
 is moral': but 'not all morality is holy'. Euthyphro is puzzled: 
 and Socrates explains by means of an illustration the difference be- 
 tween these two propositions. 
 
 The first two sentences of this chapter belong more properly to 
 Chapter xii. For the division of his dialogues into chapters Plato 
 is not responsible : and Schanz discards the division entirely in his 
 later editions. 
 
 6. dXX* el' Y€ ravTov ktX. The reasoning is somewhat difficult, 10 E 
 though perfectly correct. It is desired to prove that o(Tlov and 
 6eo(pt.\is are not convertible terms. If they were, then {a) supposing 
 oaiov were loved because it is oaiov, deocpiX^s would be loved be- 
 cause it is deocpiXes — but this is not so, since the truth is deocpcXis is 
 olop (pCkelffdaL because it is loved {to /xev ydp, otl (piXeiTac, iaTiv 
 olov (piXeladai) : {b) supposing 6eo<pi\4s were deotpiKis because it is 
 loved, oaiov would be 6(ti.ov because it is loved, — whereas the truth 
 is, o(nov is loved because it is olov (f)i\€'iadaL {to 5' otl eaTiv olov 
 (piXelcrdai, 5La tovto ^tXeirat). So that on neither supposition can 
 deocpCk^s and ocnov be identified. It is noteworthy that the clauses 
 et jxeu i^iXeiTo, and et 8e — deocpiXes -qv have the verb in the 
 Imperfect Indicative, although the supposition is in both cases a 
 true one : this is due, partly to the influence of d ye TavTov ^v to 
 which these two clauses are subordinate, but still more to the form 
 of the anticipated conclusions /cat e^iXetro dv to deocpiX^s and Kal 
 TO offiov dv — ocriov yjv. 
 
 Notice that Plato uses the forms tovtov toctovtov tolovtov tyjXl- 
 KovTov in preference to rauro etc.: see on Crito 48 B and Apol. ■24c. 
 The protases el [xkv ktX. and el 8i ktX. are logically subordinate to 
 et ye tuvtov t]v, of which they form two special cases : see on a 
 parallel case Apol. 33 d. 
 
 II. vvv hi (but as it is = nunc) is regularly used in introducing ii A 
 the true state of the case after an untrue supposition with el and a 
 past tense of the Indicative: e.g. Prot. 335 C dXXa a^ ^xpw 'ht^^v 
 <nr)'X<i}pe'iv — vvv 8^ iireidT] ovk i64Xet,s ktX. 
 
86 NOTES ON xiii iia 
 
 12. IvavT^ws ?x€Tov. ivauHcos is the strongest possible word for 
 opposition, whence TravTaTraatv ir^pcj 6vTe dWrjXojv. Socrates 
 somewhat overstates his case: the ifavTioT-qs expressed in the fol- 
 lowing sentence is more apparent than real — it is difference rather 
 than opposition. 
 
 13. TO fi€v ■yctp — otov <})LX€L<r0ai. to /jl^v is to deotpCKis'. to 84 
 is TO oaiov. olov (ptXe'iadai (i.q. tolovtou olov (pCKdadai.) is substitu- 
 ted here for deocpCkes in order to make the antithesis between 
 6eo(f)i\4s and 6<nou more striking by using the same predicate with 
 iaTiv in both clauses: at the same time, the use of olov tpiXeladaL 
 (so. inro deuu) in the next line seems to indicate that 6eo<pi\h is not 
 the ova La of ocrtov, but only a irddos thereof: it is only ^ siic/i a 
 thing as to be loved' — not 'the god-loved'. The way is thus 
 prepared for the following sentence. 
 
 16. Ti^v n^v ov<r£av — iraBos Tt. The distinction of ovaio. and 
 Trddos is here for the first time clearly marked in Greek philosophy. 
 The clause rt Triirovde tovto to oaiov is epexegetic, being merely 
 another way of expressing wddos, which is comparatively new in this 
 sense : had irddos bjen the antecedent to the relative, and not rt, 
 would probably have been written. 
 1 1 B I9» o Ti 8^ ov sc. (piXelrac or Treirovde tovto to vddos. op is 
 meant to explain the novel use of ovala above. 
 
 21. cIltc 6ti8i] irdo^ci "ut illud, ita omnia accidentia {irddrf) in 
 definiendo nullius moment! sunt". Wohlrab. 
 
 24. dXX', (0 ScoKpttTts ktX. The interlude is intended to mark a 
 break in the course of the reasoning, and to prepare us for the fresh 
 start, in which Socrates endeavours to rescue Euthyphro from the 
 dvopia into which he is now plunged. 
 
 oTTws o-oi dir(a o vo«. Euthyphro's diropla has not led him 
 to distrust himself: he still feels that he /las views, and blames 
 Socrates' dialectic for their discomfiture. Contrast Theaet. 148 E 
 dXXd yap oCt auTbs ^vvafiai jrelaai ifiavrbv ws iKapQs tl X^yu), oih^ 
 AWov aKouaai XiyovTOS ovrcjs ws ad diaKeXevei' ov fxev drj av oi)5' 
 d7raXXa7'^;'ai tov fiiWcLy. 
 
 25. ir€pi^pX.£Tai — ISpvcw^eOa auTO. For irpodibfxeda B has wpo- 
 dvfidofjLeda, perhaps by reason of dXX' elvk irpodOfius above: see 
 also on ^vfixpodv/xTjao/iiai in E below. The doctrine is personified, 
 as often in Plato. It is so to speak an adherent of the 
 Heraclitean irdvra pet: see Theaet. 179 E drex^ws ydp xard to. 
 avyypdfM/JiaTa <f>ipoPTai (sc. ol 'H/)a^'Xf/relot), t6 5' eiri^elvai evl 
 
XIII lie PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 87 
 
 X67(fJ — T]TTov avTOcs ^vi t) rb fir}5iu. Here TrepLipxerai, as 
 Fritzsche remarks, simply = ambulat, i.q. irepLiraTei. See on 11 c 
 line 38, and 15 B efik aiTLdaeL ^adi^ovras avroi/s (sc. tous \6yovs) 
 TTOteiJ': cf. also Apol. 30 a ovdev yap dWo irpaTTUv eyoj irepte pxo/xai 
 y ire'i.O(jiv kt\. 
 
 28. Tov i^(i6T€pov irpoYovov. As the son of a sculptor, Socrates 
 traced his descent to Daedalus, the eponymous hero of artists. So 
 in Ale. I 121 A Kal yap to rj/neTepou, (3 yevva^e ^AXKi^Ladrj, eis 
 AaidaXov. Cf. also Symp. i86 E where Eiyximachus the doctor 
 speaks of 6 rjfieTepos irpoyovos 'Acr/cXTyTrtos. In Meno 97 D ff. Plato 
 compares dXrjde?^ 86^ai to the works of Daedalus, because just as 
 the latter, edv fxev fxrj dede/xeva y, dTroStSpctcr/cei Kal dpaTrereveL, idv 8^ 
 deSe/uL^va, irapaixevet, so true opinions bpairerevovaLv ck ttjs ^vxvs 
 Tov dpdpdoirov, (jiare ov iroWov d^tai eiaiv, ews du ris ai/rds drjcrri alrias 
 \oyi<r/j.<^. The peculiarity of Daedalus' statues was that they were 
 supposed to move. Eur. Frag. 373 (ed. Dindorf) ra AaiodXeia 
 irdvTa KiveXadai Sokcl ^Xeireiv t' dydXfiad'. c55' dvrjp KeTvos (ro(p6s. 
 The Scholiast explains the fable by saying that Daedalus was the 
 first to separate the feet and legs of statues : and Overbeck Gesch. 
 der Plastik I 36 (quoted by Schanz) accepts this explanation. 
 
 For the separation of AaiSdXou from irpoyovov Schanz compares 
 Euthyd. 271 B /cat tov i}p.eTepov ov iroXv rt tt]v ijXiKiav diacpepeiv 
 KptTo^ovXov. 
 
 29. TCL viro (TOV Xe-yoiieva. Notice that Socrates shifts the 1 1 C 
 responsibility on to Euthyphro. Practically, Socrates calls Euthy- 
 phro a Daedalus : his epya are the peripatetic definitions which he 
 
 has advanced. 
 
 30. ItiOc'iitiv. Ti9e/xai in Plato is more confident and dogmatic 
 than Tidrj/xi: see Dr Postgate in the Journal of Philology (1886), 
 vol. XV pp. Ill — 119. I think there is here no allusion such as is 
 implied in Fritzsche's note "de statuis simul cogitat ". Tidevai 
 dyaXfxa may be Greek, but TWeadai dyaXfxa is not. 
 
 31. «s apa. dpa as usual expresses some surprise, genuine or 
 affected: it is especially frequent in this sense "ubi aliquis non 
 suis verbis loquitur " (Fritzsche on Meno 80 e). Cf. Apol. 34 C 
 and note. 
 
 Kara Tqv €K€ivov |vYY€'v€iav. Professions were frequently here- 
 ditary among the Greeks. 
 
 TO, €v TOis Xo-yois ?p"Ya =" dialectical works of art". For ip 
 cf. Rep. VI 487 C VTTo Trerret'as av Tavrrjs TiPos ir^pas, ovk iy 
 
88 NOTES ON xiii ii c 
 
 \i'?70ois, dX\' kv X67ots: and for d7ro5t5/)d(r/cei Meno 97 D, quoted 
 on Toxj r]fM€T€pov irpoyduov in B above, ^pya frequently means * works 
 of art' e.g. Meno 91 D ^eidiav re 8s—Ka\a ipya elpyd^ero. The 
 entire imagery of this passage is only an elaboration of the 
 metaphor in Theaet. 203 d Kal ovrm ijfuv 6 koXos \6yos diroSeBpaKdji 
 olxvo'eTai. 
 
 33- vvv 8i (ral -yap ktX. For vvv 84 see on 11 a above : and 
 for ydp after vvv of. on Apol. 38 B vvv 5k ov yap ^(ttiv. It is usual 
 to punctuate vvv 8k — aai ydp, and take vvv 84 with dWov 5ri : but 
 87] ('therefore') is against that punctuation, and neither in vvv 84 
 — ydp nor in dXXa ydp ( = 7' &pa) do the Greeks appear to have 
 been conscious of any ellipse. See on Apol. 19 c, and cf. 
 infra 14 c. 
 
 viroGeVeis. The word is probably selected in preference to 
 X6701 because it denotes something of a more material nature and 
 so suits TO. ev Tocs Xoyois '4pya better. Cf. Rep. vi 511 B rds 
 viro64a€t.s iroiovfxevos ovk dpx^s, dXXd t^ ovtl VTrod4 aeis (i.e. we 
 are to press both parts of the word — i/Trb and d4a-€is), olov eiri^daeii 
 re Kal opfids. 
 
 34. olXXov — orKw(i|j,aTos : i.e. as / am not responsible, you 
 cannot say that my ev tols \6yois ipya shew the traces of my 
 ancestry. Euthyphro replies : a kindred jibe ((rxe56j' tl toO avroO) 
 is still permissible, for rd \ey6[xeva are made to move by yoti. 
 (Tx^86v TL is very common in Plato's earlier dialogues, in which 
 <xx'^86v is rarely found : on the other hand in the later writings 
 (Sophistes, Politicus, Timaeus, Philebus, Critias, Laws), ax'^86v 
 has nearly everywhere replaced o-xe56v rt : see Ritter's Unter- 
 suchungen iiber Plato p. 58. Note also the accent on aol : because 
 )( 4fj.oL 
 
 37. Scio-Oai rd XE^oiicva. Contrast rd virb crov Xeybixevam 
 line 29 above. The omission here of virb cov is intended to make 
 Socrates partly responsible for what has been said. 
 
 TO ■ydp irtpiitvat tovtois ktX. Tr€pu4vaL not TrepLkpxecOat, 
 though Trepiepx^TaL in 1 1 B above : see Cobet Variae Lectiones pp. 
 34> 307* Except in the case of virkpx^oQoLi. in the derived sense of 
 * fawning on ' (Crito 53 e), the parts of ^pxa/Ji-ai and its compounds 
 other than the present Indicative are supplied from cl/ii (^a, fw, 
 toLfjLi, tdi, Uvai, lu)v, fut. dfii). Notice the close parallel with 1 1 b : 
 rb ydp Trepu4vaL = irepL4pxeTai ydp: fi^ ix4v€iv iv t^ avT<^=ovK 464\€i 
 /jUvetv Sttov &v ISpva-u'/xeda avrb. tovtois is wrongly rejected by 
 
XIII II D PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 89 
 
 Stallbaum : it goes with ipTideis, by the usual Platonic hyperbaton, 
 on which see Riddell's Apology of Plato p. 236 ff., and Prof. Cook 
 Wilson 'On the Interpretation of Plato's Timaeus' p. 97 ff. Schanz 
 remarks that its position is determined by the paronomasia with 
 TovTo, and quotes the parallel in Phaedr. 239 A roaoirwv KaKCov koI in 
 irXeiSvoip Kara ttjv Sidvoiav epacTTjv epb}iiiv<^ dvdyKTj yiyvo/x^pcov re 
 Kal (pijaei ivovroiv rdv (xkv TjSeadat, rd 8^ irapaaKevd^eiv. For the 
 same reason I prefer (with Schanz) the to^tois of B to aurots in T. 
 
 39. <rv fiot 8oK€is, 6 AaCSaXos. With 5o/cets understand ivri- 
 devai : 6 AaiSaXos is then in emphatic opposition to <ji : cf. 15 B 
 eyue ahidcrei. top Aai8a\ov ^adi^opras avro^s ttolup. I think this 
 better than to take 6 AaioaXos as the predicate : the omission of 
 elpai in such a case would be unusual. There is some derision 
 expressed by placing 6 AatSaXos at the end : see on 3 a above. 
 
 40. €Tr€i l|xov Y^ 'iviKO. ktX. Euthyphro clearly regards the 1 1 D 
 discussion as purely academic. 
 
 42. CK61V0V Tov dvSpos : with a certain mock dignity : nearly = 
 * the great departed ' : cf. Rep. ii 368 A c3 TratSes cKeiPov tov 
 dpdpos. See on Apol. 33 E. 
 
 43. ocrco 6 (A€v ktX. For oacp strict logic would require on, 
 since there is no comparative in the relative clause. The idiom is 
 an example of attraction of the relative akin in its nature to Attic 
 attraction. Schanz quotes Xen. Cyr. vi 2. 19 8s to<xovti^ "ZvpoiP 
 KUKLUP iyiP€TO, offip HvpoL fiep p-axv PLKrjd^PTes ^(pvyop kt\. 
 
 44. irpos Tois €|xavTOx). The Platonic Socrates is quite sincere 
 in this: he did not pretend to have solved the universe — he only 
 desired to discover some \6yos less unstable than the principles on 
 which most men regulate their lives. Cf. Phaedo 114 d to /xep 
 ovp Taura 5u(Txvpl'(^ci.a9aL ovrw ^^tP, ws iyCo SieXrjXvda, ov irpiirei 
 povp ^xo'''^' dvbpl ' OTL /j-^PTOt ij raOr' iarip r) Toiavr' drra — toOto /cat 
 irp^Treiv /jlol doKei Kal d^iop Kip5vP€vaai olofx^pip ourws ^x^"* ^■iid Rep. 
 VII 517 B ovx d/j.apTricr€L ttjs 7' €fj.T}S iX-jridos, iTretdr] Tavrrjs iwiOvfieis 
 UKOveip' debs 5e ttou oldep, ei dXTjdrjS oSca Tvyxfi-fei. 
 
 45. Ktti StJTa. This collocation is not very common in Plato : 
 it occurs also in Protag. 310 C Kal drjra fx^XXcop cot <ppd^eip — viro 
 TLPos aXXov iweXadS/xrjp. Like Kal 5?? Kai (see on 2 D above) it 
 directs especial attention to the following clause, rrjs rix^n^ 
 presently is a partitive genitive depending on tovto. 
 
 46. oiKwv elfjil (ro(|>os. For <ro06s as a nickname of Socrates 
 see above on 2 C. Here the word has the idea of the English 
 
90 NOTES ON xiii ii d 
 
 * artist ', just as cro(pia, ao(f>l^'o/xai etc. are sometimes used in con- 
 nection with poetry, sculpture and painting. The situation is like 
 that in Theaet. 150 C 070^6$ el/xc aoc^ias, Kal oirep •^677 iroXkol 
 fxoL ihveiStaav, w$ rods fxeu dWovs ipojTU), aiirbs dk oiibkv aTroKpivofJiai 
 irepl ovdeubs 8ta t6 ixrjdev ^xf"' aocpov, d\r)dh 6vei5i^ov(nv kt\. 
 1 1 E 48. aKivTJTws. cLKLVTjTovs has inferior authority. Schanz quotes 
 Thuc, VIII 40. 2 7] (TTpaTib. tQ}v 'Adrjvaiuv ^e^aicos ido^e ixera 
 Tcixovs iSpvadai. 
 
 49. TO, TavToXov \pri\iara. TavraXov ToKavra was a proverb. 
 Schanz remarks that Plato cites, besides Tantalus, Darius Polycrates 
 Cinyras and Midas as representatives of great wealth. There is 
 intentional paronomasia in AaiddXov — l^avrdKov. 
 
 50. Tpv<j)dv : said of one who is too high and mighty to 
 condescend to details : so in ir D above Euthyphro had said iirel 
 ifiov 76 'iveKa l/xefev hv ravra ovtojs. The meaning is clearly fixed 
 by 12 A infra : aXX', 6 Xiyu, t pv<pa$ virb ttXovtov ttjs a o (pi as. 
 Originally the word seems to have denoted the lethargy consequent 
 on too much good living: see Ale. I 114 A iveidT] 5e rpvcpgis Kai 
 ou/c^r' B.V ijSeoJS tov avrov yeva-aio \6yov: Rep. II 372 E: and Rep. 
 Ill 399 E XeXrjdafx^v ye b(.aKa.d alpovr e$ tjv dpri Tpv(f)dv ^(pa/xef 
 
 TToXlV. 
 
 avTos <roi |vjjL7rpc0u}XTJ(rojiai Set^ai, So the MSS read. I 
 have followed Schanz in bracketing 8t2^ai. If dei^ai is retained, 
 5i5d^7?s must be changed into 8i8d^ais with Bekker, Fritzsche and 
 Wohlrab : ottws dv ktX. will then be a clause of manner, dependent 
 on del^ai. But on this view the sense is very cumbrous, viz. ' I will 
 myself help you to shew how you might teach me etc.'. The word 
 Sel^ai might well have been introduced by some scribe who was not 
 familiar with the absolute use of ^vfxirpo6vfj.o0/j.ai and the final use 
 of oTrws &v. The reference is directly to Socrates' invitation in 11 B 
 dXX' elir^ irpod^/jLuis. Of other alternatives deltas is the most 
 obvious, but this too necessitates diSd^ais for didd^rjs : Madvig's 
 dija-ai, (Adv. Crit. I p. 367) can hardly be right, since Socrates has 
 now expressly discarded the metaphor {Kal tovtuv /x^u dSrji'). As 
 regards the sentiment, it is to be noted that Euthyphro is now 
 reduced to dvopla : it remains for Socrates to point a way out. 
 (Compare the conversation with Euthydemus in Xen. Mem. iv 
 ch. 2.) Socrates accordingly now takes the initiative : we shall 
 therefore be right in looking for the positive teaching of the 
 Euthyphro mainly in the second half. But just as Euthyphro's 
 
XIII 12 A PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 91 
 
 a-Kopia. is only half-confessed, so (in accordance with Socrates' 
 usual procedure) the solution to the problem of the dialogue will be 
 but a partial one. See Introd. p. xxvi. 
 
 53. SiKaiov ctvai Trdv to ocriov. diKaiov here has the meaning 
 of 'moral', 'right': see Bonitz Platonische Studien pp. 230, 233 
 and the editor's note on Crito 45 c {^n dk ov5k diKaLov). Whereas 
 in this passage Plato regards oaiov as a part of diKaiov, in the 
 Protagoras, Meno and Gorgias he places buLOTrjs as a substantive 
 virtue on the same platform with ao(pia, awcppoavvrj, dvdpeia and 
 diKaioa^vT], For a discussion of the bearing of this on the date of 
 the Euthyphro see Introduction pp. xxxii fif. 
 
 57. TO Se Ti Kal aXXo. ti goes with rb de : " the other, whatever 1 2 A 
 it is, different ". So in Rep. I 339 C ovkqvv eTrixeipovvrei p6fJt,ovs 
 riOivaL tovs fxev opdQs nOiaai, roiis 5^ TLvas ovk dpdws. Observe 
 
 the latent logical process of dialpecris : in order to hunt out what rb 
 oaiov is, diKaiou is subdivided into two ideas, one ocnov, and the 
 other something unknown. The Sophistes and Politicus shew this 
 mode of logical analysis in its fullest development. See Introd. 
 p. XX. 
 
 58. ovx. ^iroiJiai. Euthyphro has already shewn himself in- 
 capable of distinguishing between ' Ail A is B^ and ' All ^ is ^ '. 
 See on ch. vi ad init. Compare also 10 A ovk oI5' ti Xe7ets, w 
 HiQK pares. 
 
 59. Kttl p.i)v — o-o<|>«T6pos. Socrates plays on the literal meaning 
 of ^irofiai: young men should run fast: viuv 5^ irdvTes oi ttoWoI 
 Kal oi pLeydXoL irbvoi (Rep. VII 536 d). But though youth is the 
 season to learn (rep yap 6vtl i] veorrjs et's ttcLv eiridoaiv ^x^'- Theaet. 
 146 b), yet youth is far from being <ro06s (Rep. v 475 c) : so that 
 oa(i} aocpurepos is very sarcastic, ovk eXdrrovi (for which T has 
 IXaTTov) is equivalent to TO(Xo}jT(p, as Schanz remarks. 
 
 60. 8 Xiyta viz. in 11 E. Xiyo) rather than fkeyov (etirov) is 
 generally used in referring to a previous passage of the same dia- 
 logue : see on birep \ey(a in Apol. 21 A. 
 
 virb irXovTov ttjs (ro<j>ias. Socrates aspired to the belief that 
 wisdom is the only true wealth : see the prayer to Pan in Phaedr. 
 279 C TrXoi/trtoc be vo/xi^oL/xi rbv aocpov. The same view afterwards 
 became a commonplace among the Stoics. 
 
 61. <o (xaKoLpiE: see on w bai/xovie XwKpares in Crito 44 B. 
 
 62. ov8e x.^'Xeirov. oib^ (for which Naber would read ov54u) 
 presents no difficulty : the idiom is exactly like the English ' for 
 
 A. EU. 
 
92 
 
 NOTES ON XIII 12 A 
 
 neither is it difficult' etc. Schanz quotes Legg. ii 673 C iroiTjTeop' 
 Qv5^ yap Trdvii x'*^^"'^*' ft'"''"' f^Tre?!'. 
 
 \(yoi -yap. An exercise follows in the conversion of propositions 
 exactly as in Alcib. il 139 e. Here the example is not selected at 
 random, though strictly speaking it is no more than an example: 
 as Fritzsche remarks (p. 147 of his edition) "aptissime in quaestione 
 de pietate instituta etiam de verecundia disputatur", for 5^os and 
 aldibs are parts of oo-torijs. The principle of selecting an example 
 which shall itself involve a useful lesson is akin to this, and is 
 recognised in modern works on Education e.g. Bain's Education as 
 a Science p. 292. aidws as good shame is reverence, a proper 
 sentiment to feel towards gods (Legg. xi 920 E deovs irpoyoi'ovs 
 avTuv aldovfi^vovs), and something akin to oaioTrjs : it is used 
 also like aicrxvveadai in connection with evil objects, as in the oracle 
 quoted in Rep. VIII 566 C ou5' aldelrai KaKds elvai. Both meanings 
 are recognised in the sequel. Here the word is best translated by 
 • shame ' throughout. 
 
 63. 6 TTonrrqs — iroiTio-as. According to the Scholiast, the 
 verses are from the Cyprian poems, which dealt with the events 
 prior to the Iliad, of unknown authorship but probably hailing from 
 Cyprus, whence the name. Herodotus refuses to ascribe the poems 
 to Homer — ovk 'Oix-qpov ret, Krjirpia ^ired iarc aW aXKov tipos, says 
 he (II 117): and in Athenaeus xv 682 E (where several verses are 
 quoted) Hegesias and Stasinus are mentioned as authors to whom 
 the poems had been assigned. Terhaps Plato indicates his sense of 
 the doubtful authorship in the words 6 ttoit^ttjs, like Plutarch {-rrepl 
 dopy7](rias ch. 11. 459 d) : oi yap, cos 6 woirjTTjs dwev, 'iva yap Uo<: 
 hda Kal aldws. 
 
 6^. Z-qva 8^ — alScSs. These two lines involve considerable 
 difficulties, both of language and of meaning. 
 
 The accepted reading is 6' ip^avra (so the second hand in B) : but 
 B has e^p^avra, and T cr^p^avTa: while Stobaeus Florileg. 31. 18 
 reads pi^avra. If we suppose that p^^avra or (?' ^p^avra is right (^/)|as 
 was used for ^p^as = dpd<7as, if we may believe the Scholiast on Ar. 
 Ach. 329), two difficulties arise. First, ^p^avra is harsh if used 
 intransitively and should in that case be ipbovra (compare the word 
 ip^l-rji in lldt. vi 98, as a translation of the Persian Darius), nor is 
 it less harsh to supply rdSe irdpra as object, not to speak of the 
 tautology involved in ^p^avra and i<pvTevaev : such tautology is how- 
 ever not uncommon in verses of an Orphic character. Second, do 
 
XIII 12 A PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 93 
 
 rbv 6^ 'ep^avra and koL os — ecpurevaev both refer to Zeus? At first 
 sight this appears to contradict the well-known idiom by which an 
 anaphoric pronoun replaces the relative after /cat if a relative with 
 the same antecedent precedes (see on Apol. 40 A and supra 6 c) : 
 but on the other hand top 6' ep^avra is not quite the same as 6's t' 
 Ip^e: and on the ground of meaning it seems obvious that both 
 clauses are descriptive of Zeus. Perhaps os still retains something 
 of its original anaphoric use. 
 
 Zeus is here conceived of as the creator, as so often in the 
 Orphic hymns e.g. Hymn. XV 3 — 5 (ed. Abel) c3 ^aaiXev, ha ar}v 
 K€<pa\i]v i(f)dv7] rdde peta, yaia Bed p-Tfqp opeuiv 6' u^7;xees ox^ot Kal 
 irbvTO^ Kal Trdvd\ oirocr^ ovpavbs ivrbs iepyei. There is probably a 
 veiled allusion to some such derivation of Zijva as is alluded to in 
 Crat. 396 A — B ol fJL€v yap Zrjua, ol S^ Aia KaXovcn. ffVPTLdefieva 5' 
 eis iv 87}\oc T7]u (pvcriv tov Oeov, 6 5r] irpocrrjKeiP cpafxev oubp-aTL o'llo re 
 etvai. direpyd^ecrdaL (cf. rbv 6' ep^avra). ov yap ^anv i]/juv /cat to?s 
 dXXois irdaiu, oaris iarlv atrios /xdWou rod ^rjv r) 6 dpxi^v re Kal 
 ^aaiXevs twv wavTCov. avpL^aivet ovv bpddos bvofid^ecxdai ovtos 6 debs 
 eTvai, 5t' 6v ^t)v del irdai, to7s l^waiv vTrdpxei-' see also Stobaeus 
 Eclog. Phys. 2. 24 — 26, 86 et al. : and cf. Aesch. Suppl. 584 — 585 
 (pv<7i^oov yivos, rb di] Zrjvbs ecmu dXrjdQs. The feeling that the 
 Highest should be unnamed meets us not rarely in Greek literature 
 e.g. Eur. Troad. 885 — 6 oaris ttot' el av, dvcrTOTaaTos elbevai, Zevs 
 (where see Paley). So in Plato Crat. 400 e and Phileb. 12 c: to 5' 
 ejjJbv beos — del irpbs rd rCiv deCov bvo/xara ovk '4<xtl Kar dvdpwirov, 
 dWd irepa tov fjt.eyl<jTov (pb^ov. koI vvv ttjv p.kv A(ppo5LT7]v, oirrj 
 eKetvrj <pi\ov, TaiT-Q irpoaayopevo). The last passage is thus appro- 
 priated by Origen adv. Cels. iv 80 — 81 (ed. Migne) dXXa Kadapdv 
 euai^eiav els rbv brnxLOvpybv daKovvTes ov5^ fiexp'- ovb/xaTos 
 Xpalvofxev Ta dela, dirobexbiievoi. tov IlXdrwj'os Tbv iv ^iXrj^cp 
 Xoyov — rb yap ep-bv Se'os kt\. It is in the same spirit that Plato 
 makes Socrates shrink from describing the Idea of Good otherwise 
 than by a simile in Rep. VI 506 D — E dXX', c5 p-aKapioi, avTb p.ev tI 
 TTOT^ iaH Tayadbv edaojfMev to vvv eTvai.' — os 5^ eKyovos re tov dyadov 
 (paiveTai Kal bp-oiOTaTos e/cetVw Xiyeiv ideXui: with which compare 
 the impressive words of the Timaeus (28 c) tov iJ.ev ovv TroirjTrjv Kal 
 iraTipa Tovbe tov vavTbs evpelv re ipyov Kal evpovTa els irdvTas abv- 
 vaTov Xiyeiv. 
 
 Throughout this note I have assumed the correctness of ^' ?/)- 
 ^avTa, the reading of b : but I incline to think that 6' 'ep^avra is a 
 
 9-2 
 
94 NOTES ON xiii 12 a 
 
 corruption of dpi^J/avra — Zeus being conceived of as the sustainer 
 and creator of all that is. The varepov trpoTepov would then be like 
 Homer's well-known ofiov Tpd(pev -^5^ y^vovro e.g. in Od. iv 723, 
 where see Ameis. 
 1 2 B 65. iva -ydp St'os, 'dvBa Kal alScos. Fritzsche points out that the 
 same sentiment occurs in Epicharmus (Schol. on Soph. Ajax 1074) 
 Kal 'ETTi'xctp/Uos" ^vda 5^oj, evravda Kal aiddis. So also in Plut. 
 Cleom. 9. 2 KaXws 6 eiirdjv 'iva yap 8ios, ivda Kal alStos, and 
 irepl aopyr)(xias Ch. ii. (quoted above on line 63). Plato's point 
 is that 5io$ (metus) is a wider term than aibus (pudor), which is 
 only one kind of 5^os. 
 
 68. ov 8oK£i HOI clvai. erj'at = 'to be true', and 'iva 5ios, hOa 
 Kal aiddos is virtually a quotation. So presently in dXX' 'iva ye aldibs, 
 ivda Kal d^os elvai. This is much better, because more emphatic, 
 than to regard elvai as merely the copula. 
 
 71. al8€i<r9ai 8^ )j.T]Sev. For fji-rjdiv, ov84v would be more 
 regular after 8oKov<n: fnjdiv is however a more emphatic negative: 
 see on 6 B above. 
 
 74. dXX' Vva "Y^ al8ws, ^v0a Kal S(os ctvai. The Christian 
 parallel (with a characteristic difference) is ' Perfect love casteth out 
 fear '. On ehat see last note but one. 
 
 75. alSovfJicvos — 8^8oiK€v. Plato's choice of words is very 
 characteristic here. Wishing to prove that aiSws implies 5ios, he 
 passes from the one notion to the other through a series of middle 
 terms, of which the later in each case involves more notion of 8ios 
 than the earlier. Thus in alScos fear is less prominent than in aiax^- 
 veadai, in alcrx^''^<^^^'- than in (po^e^adaL : and (po^eladai (timere), in 
 which the physical agitation due to present danger {tj rrapavTiKa 
 TrTOTjffcSy says Ammonius) is the leading idea, forms the natural 
 transition to 8e8Livac (metus, virovoia KaKoO) : see Prodicus' perfectly 
 just distinction between 84os and 0o'/3os in Prot. 358 D and for other 
 examples of this quasi-sorites in Plato see on Crito 47 B t<^ iirKxraTrj 
 Kal eiraiovTL. ■jr€<p6^T]Tai as present of the state should be noticed. 
 
 [2 C 77. 8£8oiK€ \ikv o5v. /xh ovv is corrective, as usual: see on 
 Apol. 26 B. Plato of course writes S^8oiKe rather than Tre(f>6^r]Tai or 
 both because the point is to shew that a/5ws involves 8ios, not 
 0d)3o5. 
 
 79. ov [jt^vToi — -ye: stronger than 8i after fiiv. 7e is regularly 
 separated from fiivroi by a word. 
 
 80. Itrl irXiov: in logical terminology, Sios has moiQ extension 
 
XIV 12 E PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 95 
 
 and less intension than aldws. Schanz puts the reasoning well thus: 
 the higher idea (a) is the one which is poorer in essential marks, the 
 lower is the one which is richer in these (a + x) : consequently, the 
 higher idea {a) is present where the lower {a + x) is, but not vice 
 versa. For the phraseology cf. Euthyd. 290 B ovbefua — t^s d-qpevri- 
 Krj$ avTTJs eTri irXiov e<TTlv -^ 6<xov drjpeuaaL kt\. Notice the purely logi- 
 cal sense of /J.6piov and fiepos throughout this passage. It is important 
 to bear this sense of pt^pos in mind when Plato speaks of ' parts ' of 
 soul. 
 
 86. Kal €K6i \iyb)v. e/c6t refers to 11 E — 12 A, to toiovtov of 
 course depends on X^yuv (meaning). 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Euthyphro now understands the logical difficulty just cleared 
 up : and Socrates, with a view to reaching a definition of oaiov, 
 asks * what sort of a part of diKaiov it is '. The reply is — that part 
 which is concerned with care for the gods. 
 
 3. TO iroiov p-epos. " Articulus ubi pronominibus interrogativis I2 D 
 additur, semper refertur ad aliquid, quod praecessit ". Hermann, 
 quoted by Fritzsche. In Ar. Ran. 1227 — 1229 there is a case of 
 the violation of this rule : (3 datpLovi* dvdpuu, diroirpLw r-qv Xi^kvBov, 
 Xva fii] diaKvalcrri tovs irpoXoyovs Tjfiwv; ETP. to ri; iyu) irpiw/xai 
 Tt^de ; This particular passage is probably corrupt : but Hermann's 
 rule is by no means without exceptions e.g. Rep. v 469 b and X 
 595 A. 
 
 5. i^ptoras Ti — etirov av. ti as internal accusative. With 
 ipioToLv this ace. is for the most part confined to neuter pronouns : 
 yet Crat. 407 C rbv "Apr) epwra (ask about Ares), etirov is probably 
 preferred to the more regular fkeyov as more decisive and instan- 
 taneous. Schanz quotes Symp. 199 D dXX' uxnrep av el avrb tovto 
 vaTepa ijpuiTcjp, — etTres dv ktX. So also in Soph. Ant. 755 el /xr] 
 irarrip 7}crd' elirov dv cr^ ovk ev (ppoveXv. 
 
 6. ovTos 6 dpi6|i6s i.e. 6 dpnos. 
 
 7. o-koXt^vos — loroo-KcXTfs. Greek arithmetic was largely geo- 
 metrical : see the well known passage in the Theaetetus 147 D — 
 148 B. An even number is of course called isosceles as being 
 divisible by 2. So the Scholiast explains the passage. 
 
 II. oo-iov loTiv. Hirschig would read (against the Mss) t6 12 E 
 
96 NOTES ON xiv 12 e 
 
 oVtoi', as in D above : but cf. infra in Euthyphro's reply eti/ai 
 fi)(re/3^5 re koX oaiov. It is indifferent whether octlov or to octlov is 
 written, since oclov is to be no mere predicate of, but absolutely 
 identical with, the part of 5iKaiw sought for. 
 
 13. (i€p.a6T]K6Tas. It is implied as usual that to learn piety is 
 to be pious. 
 
 15. TovTO ToCvvv kt\. This is the fourth definition given by 
 Euthyphro. In harmony with the fact that it is led up to by 
 Socrates, rather than by Euthyphro, we find it in other dialogues 
 of Plato, e.g. Gorg. 507 a — B Kal fj.r)v irepl {ikv avdpuoirovs ra Trpocrr]- 
 Kovra irpdrTuv 5t/cat' av TrpdrToi, Trepl S^ deoiis ocFLa. top dk ra 5t/cata 
 Kal oaia irpaTTOvra avdyKrj dlKaiov /cat ocriov eXvai; ^ari ravra. Cf. 
 Zeno in Diog. Laert. VII 119 eXvai re rijv eixre^eiav eincrTrjiJLTjv deQv 
 depairdas: the same definition is also given by Sext. Emp. Adv. 
 Math. IX 123. See also Tntrod. p. xiii. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 This and the following chapters are concerned with the definition 
 now reached. First, Socrates raises the question as to what depairela 
 means. In the present chapter he proves that it cannot be a care 
 having for its object the benefit of the gods : and Euthyphro 
 explains it as service like that of slaves to their masters. 
 
 I. Kal KaXcSs Y6. There is no sarcasm here : for this definition 
 (in Plato's view) conceals at least if it does not reveal the truth : 
 see 13 E. 
 13 A 2. (r|j.iKpov Tivos IvScifs €1(1.1. Schanz aptly quotes Prot. 329 B 
 vvv ovv, w llpoiTaybpa, a/unKpov tlvos ivderjs eifMi ttolvt^ ^X^"'> ^^ 
 fioi. diroKplvaio rode. 
 
 6. X4"yop.6v "ydp irov. Plato begins as if he would state the 
 difference between depaireia of gods and that of other objects in 
 general terms : instead of which he breaks off and takes special 
 examples, olov is similarly used in otov roiovde below (13 b). 
 
 7. tinrovs — iiririKos. The order is for emphasis. The analo- 
 gies are quite in Socrates' style: see Xen. Mem. i 2. 37 where 
 Critias says : ciXXa rCovdd toL ce aTr^xetr^at SeTycrei, (3 ^uKpares, rdov 
 CKVT^uv Kal Tujv TeKTovuv Kal Ti2v x'iXk^wi' kt\. oiKOVP, ^<p7} 6 Zcj- 
 Kpdrrfs, Kal tC^v ^iroixiv(jjv tovtois, tou re diKaiov Kal tov balov Kal tu:v 
 dWcou tCov roLovTOJv ; 
 
XV 13 D PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 97 
 
 13. Kyivr^i.T\.Kd% = KvvCiiv depairevrtKoSyfor ayw often means to 
 educate or train. 
 
 22. TavTov SiairpaTTCTai: for ravrov see above on 10 E. 13 B 
 
 24. 01 Viriroi — PeXriovs ■yiYvovrai. See Gorg. 5 16 a: ovuiv 
 yovv av eTn/J.eXrjTijs Kai tinrwv koI ^o(2v tolovtos Cjv KaKos clu eSo/cet 
 elfat, e^ irapaka^ijiv fxrj XaKTi^ovras fxyjSe KvpiTTOvras fi-qSk daKvovra^ 
 dir^dei^e ravra airavra iroiovvTas 5l dypLOTTjTa. It is for this 
 reason that Plato censures Athenian statesmen, Miltiades, Cimon, 
 Themistocles and Pericles: see Gorg. 515 c ff., Meno 93 B ff., 
 Prot. 319 E ff. 
 
 30. wcravTws is now written by Schanz ws avTws, on the ground 13 C 
 that Plato's u>s 5' aurojj shews that the two parts of the word were 
 still felt to be distinct. 
 
 'i\ eirl pXa^T] ktX, Is this the only alternative? Could they 
 not remain iti static qtio ? See above on deoiiiaes in 7 A. 
 
 37. |vYX"P'no'a'''S- This older form of opt. Aor. is frequent in 
 Plato. 
 
 38. PcXtiw — d7r€pYd?€t. /SeXri'w is primarily not of character, 
 but of condition (prosperity and the like): but in the Greek view 
 character is improved by improved circumstances : see above on 3 A 
 KaKovpyeiu tt]v ttoXlv. The absurdity here consists in supposing 
 that the gods are not already in the best condition possible. 
 
 43. ov\ ■q'yovjj.evos explains tovtov di] eveKa. 13 D 
 
 46. elev was pronounced eleu, with intervocalic aspiration. The 
 particle (which is perhaps connected with eta) serves to dismiss one 
 point and introduce another. See on Crito 47 b. 
 
 48. "Qirtp — 01 SovXot. For rJTrep of B, T has TJvirep, and so 
 Schanz reads. Fischer quotes Xen. Hell. II 3. 14 edepa-rrevov irdar) 
 depairelq.. The idea that man is a 8ov\os of the gods was tolerably 
 common among the Greeks. Plato Legg. V 726 A ixeTa deo^s oVraj 
 Sea-TTOTtts : and especially Phaedo 62 B foil. , where man is said to be 
 ^v tG}v KTTjfJidTuv (here= 'slaves') rots deoisi cf. ibid. D dvo-qros fiev 
 &vdpu}Tros Tax <*'' olrjdeir) ravra, (pevKriov elvaL diro rod deairorov 
 kt\., Rep. X 590 C — D, and Legg. X 902 B : also Phaedr. 265 c rby 
 ifjtAv re Kal aov decrirorrjv "^puira. So in Soph. Frag. 480 "HXte 
 Siffirora: Eur. Hipp. 88 dj^a^, deoiis yap decnroras Ka\e7u xpewf: 
 Xen. Anab. III 2. 13 ovdeva yap dvOpuiirou deairor-qv, dWd rovs deovs 
 irpoaKvvelre. Socrates ever looked upon himself as Apollo's slave; 
 see Apol. 30 a eyuj oto/xai. ovdiv irco vpuv /xei^ou dyadbv yevkaQai ev 
 T^ TToXet 7) r-qv ifxiji' ry deip viryjpecriau. Compare Introd. p. xiv ff. 
 
98 NOTES ON xv 13 d 
 
 50. viTTipcTiKii — Oeois. So Charm. 158 C ^^api'<fj eT^/ai ra epw- 
 Twywefa : see on to. fxeriwpa ^povriCTi^s in Apol. 18 B. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Socrates now asks — what does this service seek to produce? 
 Euthyphro is unable to reply, and the problem remains unsolved. 
 Presently be declares (Def. 5) that holiness consists in saying and 
 doing what is pleasing to the gods in prayer and sacrifice. 
 
 The key to the positive teaching of the Euthyphro lies in the 
 unsolved question propounded in this chapter : see Introd. pp. xii ff. 
 
 I. Tfj larpois VTTr\p6TiKr\ sc. depawela. The word depairela is 
 however not expressed, because its usual meaning is care which has 
 for its aim the good of the object : and this meaning has just been 
 excluded. The use of drugs and the like is meant. 
 1 3 E 6. "H vavTr-q-yots viniptTiKT] : viz. the opyava of their craft. 
 
 12. 1] Se Geois vTrT]p€TiK7] ktX. The possibility of piety being 
 an iv^pyeLa without producing any ^pyop is not entertained. 
 
 14. TO, yi Beta KaXXwrrd "y€. So B : T omits the second ye. 
 Schanz quotes Rep. Iii 389 D idv ye, rj 5' os, ewl ye Xoyiji ^pya 
 Ti\r,TaL. For /caXXicrra dvOpuoiroiv cf. Legg, I 636 E rb. 8' iv SiraprTj 
 KaWiar dv 6 pibiroiv 5ok€i fiot, Keiadai: Theaet. I48 B dpiard y 
 dvdpiOTrcju. 
 
 I'j. CK61V0 TO ird'YKaXov ^pyov. Socrates asks the ri : Euthyphro 
 in his reply gives the iro'ioi'. Compare Meno 86 D — e and Gorg. 
 448 E. In irdyKoXov Socrates gives a slight hint as to the nature 
 of the reply which he desired : see Bonitz Platonische Studien p. 
 238 note 7. The answer to the question is thus supplied by Bonitz 
 (p. 234) from hints in the Euthyphro and other dialogues: "Piety 
 is nothing but perfect morality, only in such a form that man is 
 conscious of being thus the organ by which God works his will " : 
 see Introd. p. xv. 
 
 18. TifJLiv virtip^Tais : we are as it were the body of rowers, 
 God the pilot: cf. Symp. 186 E 17 re ovu larpiKij — dia tov deov 
 TovTov Kv^epvarai kt\. Heraclitus Frag, xix (ed. Bywater) $p rb 
 ao(f)6v, ^irlaTaadai yviofxrjv ■^ kv ^epvarai iravra Sid irdvrwv. 
 With the general sentiment compare Isocrates 5. 150 ol/xai 5^ cr' oiiK 
 dyvoetv 6v rpoirov 61 deol rd tQv dvdpdiruv hoiKovaiv. ov yap avro- 
 Xetpes oiJre TUf dyaOdv ovre tQv kukwu yiyvoyrai. tC:v avu^aivovruv 
 
XVI 14 B PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 99 
 
 ayToTs, aXX' eKaarois- TOiaijTrjv ^vvoi.av ifMiroiovaLV, ucrre 5t' dWi^Xwu 
 ijfxiv e/cdrepa Trapayiyveadai tovtuv. 
 
 22. TO K6<|>d\aiov avTcov. Schanz now inserts T97S airepyaaias 14 A 
 before avrCjv : formerly he rejected t'^s aTrepyaaias in the second 
 passage below. The effect of avT(2v is to identify the generals with 
 their profession : cf. tovto fioi ^do^ev avrQv avaiax^"'^'^'^^'''^^ elvai 
 (Apol. 17 b). Contrast avrQv rijs direpyaaias below : where avrcov of 
 course depends on dwepyaaLas in spite of the hyperbaton, and has for 
 its antecedent, not iroWd Kal KoXd, but yewpyoL 
 
 29. tC h\ 8t] ktX. The usual punctuation places the mark of 
 interrogation after ri 8k drj : but this seems to involve a confusion of 
 thinking, unless ttjs epyaaias is regarded as merely epexegetic, which 
 is very awkward. (Engelhardt's note can hardly be right: "duo 
 genitivi twv ttoWuiv Kal koXcov et ttjs epyaaias eodem modo a 
 K€(pdXaLov pendent. Eadem grata (?) negligentia Wolfius : multorum 
 et pulchrorum, quae dii efficiunt, quaenam summa est effectionis 
 huius?".) Taking epyaaias with ttoWuu Kal KaXuiu, we get a wrong 
 meaning. The meaning required is not ' what is the Kecpakaiov of the 
 epyaaia of the TroXXd Kal Ka\d?\ but either, 'what is the KecpaXaiov of 
 the TToXXd Kal /caXd?' or ' what is the KecpdXaiov of the epyaaia?' With 
 the punctuation which I have adopted, the idiom is like Rep. v 
 470 A ri 8k 777s re Tfiijaeoos ttjs 'EXXtjviktjs Kal oIkiQv e/xirpTJaews; 
 iroiov ri aoc 8pdaovaiv ol arpanQrai irpos Toiis iroXefxiovs ; where see 
 Stallbaum's note. 
 
 30. TTJS ipya.o'Cas is said rather than direpyaaias, on account of 
 the preceding direpyd^ovraL : direpyaaia would moreover require an 
 object, whereas epyaaia is regularly used as equivalent to 'business' 
 or 'trade': see also on kfnropiK-q in 14 E. Similar cases where a 
 preposition is dropped are Phaed. 104 D iwl rb toiovtov 5??, (pa/xkv, i] 
 evavria I8ia eKeivg ttj fxop(p^, rj dv tovto direpyd^TjTat, ov8e7roT dv 
 iXOoi — elpyd^eTo Si yerj TrepLTTTj; Euthyd. 281 C oiiK eXdrroj irpdrTCdv 
 eXdrTOi dv e^ajxapTdv 01, eXdTTo) 8e d/xapTavcov tjttov dv KaKws 
 irpaTTOt (Schanz). So Eur. Bacchae 1065 KaTriyev, riyev, r^yev is 
 fiiXav iriSov. 
 
 31. Kal oXi-yov <roi irporcpov. The reference is to 9B. After 
 Kal oXiyov we should expect koI vvv Tavrd X^7a; or the like : in place 
 of which Euthyphro substitutes a sentence intended to contain his 
 last deliverance on the subject of piety. dTrXws presently is 
 'simply', ' without qualification '. 
 
 34. Idv (i^v— Ttt oo-ia. This is strictly speaking no entirely new 14 B 
 
loo NOTES ON XVI 14 b 
 
 definition (though laid down by Euthyphro as such), but an amplifi- 
 cation of the definition given in 1 2 e {oisiov is rh wepl rrjp twv OeQv 
 depairdav)'. see also note on tU avrrj tj virrjpeala in 14 D. The 
 special sense of depaireia is now said to be saying and doing what is 
 acceptable to the gods in prayer and sacrifice, i.e. the formal aspect 
 of religion is now insisted on, while at the same time, as Socrates 
 proceeds to shew, there is a reminiscence of the definition already 
 refuted viz. that Piety is to deo<pt.\h (6 e). Euthyphro (as a 
 ptAvTis) takes the purely sacerdotal view of religion : cf. Cic. 
 N. D. I 116 'sanctitas autem est scientia colendorum deorum'. 
 The conception of evae^eia as a proper recognition of 17 irepl deovs re 
 Kol dvdpooirovs irpos dWi^Xovs KOLvuvLa (Symp. 188 c) — originally a 
 strictly legal, almost mercantile relation — is well brought out in 
 Politic. 290 c: Kal fiTju Kal to T(2v lepiuv av yevos — irapd jxev tjjxQv 
 dcjpeds deoh Std Ovaidv iirKTTTJpiov €<tti Kara vovv iKcivocs diopeladai, 
 irapd de iKeivoiv r)puv eJxats KTTJaiv dya6(2v alTTjcraadai. See Introd. 
 p. xxi. It should be noted that Kexa.pi<Tfj.^vov is regularly used of what 
 finds favour with the gods e.g. Arist. Pax 386 K€xo.pt<TfJi.^vov x^'P^- 
 diov: Hdt. I 87 ei' ri ol Kex^pi-<^ l^'^vov i^ avrov idcoprjOrj : Xen. Hip- 
 parch. I I dvovTa XPV alTdadai deovs TavTa didovai, Kat voelv Kal X^yeiv 
 Kai TrpaTTCiv, dcp' 5}v deoh jxh Kexo-pi-c^P-^vdjTaTa dp^eias dv kt\. : 
 Anacreon 2. 7 cri> 6' evp.evT}s ^\d^ tj/juv Kex^pi-'^l^^vrjs 5' €vx(j}\ris 
 iiraKoijeiv. 
 
 36. Kal a-ialii ktX. Wohlrab formerly found in this sentence 
 the most important positive result of the dialogue (see the Einlei- 
 tung to his edition of 1880, pp. 8 ff.): this can hardly be correct 
 however, for Socrates clearly implies in the immediate sequel {kuI 
 yap vvv eTreiSj] ew' avT^ rjaOa, direTpdirov) that Euthyphro has shirked 
 answering the vital question, viz. that in 13 E. See Introd. 
 p. xiii. Observe that Euthyphro looks on religion as essential to 
 the existence of a stale : see on 5 E above. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 The statement of Euthyphro is now examined, with a view to 
 elicit its meaning: and it is reduced to the form ' Piety is the iiri<rT^fj.r} 
 a/T7;<rews Kal doaeojs 9eo?s '. 
 
 I. T) iroXv (Aot 8id ^pa\vrip<i)v. Prepositions are frequently 
 inserted between an adjective and the adverb going with it : e.g. 
 
XVII 14 c PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. loi 
 
 Euthyd. 305 C iraw irapa ttoXXois and Symp. 192 C ovtojs iiri fieydXijs 
 <nrovdrjs : see on Apol. 36 a. 
 
 3. TJpwTwv: the reference is doubtless to 14 A tL 5e 8ri kt\., but 14 C 
 it should be noticed that Euthyphro's answer is not so much a reply 
 
 to that question as a fresh deliverance on the subject of piety. 
 
 dWoL "ydp ov Trp60u|ios : so in 12 a dXX', Xeyu, rpvcpas virb 
 irXoVTOV TTJS (Tocpias. 
 
 4. 8t]Xos ct : a colloquial idiom, used in this paratactic way: 
 Ar. Av. 1407 KarayeXas fiov, drjXos el. 
 
 5. €ir€i8i] l-ir avTw iiio-8a : viz. in 13 E. For e7r' aivrw in this 
 sense (' at the point ') Schanz compares Phileb. 18 D ■^ /xrjv iir' aury 
 ye -qdiT] yeyovoTss ^TjreLre, ws (pys, TrdXat. 
 
 o €l direKpCvft). The precise force of diroKpiveadai here is 'state in 
 your answer' : cf. the use of epwrdu commented on above in 12 D. 
 
 6. iKavcos : so B : T has t'crws. We have here as clear a state- 
 ment as is possible of the importance which Plato meant to attach to 
 the question in 13 E. See Introd. p. xiii. 
 
 7. €p.efi,a0iiKT] : so the second hand in B : ifie/xad'^Keiv has inferior 
 MS authority. Pluperfects in -eiv are not found in the best Attic : 
 see on Apol. 22 C {^vvydTj ov8eu eirLcrrap.evii>). 
 
 vvv Se dva-yKT] ydp : see on 1 1 C vvv oe aal ydp ktX. 
 
 Tov IpwvTa Tw €pw|X€'va). So B : T has top ipuiTuvra t^ epcofxevc^. 
 Fritzsche and Wohlrab rightly retain the more difficult reading, 
 which Schanz changes to tou epwTu^vra rep epwrw/xei/y. There is a 
 similar confusion of epcbfxepos and ipuiTib/xevos in the Erastae 132 D, 
 and of epu)UTos and ipurQpTos in Rep. IV 437 c. Socrates frequently 
 uses the language of the tender passion in talking with a younger 
 disputant: compare (with Wohlrab) 14D infra €iri.dvp.r)T'r]s ydp 
 eifii, w 0tXe, ttjs cr?}s aocplas /cat irpocr^x^ '''^^ vovv avry: and 
 see Alcibiades in Symp. 216 d. 
 
 8. dKoXovGeiv, ottt) dv Ik€ivos viraYtl- So in Rep. in 394 d 
 OTTTj dv 6 Xoyos wairep irvev^ia <p^pri, ravry heov. The preposition in 
 virdyoj denotes the gradual leading on from step to step : a good 
 instance is quoted by L. and S. from Arist. H. An. ix 8. 613^ 30 edu 
 VT dvdpwTTov ocpdrj (sc. i] irepdi^) — dxo tQv (^Qv virdyei, irpb 
 iroHooi' (paivofjievrj tov dvd pdoirov, ews dv diraydyri. 
 
 TO. lirio-TTijj.T]v Tivd ktX. Note that in this short form of 
 Euthyphro's definition there is nothing to represent the clause koL 
 crw^et Td TotavTa ktX. (14 b). A clause so unimportant cannot 
 therefore be regarded as the corner-stone of the dialogue : see 
 
I02 NOTES ON XVII 14 c 
 
 Introd. p. xiv: and for the place of this definition in Greek religious 
 thought ibid. p. xxi. 
 
 12. TO 6v€tv 8a)p€t<r9ai. Cf. Eur. Med. 964 irddeiv Sujpa koI 
 6eovi X670S. Horn. Iliad IX 492 ff. arpeTTTot 5^ re kul 6eol avroi — koI 
 fikv Tov$ Bvieacn koL euxwXTjs ayavrjCLV Xoi^y tc kvIctj re irapaTpwiruxr^ 
 dvOpuTTOL Xicrao/xevoi kt\. See Introd. p. xxi. 
 
 13. €vx€O"0ai alreiv. Fritzsche quotes Legg. vii 801 A evxo-l 
 irapd dfwp aiTrtceLS dal. 
 
 14 D 15. alTTJo-€<os so. Tapa deOiv. Compare Xen. Hell, i 3. 9 opKovs 
 'edoaav (sc. ^apva^a^i^) Koi fKa^ov Trapd ^apvaj3d^ov (Stallbaum). For 
 doaews 6€oh see note on Apol. 30 D doa-iv vfiiv. 
 
 19. ciri9u|iT)rT]s has much the same sense as ipaari^s, see on t6v 
 epCjvra tc^ ipcofiivcp in 14 C and cf. Legg. I 643 E €Tri9v/j.r]Triv re Kal 
 ipaaTTJv Tov toXLttjp yeviadai r^Xeov. 
 
 20. ou X^-K-^-^ ircerciTai. A proverbial expression eirt tQv Sia- 
 Kevrjs ovdh XeyouTcov, ctXX' iirLTvyxai^oi'TOiu, says the Scholiast. 
 Fritzsche well compares Ar. Vesp. 1012 to. /jl^Wovt ev XdyeadaL fi^ 
 irear] (f>avXo}s xa/xSf' euXa/Setcr^e, and Pindar's x<^/'^'*"''eT^s 5* ap' 
 Ittos oiiK dir^pLxj/ev (Pyth. VI 37). 
 
 21. T^s avTT] I] iiiriipco-Ca. The word vin}p€(7la clearly shews 
 that Socrates looks on the answer of Euthyphro in 14 B as no new 
 definition, but an attempt to explain more precisely the meaning of 
 VTrrjpeTiKrj depairela in 1 3D. 
 
 22. avTOvs — IkcCvois. Both pronouns refer to the gods : Fritz- 
 sche compares Prot. 310 D dv avT(^ SiS^js dpyvpiou kuI ireiOys 
 
 CKtivOU. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 The present chapter reduces Euthyphro's theory to the state- 
 ment already canvassed and rejected, viz. that oaLov is to toIs deo'is 
 (f>L\ov. 
 
 I. TO 6p6(os ainlv: as 6 iiriaTruxuv tov ahelv will: piety is 
 herewith virtually declared to be a kind of iiri<rrqfjt.'r]. With the 
 introduction of dpOuis here compare Alcib. I 128 B tI d^, w 
 'AXki/SiciSt; ; dpduii eTri/xeXe^ffdat KaXeTs ti otovouv Trpdy/xaros; 
 
 4. 'aXXd tC; i.e. why, what should it be? what else?' i.q. tI/mtjv; 
 which Plato uses regularly in his later dialogues : see Ritier's 
 Untersuchungen iiber Plato (1888) p. 57. 
 
XVIII 14 E PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 103 
 
 5. TVYX,dvov(riv Seoftcvot. There is the same ambiguity in 14 e 
 deo/xevoi as in the English ' wanting '. 
 
 7. TcxviKov 7* dv tin]. Piety being ex hypothesi an cTrtcrrTj/i?;, 
 the conduct of the pious man will be rexviKov. Stallbaum is hardly 
 right : '* Pietas 13 d vocata est vTrjperiKT) 6eo?s (int. t^X'^v) "• see my 
 note on the passage. Cobet would omit didovra, but boipo^opetv is 
 used absolutely as if 'throw one's gifts away' : cf. Phaedr. 266 C ol 
 av dupocpopeiv avroiis ws ^a(n.\€v<XLV edi\w<Tiv — where the ^aaiXrjs 
 are the Sophists. 
 
 10. ciiiropiKT]. Wohlrab aptly quotes Symp. 188 B Kal dvaiai 
 ■jracraL koL oh fxavriK-f} iirKTrarei — ravra 5' iarlv 17 Trepl deoijs re Kal 
 dfOpuTovs irpbs dWrjKovs Koiv(jivia. The way has already been 
 prepared for this view of religion in the use of ipyaaia (which sug- 
 gests 'trade', 'merchandise') in 14 a above. See also Introd. p. xxi. 
 
 12. €l ot5t«s fi'Siov. Euthyphro insinuates that Socrates is 
 using an invidious word. 
 
 16. a (A^v — 8t]\ov. d here virtually = aTxa the indirect inter- 
 rogative : it is so used sometimes in dependent interrogative 
 sentences. So Saos is used for ottoctos, and ohs for oiroios : see Gorg. 
 451 E, where Thompson quotes Soph. O. R. 12 71 bdovveK ovk 6\poiPT6 
 vLv ovd' oV ^Tracrxei' 01?^' ottoT ^8pa KaKo.. Kiihner Ausf. Gramm. II 
 p. 742 takes a somewhat different view, regarding os in such cases 
 as equivalent to otos and denying that os is ever used for 6<ttls. 
 
 ovZ\v ^dp — 8c!)(riv. For Socrates' views on Providence see 
 Mem. IV 3. 3 ff. dire fioi, ^^rj, c5 'Evdvdrjfxe, tjSt] ttot^ aoL iirriXdev iv6v- 
 pLrjdrjvaL, ws iTrifjt.€\uis ol deoi, wv oi dvOpoiiroi Movrai, KareaKevaKaai ; 
 cf. Rep. II 379 C ovd' dpa — deos, iireidrj dyados, irdvToiv dv etrj 
 aiTios — dW oXiyuv fxeu rots dudpuTrois atrtos, woWuv 5e dvairios* 
 ■jroXv -yap eXdrrw rdyadd rdv KaKQv rj/xiu : see Introd. p. xv. The 
 Scholiast on this passage (as Cobet points out in Mnemosyne N. S. 
 II 88) was acquainted with St James's Epistle. His comment is 
 (Twcisdbu T<fj • TTocra SoVis dys.671 Kal e^rjs. The passage is in St James 
 i 17: irdcra ooais dyadrj Kal irdv dibprjfia reXeiov dvwdev iaTiv, 
 Kara^alpov diro rod irarpos tQv (purriov, 
 
 24. dXXd Ti — 0€ois ; i.e. if not, what can these gifts be etc. ? dWd 
 has the same force as in uXXa ti in D above, ri shews that Socrates 
 wishes a general description by way of answer : Euthyphro replies 
 with an enumeration of details, much as in his first attempt at a 
 definition (5 d above). For the syntax Engelhardt compares 
 Phaed. 58 C ti ^j/ rd Xex^hra Kal irpaxG^i^Ta ; 
 
I04 NOTES ON xviii 14 e 
 
 27. dtprt 2X€"yov: viz. in 14 b. The words TLti-q,yipa$, x6.pks (and 
 its derivatives x'^P'-^'^V P'-^^ x^-P'-'^V'^'-^' etc.) are of frequent occurrence 
 in connection with Greek religion, x^pi-^ prepares the way for 
 KexO'Ptfffi^vov z.% gratiae might iox grahim. 
 I c B 29. ovx^ (u<j)^i|jLov ov8^ <}>£\ov. to dxpiXi/xov is naturally also 
 (piXov. The justification for adding to (piXov is of course the desire 
 to make Euthyphro confess that his present definition is identical 
 with the earlier one in 6 e. 
 
 31. TOVTO ap' co-tIv av. tovto refers forward to to toIs deals 
 <t>'iKov : av back to 6 E. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Socrates now retaliates on Euthyphro. " You who call me a 
 Daedalus, yourself out-Daedalus Daedalus : for to toIs deols <piKov is 
 simply 6€0(pi\is'\ 
 
 I. «dv <ro£. I have accented <rol, because it is emphatically op- 
 posed to Kal ifie alridaei. 
 
 3. aiTido-ii : as in 1 1 C. tov AalSaXov alludes in particular to 
 II C above, dXXd av fioi SoKeTs, 6 AaiSaXos: it is therefore virtually 
 a quotation. The passage would be much less forcible if the words 
 were expunged, as Schanz suggests. Liebhold's proposal, rpbirov 
 AaiddXoVy is ingenious, but quite unnecessary. 
 
 5. Kal kvk\o> irepiiovras. So T: the second hand in B has 
 ireptovTas : B has TrepidvTa. Kal is explanatory; there is no need to 
 bracket the word, as Schanz suggests. For irepudvTas Schanz reads 
 irepibvTas'. but in ii C above irepiUvai (with the MSs). The forms 
 irepiuv etc. are found occasionally in the mss of Plato : but I cannot 
 believe that Plato would have written both irepiUvai. and irepidvTas 
 within the compass of a single short dialogue. See on the subject 
 of irepiwv in Greek manuscripts Naber in Mnemosyne N. S. v 417. 
 KiuKXif is by no means otiose here : since irepiUvai may mean simply 
 * to move about ' (as above in 11 c) : Euthyphro is a greater artist 
 than Daedalus, because he communicates to his X6yoL a special sort 
 of motion viz. circular : Daedalus' statues merely walked about. 
 With the whole passage cf. Euthyd. 291 C — D uxrirep els Xa^vpivdov 
 ifxireaovTeSf olSfiepoi -qbr) ^irl xAft ehai, TrepiKapLxpavTcs iraXiv ojcrirep iy 
 ^PXV "^V^ ^T]Trj(X€it}'s a.P€(f>civT]p.€v oVres Kal tov t<xov 8e6f/.€i>oi, oaovirep ore 
 TO irpQiTov i^rjTovfJLev. 
 
XX 15 D PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 105 
 
 7. 6v T(u irpoo-Gcv : the reading of T : B has iixirpocrdev. Schanz 15c 
 remarks that there is a tendency in Platonic MSS to write ^fxirpoadev 
 
 for irpcadev. The reference is to 10 E ff. 
 
 8. TaiJTov : see above on 10 E. 
 
 12. dtXXo Tt TJ : see on Apol. 24 c. If we regard the phrase as 
 already a stereotyped particle of interrogation, the rj ov ; following 
 will present no difficulty : but in any case tj oO is otiose : and the 
 fuller form dWo ti tj is rarely used without some hint of its origin = 
 ecquid aliud quam? Hermann reads ovk dWo against the MSS and 
 places a colon after yiyverai. On the whole I prefer Schanz's 
 view, with which Wohlrab agrees. dWo re ij is taken by them as 
 equivalent to German nic/it zaa/ir, used parenthetically in the sense 
 of ' I suppose ', without a distinctly interrogative sense. I know no 
 other case of such a use. ytyveraL is ' comes to be ' ' is found to be ' : 
 cf. (with Schanz) Euthyd. 298 E ojlikovv Trarrjo ibv cros iariv, Coare <t6s 
 warrjp yiyverai 6 kvuu koI crij Kvvap'nav d5eX06s ; 
 
 15. d'pTi : viz. in ice where the identity of oaiov and 6€0(pi\es 
 was finally disallowed. For ridifieda see above on 11 c. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 In this concluding chapter Socrates complains of Euthyphro's 
 wilful reticence. 
 
 3. €K«v elvai : is used by Plato only in negative sentences : see 15 ^ 
 on Apol. 37 A. 
 
 4. irpofriyjav — vvv. rt /xaXiara is to be taken with irpoa^x^^) 
 vvp with elire. 
 
 7. wonrep 6 IIp<oT€vs: Hom. Od. IV 382 ff. Virg. Georg. iv 
 437 fF. Proteus is with Plato a figure for shiftiness and fertility of re- 
 source e.g. lo 541 E dTex''ws Cocnrep 6 Upiorei/s iravTodairos ylyvei arpe- 
 c/Mfievos dvo) Kol KCiTb) : Euthyd. 288 B dXXa tov Ilpcorea /jLi/xeTadop top 
 KlyviTTLOv co(pL(TTT]v yoTjTe'uovTe i]/xd$. 7//ie?j ovv tov 'M.eveKaov /xt/xco/xeda 
 Kai 1X7} a.<pi.u}fX€da toiv avdpotv ktK. 
 
 8. fi'Siio-Ga : the only correct form in Plato : see on Apol. 22 c. 
 Here B has ydeicrda, T e'idriada. 
 
 10. dvSpos 6t]tos avSpa irpco-pv-rriv. dv-qp is frequently added 
 thus to words which denote one's nationality, standing, condition and 
 the like, as in dvT]p /xaPTis, dvrjp vofievs (Sophocles), dv8pes diKacrral 
 etc. 
 
 8ia)Kd0€tv. Cobet Var. Lect. p. 390 (cf. Mnemosyne N. S. 
 
io6 NOTES ON xx 15 d 
 
 III 281) would write 5iu}Ka6e7v ; " aoristos in -adetv productos ubique 
 in -ddeiv depravarunt, ut multi hodieque opinentur, Graeca esse 5tw- 
 Kadeiv, dfMvuadeLv, elKadeiv, vireiKadeiu, irapeiKadeiv, elpyddeiv, aXKadetv, 
 quum diojKadeLv cett. aoristos esse Elmsleius ad Medeam vs. 186 
 acute perspexerit". It is not however certain that the formation is 
 aoristic : nor that, even if aoristic, it would be accented on the last : 
 see on ocpXcjv in Apol. 39 b and Curtius' Greek Verb (E. T.) p. 502. 
 B has dLWKadetu : T SiuKaOetu (sic). 
 
 11. Tovs 0€ovs — irapaKiv8rv€v€iv, The construction of ^Setcas 
 is peculiar, if (with Schanz and Wohlrab) we regard roi/s deovs and 
 irapaKtvdvpeveiv as both depending on it directly : nor can tovs deo^s 
 depend on irapaKLvdweveiv, which can only take an internal accusative 
 of that which is risked. If TrapaKivdweveiv is not a marginal note 
 intended to explain the precise force of the following firj clause, it 
 should probably be explained as an epexegetic infinitive. On the 
 other supposition the balance is complete : roiis deoiis dv ^detaas — 
 Tous dvdpdjTOVS {dv) riax^vdT}S. 
 
 12. jii^ ovK opOws avTo iroiifcrois- An almost solitary case of 
 fiT} (oTTWs ixTJ) with future optative after a verb of fearing : see Good- 
 win (MT p. 40), who quotes from Xen. Hell, vi 4. 27 (po^ovfj-evos 
 fi"^ Tives — TTopevaoLVTO iirl ttjv iKcipov 5vva/j.iv, It corresponds to /x-^ 
 with future Indicative in direct speech after verbs of fearing, an 
 idiom itself also rare: see Paley on Aesch. Pers. 117 — 121 fii) ttoXis 
 TTvdrjTaL — Kal t6 Ki(T<xi(vv iroXiafi' duridovTrov ^craeraL. The expres- 
 sion ^117 OVK opdCJs ktK. recalls 4 A above ov yap ot/xaL toO iiriTvxoi'Tos 
 6pdQ)S avTO irpd^ai. : but the meaning here is ' lest you should be 
 wrong in so doing '. 
 
 1 3. (ra<t>(3s ol'ei clSevai : so dKpi^Qs ofet iwiaraadai ire pi tujv 
 deiuv Swrj ^x^l in 4 E. The emphasis is on otei. 
 
 15 E 18. dir' eXirCSos — KaTaPaXwv. Compare Phaedo 98 b diro St; 
 
 davfxaaTTJs, w eraipe, iXwiSos (^x^M^ (p^po/xevos. 
 
 19. ifjv ctxov. The concluding sentence recalls 5 a — b. Thus 
 in ao<f>oi ijdr] irap FivdiKppofos rd dela y^yova we have an echo of 
 ^yioye Kal iv T<p ^/xirpocrdev XP^^'V "^^ deia irepl ttoXXoO iiroioijfJi,7jv 
 eldivai — Kal el fxiv, c3 MATjre, (paliqv dv, ^vdv(f>pova ofioKoyeTs ao(pbv 
 elvaL rd TOiavra : and in ovk^tl — ai)Toa"Xf5ta^a; ovbe KaivoTo/xQ irepl 
 avrd there is a reminiscence of iTeidrj fxe iKcTvoi avToa-xeSid^ovTa 
 iprjac Kal KaivoTOfiovvra rrepl twv delwv. 
 
 20. TO. T€ o<ria Kal jirj. It is unnecessary to read (with 
 Liebhold Woch. fiir kl. Phil. 1888 no. 40 p. 1229) Kal rd firj. 
 
XX i6 A PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO. 107 
 
 24. Kttl 81] Kttl — Pt«croC|Ji'r]v. For koX St? kqx see above on 2 e. j 6 A 
 For oTt afxeivov Schanz reads &/j,eivov against the MSS, taking on 
 (like u)J Trapd troG above) with eXiridos : I prefer the MS reading, as 
 forming a more euphonious and impressive conclusion. In the 
 concluding words of the Phaedo the traditional reading is to be 
 preferred for a similar reason. Here on depends on ivdei^d/xepos and 
 is parallel to the other two on, clauses : Socrates might hope to be 
 acquitted by convincing Meletus of his resolution to reform. For the 
 change of mood from Indicative to Optative we may compare (with 
 Schanz) Thuc. II 80 i Xiyopres on — padiojs av — KparTjaovai Kat 6 
 TrepiirXovs ovKin iaoiTO ^A6r]vaioi,s ojuolwi irepl UeXoTrovurjaou. 
 
 A. EU. TO 
 
INDICES TO THE NOTES. 
 
 I. GREEK. 
 
 a-yada Kal KaKa 70 
 
 dyv<J}/j.iow 33 
 
 dyio 97 
 
 0,70;;' 29 
 
 dyujviaTiKos 27 
 
 ddiK€Lv 73, 74 
 
 aidibs 92, 94 
 
 ' AKadrj/xeia 28 
 
 dXTjOels do^ai 87 
 
 aXX' aWoi's 75 
 
 dXXd 7dp 65, 88 
 
 dWd 5?7 32 
 
 ctXXd Tt 102, 103 
 
 dWriXwp MSS error for dWojv 75 
 
 ctXXos ' besides ' 63 
 
 dWos versus erepos 30 
 
 dXXo Tt and dWo rt ^ 84, 105 
 
 dXXorptos 47 
 
 afxadrfs 32, 33 
 
 di'd7c<; 64 
 
 dfadrj/xa 64 
 
 dpdKpiais 54 
 
 dj'77p added to nouns 105 
 
 aTraiSeuTos 33 
 
 dir iXiridos Kara^akeiv 106 
 
 d-rrepyacTLa 99 
 
 dTrXws 99 
 
 aTro/SX^TTOj 65 
 
 aTToSet^at 77 
 
 dirodexecrdai 82 
 
 dTTodvrjCTKOJ 51 
 
 diroKpiveadaL loi 
 
 "AttoWou 45 
 
 'AttoXXwz' Ay/ceios 28 
 
 diropla 86, 90 
 diro(T(f>dTT€LV 50 
 dpa 87 
 dpa 7€ 61 
 dpidpLos 68 
 drexvCos 36, 57 
 ai^To^ {tiltro) 60 
 awTOS \sohis) 65 
 auTOj avTOu 58 
 ayroa"%e5tdj'€tj' 55 
 dcpl-qixL 80 
 
 ^XdaTT} 35 
 
 ^oijXopLai versus ediXui 83 
 
 7dp introductory 60 
 76 51, 69, 71, 98 
 7eXoroj' 48 
 yiyveadaL 38, 105 
 ypd<p€Lv and ypd(p€adat 30 
 ypacpy] 29 
 yv/JLvaariKoi 27 
 
 ZaifibvLOv 38 
 
 5^ (fcaf) after re 43 
 
 5^ explanatory 67 
 
 Set" 5i» 52 
 
 deivos 40 
 
 deicrdai 103 
 
 5^os 92, 94 
 
 deapid and decrpLol 50, 77 
 
 5i7 sarcastic 55 
 
 S'^Xos e? loi 
 
 dia^dXXeiv 38 
 
I lO 
 
 INDICES TO THE NOTES. 
 
 oiaipecris 91 
 diarpi^eiv 28 
 dia^^peiu 53 
 diacfjepeadai ojs oi) 73 
 
 5ia(pd€ip€LV 56 
 
 dlKaiop as vbfXLpLOv 41 
 
 SiVatoz' as 'right' 91 
 
 5t/c7j 29 
 
 StoTi 83 
 
 diuKadeiu 105 
 
 5oKw (i. q. So/cet and doKel fiot) 68 
 
 SoOXos 97 
 
 do}po(pop€?v 103 
 
 idvirep 48 
 
 ^yK\ri/j.a 44 
 
 ei with fut. Ind. 42 
 
 et apa 57 
 
 elSos 65 
 
 etev 97 
 
 elj/at * be true ' 94 
 
 cTttop versus ^Xeyov 95 
 
 cKaaroL 71 
 
 €KdaTOT€ 38 
 
 iKecvos 89 
 
 iKKaOaipii} 34 
 
 e/ccbj' elj'at 105 
 
 ifi^paxv 36 
 
 ifMotye So/cet 32 
 
 i/XTropLK-q 1 03 
 
 'eiiirpoadev versus ev ry trpodOev 
 
 105 
 ^/jLcpatjii 30 
 ei* Si/cTj 48 
 ivaurla XiyeLV 61 
 ivavrlios 86 
 ivavTiuTarov 67 
 ivd€LKvviJ.ai 77 
 i^TjyrjTai 50, 77 
 ^tt' ayrcp lOI 
 ^7re^ 49, 77 
 
 ^TTCLTa 35 
 
 e7reK5t5dcr/ceiv 66 
 eTri irX^ov 94 
 cirlypvTTos 32 
 eTridei^is 'j'j 
 iiridv 1X1)77)% 102 
 eTnixeKeiffOoLL 34 
 
 ^TTLTVX^V 46 
 
 CTTO/xai 91 
 
 ^/37a 87 
 
 epyaaia 99, 103 
 
 ep^irjs 92 
 
 epwvra versus epcoruivTa 10 1 
 
 ipusTcip 95 
 
 'Ecrrt'a 36 
 
 ^(TTij' emphatic 66, 71 
 
 erepos tolovtos 40, 61 
 
 eD fidXa 44 
 
 eS irpoLTTeLv 37 
 
 evae^is 58 
 
 ^iiX'^(^Oo.i 102 
 
 Ze(>s (piXios 63 
 ^T)T7)TLKoL 27 
 
 ■fj = An? 47 
 
 riyefiovla 8LKa<TTr)piov 29 
 ^St; 42 
 ■fjb-qaOa 105 
 'HpaxXets 45 
 
 deuprjTiKol 27 
 
 dvri<TK(j3 versus dwodurjaKU 47 
 
 ^ueti' 102 
 
 iS^a 65 
 io'oo'/ceXiys 95 
 
 /cat with Imperative 37 
 
 /cat §T7 83 
 
 /cat St; /cat 34, 63 
 
 /cat 5?}ra 89 
 
 KaivoTo/xeTv 38 
 
 /ca^TOi 39 
 
 KUKOvpye^v 36 
 
 /caXa /cai alcrxpd and the like 70 
 
 /caret 58 
 
 /cara voOv 43 
 
 Karay^XacTTOv 48 
 
 /caTa7t7i'wcr/ceti' 30 
 
 /carciSTjXo;' 83 
 
 KaTairivu) 61 
 
 Kexcipt'Crfxipou loo 
 
 /ctj'Si'j'ei^ci; 32 
 
 /coXci^eij' 56, 73 
 
 KTdvw versus dtroKTeivu} 48 
 
 KwocrapYes 28 
 
 Ku7r/3ta ^TTiy 92 
 
INDICES TO THE NOTES. 
 
 Ill 
 
 \ayxo.veLV blicrjv 56 
 Xe'7w 66 
 X070S 65, 89 
 Ai^Keiov 28 
 
 fjidy ed 44 
 
 fj.avTiKrij6,^ 58, 39, 43, 100 
 
 (xapTvpetv Trjv TTpoK^rjcFtv 57 
 
 /x4X\u} 59 
 
 /x^v without 5e 40, 76 
 
 /i^;/ odv 74, 94 
 
 fievTOL 94 
 
 /i^pos and fiopiov 95 
 
 fiiTpov 68 
 
 /at; with vv. .SV;//. ^^ declar. 62, 
 
 94 
 /XTjrpts 33 
 
 fxiacTfia 48, 49 
 
 fxovov for yuoj'a 64 
 
 fioxdvp^^ 37 
 
 vewrepov and veiorepl^o} 28 
 
 voiil^eiv 37 
 
 j'O/uos 60 
 
 I'oVos T^s TrpodecTfiias 49 
 
 vovderetv 56 
 
 j'yj' illative 76 
 
 fOi/ 5^ 85, 88 
 
 j'Oi' §77 42 
 
 y^ Ix^"* 'v^^sus iv vip ^x^t" 31 
 
 versus (^72 
 
 6 TroLrjTTj^ 92 
 
 ot ^eot airavres 78 
 
 olyuai 5^ /ca^ 43 
 
 d\iyupe?v 50 
 
 o/xocre thai 39 
 
 6// omitted in mss 72 
 
 ottt; versus oiroi 42 
 
 OTTws ^^53 
 
 dp7ai 68 
 
 op^Tj 5o^a 39 
 
 dp^ws 60, 102 
 
 opdios vofJu^eLv 56 
 
 dppwScS 36 
 
 oVtoi' 58 
 
 oVtis 32 
 
 0X6 28 
 
 on 517 38 
 
 Tt, fidXicTTa 51 
 
 oy yap — ye 29 
 
 ou yap — TTOv without 76 71 
 
 oudap^ws TovTO ye 74 
 
 ov deiv (paai 74 
 
 oi irdvv and ov irdvv tl 30 
 
 ovM 91 
 
 ou5^ So/cet opai' 57 
 
 ovdev ap eir] cit/S^s 42 
 
 ovdev Trpdyixa 40 
 
 ovSerepa Tj d/xcpOTepa 81 
 
 oiiK^Ti 42 
 
 o5i' 50 
 
 oSi' after efre 40 
 
 OVTTCO 42 
 
 oi^crt'a 86 
 oi/'roi 577 — 7e 29 
 ovTos sarcastic 57 
 ouTW 37, 81, 82 
 o0eXds /tou ecrrii' 53 
 
 irdyKokov 98 
 
 irddos 86 
 
 Ilaj'a^Tjj'Oia 63 
 
 trdvTa iroLetv kol Xeyeiv 74 
 
 Trdira pet 86 
 
 irduTes deol v. iravres oi Oeoi etc. 
 
 81 
 TTttZTOS fidXXop 77 
 irapabeiyfia 65 
 irapaKLvdweveLv 106 
 irapoLveXv 50 
 Trdrpios e^rjyrjTi^s 50 
 TretpacTTi/cds 27 
 7re\dT7/s 49 
 irept 52 
 
 irepLepxop.cn 86 
 irepuevai 88 
 irepiovras (?) 104 
 ireropLeva dcuKeLV 44 
 IliT^os 31 
 
 TToros and Troios rts 58 
 TTovrjpos 37 
 iroppoj eXa^veiv 46 
 irpaKTiKoi 27 
 TrpoKXrjaLS 54 
 Trpos e/xavTOv (XkottQ 78 
 TTpvTavecov 36 
 
 aadpos 57 
 
 c^ emphatic 30, 57 
 
112 
 
 INDICES TO THE NOTES. 
 
 GKoXy\vQ% 95 
 aoi emphatic 88, 104 
 (Tocpi^ofjLai and crocpos 90 
 (nraviov Trapix^i-" 41 
 CTTOvdaao/xai 42 
 oToa ^aaiXeios 28 
 ax^^'^'^ 88 
 o'XeSo;' ti 36, 88 
 
 ra /idXiara 5 1 
 
 TavraXov raXavra 90 
 
 ravra drj and raOr' (J/aa 51 
 
 Taiirbv 85 
 
 Tttxa 82 
 
 re displaced 66 
 
 Tedvdvai 76 
 
 reravbdpL^ 31 
 
 Ti 7ap KwXiJet 8i 
 
 TL Kai 62 
 
 TiOe/JiaL verstis rLdrjixi 87 
 
 riva KplaLv (i. q. rtVos Kplaiv) 69 
 
 Tts contemptuous 31 
 
 t6 TToio;' 95 
 
 TOtOVTOS 40 
 
 rpvcpav 90 
 
 Ti;7xaj'w irpdrTUP 53 
 
 vios forms of 61 
 virdyeiv loi 
 VTrr]piT7)S 98 
 inrod^aeis 88 
 varepop irpbrepov 94 
 v^rjyrjTLKoL 27 
 
 (ppoPTcaTrjs 32 
 
 Xa/xat Trecretj/ 102 
 Xdpis 104 
 XCLpicTTTipLa etc. 104 
 
 tS davfidcne and the Hke 54 
 
 ws with prepositions in similes 
 
 33 
 ws d\7)dQs and the like 63 
 ws— 76 37 
 ws ^TTos dirt'iv 36 
 waayrajs 97 
 ws ou 73 
 
INDICES TO THE NOTES. 
 
 113 
 
 II. ENGLISH. 
 
 Accusative, Adverbial 83 
 
 ,, of internal object 30, 
 
 44. 95 
 Accusative of part. w. dat. pre- 
 ceding 54 
 Active and passive recognized 
 
 by Plato 83, 84 
 Anytus 31 
 Archon Basileus 29 
 Arithmetic, Geometrical 95 
 Article, qualifies a clause 74 
 Assimilation of endings in MSS 
 
 42 
 Asyndeton explicativum 76 
 Attraction of relative 31, 89 
 
 Blood guiltiness 29 
 Blood revenge 47 
 
 Cadence in Plato's style 55, 
 
 107 
 Chiasmus 83 
 
 Christian parallels 94, 103 
 Comparisons in Plato 35 
 Conversion of propositions 59, 
 
 92 
 Copula omitted 48 
 Cronus cited by Euthyphro 61 
 
 Daedalus 87 
 
 Direct and Indirect speech, In- 
 terchange of 54 
 
 Education, Value of in Plato 34 
 Emendations 45, 75, 93, 99 
 Ethics and Politics, Relation 
 
 between 34 
 Euthyphro 27, 72 
 Evil treatment corrupts the cha- 
 racter 37, 97 
 Example, The use of in Plato 
 92, 96 
 
 Friendship, Socrates on 63 
 
 Genitive abs. w. ace. abs. follow- 
 ing 50 
 
 Genitive, Partitive 31 
 
 ,, of pronoun, Peculiar 
 force of 99 
 
 God is good 62 
 
 Gods as man's masters 97 
 
 Hephaestus in mythology 73 
 Heterodoxy as treason 38 
 Hiatus in Plato 84 
 Highest The, not to be named 93 
 Homicide, when justifiable 48 
 Hyperbaton 89 
 
 Idea of Good 93 
 Ideas, Theory of 58 
 Illustrations in Plato 83 
 Imperative, Attic forms of 3rd 
 
 plur. 80 
 Imperfect of el^t 47 
 Imperfect of verbs of saying 64 
 Indicative passing to opt. 107 
 
 ,, versus opt. 42 
 Indictment of Socrates 32 
 Infinitive, Epexegetic 106 
 Infinitive of ^pxofjiat. 88 
 Intellect versus will 33, 72 
 Interpolation 45, 79, 99 
 Irony 35, 53, 62, 89 
 
 Long hair. Significance of 31 
 Lyco 31 
 
 Man as slave of the gods 97 
 
 Meletus 31 
 
 Men and gods of one family 61, 
 
 71. 73 
 
 Metaphors, from agriculture 34 
 ,, from good living 90 
 
 ,, from the mint 37 
 
 ,, from rowing 98 
 
 ,, from war 39 
 
 Middle future 43 
 
114 
 
 INDICES TO THE NOTES. 
 
 Mixed conditional sentences 57 
 
 Monotheism 81 
 
 Mss B and T 29, note 
 
 Negative notions, rare in Greek 
 67. 7I197 
 
 Omission in MSS 84 
 
 Optative, of Aorist active 97 
 ,, of Aor. pass. 69 
 ,, of contracted verbs 69 
 ,, of future with verbs of 
 fearing 106 
 
 Oratory, popular at Athens 78 
 
 Paronomasia 30, 34, 38, 39, 53, 
 
 57> 73> 90, 93 
 Participles, Subordination of 59, 
 
 77 
 
 Particular for general in defini- 
 tion 59 
 
 Passives supplied from a differ- 
 ent verb 44 
 
 Person, Third for first 53 
 
 „ passing to first 54 
 
 Piety, Mercantile view of 100 
 „ Place of in Protagoras 
 etc. 91 
 
 Pluperfect active, Endings of loi 
 
 Poetry, Plato's hostiHty to 64 
 
 Politicians, Plato's view of 97 
 
 Prepositions between adjective 
 and adverb 100 
 
 Prepositions discarded after a 
 time 99 
 
 Prepositions, Omission of 84 
 
 Present, Conative 74 
 ,, for Imperfect 91 
 
 Pronouns, Anaphoric for rel. 63, 
 93 
 
 Pronouns, Rel. forindir. interrog. 
 
 103 
 
 ,, Sing, with n. pi. in 
 
 agreement 103 
 ,, Variation of 102 
 Proteus 105 
 Providences, Socrates' views on 
 
 103 
 Punishment should be remedial 
 73 
 
 Quasi-sorites in Plato 94 
 
 Religion, Political aspect of 100 
 Robe, presented to Athene 64 
 
 Sacerdotalism of Euthyphro roo 
 Socrates as a preacher 41 
 
 ,, Self-absorption of 78 
 Stasinus 92 
 
 State, Motherhood of 33 
 Substantives, Verbal, governing 
 a case 98 
 
 Thought as soliloquy of soul 78 
 Thrasylus 27 
 
 Vice as ignorance 33, 46 
 Virtue as knowledge 33, 55 
 Vocative EJ^i^^pwi/ 29 
 
 ,, followed by oXKa 40 
 
 Wisdom the true riches 91 
 
 Youth the season for toil 91 
 
 Zeno on piety 96 
 Zeus as creator 93 
 ,, Plato's derivation of 93 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 
 *^* Many of the hooks in this list can be had in two volumes^ Text 
 and Notes separately. 
 
 I. GREEK. 
 
 Aristophanes. Aves— Plutus— Ranse. By \V. C. Green, 
 
 M.A., late Assistant Master at Rugby School. 3^. (>d. each. 
 
 Aristotle. Outlines of the Philosophy of. Compiled by 
 
 Edwin Wallace, M.A., LL.D. Third Edition, Enlarged. 4^. M. 
 
 Euripides. Heracleidae. With Introduction and Explanatory 
 
 Notes. By E. A. Beck, M.A., Fellow of Trinity Hall. 3^. 6d. 
 
 Hercules Furens. With Introduction, Notes and 
 
 Analysis. By A. Gray, M. A., and J. T. Hutchinson', M. A. New Ed. 7.s. 
 
 Hippolytus. With Introduction and Notes. By W. S. 
 
 Hadley, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke College, ^s. 
 
 Iphigeneia in Aulis. By C. E. S. Headlam, B. A. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Herodotus, Book V. Edited with Notes and Introduction by 
 
 E. S. Shuckburgh, M.A. 3.^. 
 
 Book VI. By the same Editor. 4^. 
 
 Book VIII., Chaps. 1—90. By the same Editor, zs. dd. 
 
 Book IX., Chaps. 1 — 89. By the same Editor. 3^. 6d. 
 
 Homer. Odyssey, Books IX., X. With Introduction, Notes 
 
 and Appendices by G. M. Edwards, M.A. ^s. 6d. each. 
 
 • — Book XXL By the same Editor. 2s. 
 
 Luciani Somnium Charon Piscator et De Luctu. By W. E. 
 
 Heitland, M.A., Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge. sJ. 6d. 
 
 Platonis Apologia Socratis. With Introduction, Notes and 
 
 Appendices. By J. Adam, M.A. y. 6d. 
 
 Crito. By the same Editor. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Euthyphro. By the same Editor. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Plutarch. Lives of the Gracchi. With Introduction, Notes 
 
 and Lexicon by Rev. H. A. Holden, M.A., LL.D. 6s. 
 
 Life of Nicias. By the same Editor. 55-. 
 
 Life of Sulla. By the same Editor. 6s. 
 
 Life of Timoleon. By the same Editor. 6s. 
 
 Sophocles. Oedipus Tyrannus. School Edition, with Intro- 
 duction and Commentary by R. C. Jebb, Litt.D., LL.D. 4J. 6d. 
 
 Xenophon. Agesilaus. By H. Hailstone, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Anabasis. With Introduction, Map and English Notes, 
 
 byA. Pretor, M.A. Two vols, ■js.^d. 
 
 Books I. III. IV. and V. By the same. 2s. each. 
 
 Books II. VI. and VII. By the same. 2s. 6d. each. 
 
 Xenophon. Cjnropaedeia. Books I. II. With Introduction 
 
 and Notes by Rev. H. A. Holden, M.A., LL.D. 2 vols. 6s. 
 
 Books III. IV. and V. By the same Editor, ss. 
 
 Books VL VIL VIII. By the same Editor. 
 
 [Nearly ready. 
 
 Londofi: Cambridge Warehouse^ Ave Maria Lane. 
 
 23/6/90 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 II. LATIN. 
 
 Beda's Ecclesiastical History, Books III., IV. Edited with 
 
 a life, Notes, Glossary, Onomasticon and Index, by J. E. B. Mayor, M.A., and 
 J. R. LuMBY, D.D. Revised Edition. 7^. 6^. 
 
 — — Books I. II. By the same Editors. \In the Press. 
 
 Caesar. De Bello Gallico, Comment. I. With Maps and Notes 
 
 by A. G. Peskett, M.A., Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. \s. 6d. 
 Comment. II. III. zj. Comment. I. II. III. 35. Comment. IV. V., and 
 Comment. VII. 2J. each. Comment. VI. and Comment. VIII. is. 6d. each. 
 
 -^— De Bello Civili, Comment. I. By the same Editor. 
 
 [/« the Press. 
 
 Cicero. De Amicitia.— De Senectute. Edited by J. S. Reid, 
 
 Litt.D. , Fellow of Gonville and Caius College. 3J. 6d. each. 
 
 In Gaium Verrem Actio Prima. With Notes, by 
 
 H. CovviE, M.A. -LS. 6d. 
 
 In Q. Caecilium Divinatio et in C. Verrem Actio. 
 
 With Notes by W. E. Heitland, M.A., and H. CowiE, M.A. 3^. 
 
 Philippica Secunda. By A. G. Peskett, M.A. y. 6d. 
 
 Oratio pro Archia Poeta. By J. S. Reid, Litt.D. 2s. 
 
 Pro L. Cornelio Balbo Oratio. By the same. is. 6d. 
 
 Oratio pro Tito Annio Milone, with English Notes, 
 
 &c., by John Smyth Purton, B.D. is. 6d. 
 
 Oratio pro L. Murena, with English Introduction 
 
 and Notes. By W. E. Heitland, M.A. 3^. 
 
 — — Pro Cn. Plancio Oratio, by H. A. H olden, LL.D. 4j-. 6d. 
 
 Pro P. Cornelio Sulla. By J. S. Reid, Litt.D. y. 6d. 
 
 Somnium Scipionis. With Introduction and Notes. 
 
 Edited by W. D. Pearman, M.A. 2J. 
 
 Horace. Epistles, Book I. With Notes and Introduction by 
 
 E. S. Shuckburgh, M.A., late Fellow of Emmanuel College. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Livy. Book IV. With Introduction and Notes. By H. M. 
 
 Stephenson, M.A. 2f. 6d. 
 
 Book V. With Introduction and Notes by L.'Whibley, 
 
 M.A. 2 J. 6d. 
 
 Books XXL, XXII. With Notes, Introduction and 
 
 Maps. By M. S. Dimsdale, M.A., Fellow of King's College. 2s. 6d. each. 
 
 Lucan. Pharsaliae Liber Primus, with English Introduction 
 
 and Notes by W. E. Heitland, M.A., and C. E. Haskins, M.A. u. 6d. 
 
 Lucretius, Book V. With Notes and Introduction by J. D. 
 
 Duff, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College. 2s. 
 
 Ovidii Nasonis Fastorum Liber VI. With Notes by A. 
 
 SiDGWiCK, M.A., Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. \s. td. 
 
 Quintus Curtius. A Portion of the History (Alexander in India). 
 
 By \V. E. Heitland, M.A., and T. E. Raven, B.A. With Two Maps. 3J. 6</. 
 
 Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Libri I. — XII. Edited with Notes 
 
 by A. SiDGWiCK, M.A. \s. 6d. each. 
 
 Bucolica. By the same Editor, is. 6d 
 
 Georgicon Libri I. II. By the same Editor. 2s. 
 
 Libri III. IV. By the same Editor. 2S. 
 
 The Complete Works. By the same Editor. Two vols. 
 
 Vol. I. containing the Introduction and Text. y. 6d. Vol. II. The Notes. 4*. (>d. 
 
 London: Ca?nbridge Warehouse^ Ave Maria Lane, 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, % 
 
 III. FRENCH. 
 
 Comeille. La Suite du Menteur. A Comedy in Five Acts. 
 
 With Notes Philological and Historical, by the late G. Masson, B.A. 2J. 
 
 De Bonnechose. Lazare Hoche. With four Maps, Intro- 
 duction and Commentary, by C. Colbeck, M.A. Revised Edition, is, 
 
 D'Harleville. Le Vieux C^libataire. A Comedy, Gram- 
 matical and Historical Notes, by G. Masson, B.A. is. 
 
 De Lamartine. Jeanne D'Arc. Edited with a Map and 
 
 Notes Historical and Philological, and a Vocabulary, by Rev. A. C. Clapin, 
 M.A., St John's College, Cambridge, is. 
 
 De Vigny. La Canne de Jonc. Edited with Notes by 
 
 Rev. H. A. Bull, M.A., late Master at Wellington College. 2.f. 
 
 Erckmann-Chatrian. La Guerre. With Map, Introduction 
 
 and Commentary by Rev. A. C. Clapin, M.A. 3J. 
 
 La Baronne de Stael-Holstein. Le Directoire. (Considera- 
 tions sur la Revolution Fran5aise. Troisieme et quatrieme parties.) Revised 
 and enlarged. With Notes by G. Masson, B.A., and G. W. Prothero, M.A. ar. 
 
 Dix Annies d'Exil. Livre II. Chapitres 1—8. 
 
 By the same Editors. New Edition, enlarged, is. 
 
 Lemercier. Fredegonde et Brunehaut. A Tragedy in Five 
 
 Acts. By GusTAVE Masson, B.A. is. 
 
 Molidre. Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, Comedie-Ballet en 
 
 Cinq Actes. (1670.) By Rev. A. C. Clapin, M.A. Revised Edition, is. 6d. 
 
 L'Ecole des Femmes. With Introduction and Notes by 
 
 G. Saintsburv, M.A. is. 6d. 
 
 Les Pr^cieuses Eidicules. With Introduction and 
 
 Notes by E. G. W. Braunholtz, M.A., Ph.D. 
 
 Piron. La M^tromanie. A Comedy, with Notes, by G. 
 
 Masson, B.A. is. 
 
 Racine. Les Plaideurs. With Introduction and Notes, by 
 
 E. G. W. Braunholtz, M.A., Ph.D. 2j. 
 
 Sainte-Beuve. M. Daru (Causeries du Lundi, Vol. IX.). 
 
 By G. Masson, B.A. is. 
 
 Saintine. Picciola. With Introduction, Notes and Map. By 
 
 Rev. A. C. Clapin, M.A. is. 
 
 Scribe and Legouv^. Bataille de Dames. Edited by Rev. 
 
 H. A. Bull, M.A. is. 
 
 Scribe. Le Verre d'Eau. A Comedy; with Memoir, Gram- 
 matical and Historical Notes. Edited by C. Colbeck, M.A. is. 
 
 S^daine. Le Philosophe sans le savoir. Edited with Notes 
 
 by Rev. H. A. Bull, M.A., late Master at Wellington College, is. 
 
 Thierry. Lettres sur Thistoire de France (XIIL— XXIV.). 
 
 By G. Masson, B.A., and G. W. Prothero, M.A. is. 6d. 
 
 — R^cits des Temps Merovingians I— III. Edited by 
 
 Gustave Masson, B.A. Univ. Gallic, and A. R. Ropes, M.A. With Map. 3^. 
 
 Villemain. Lascaris ou Les Grecs du XVe Siecle, Nouvelle 
 
 Historique. By G. Masson, B.A. is. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane, 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 Voltaire. Histoire du Si^cle de Louis XIV. Chaps. I.— 
 
 XIII. Edited by G. Masson, B.A., and G. W. Prothero, M.A. 2J. dd. 
 Part II. Chaps. XIV.— XXIV. By the same Editors. With Three Maps. 
 ■zs. bd. Part III. Chaps. XXV. to end. By the same Editors. 2J. td. 
 
 Xavier de Maistre. La Jeune Sib^rienne. Le L6preux de 
 
 la Cite D'Aoste. By G. Masson, B.A. xs. td. 
 
 IV. GERMAN. 
 
 Ballads on German History. Arranged and annotated by 
 
 WlLHELM WaG.NER, Ph.D. 2S. 
 
 Benedix. Doctor Wespe. Lustspiel in fiinf Aufziigen. Edited 
 
 with Notes by Karl Hermann Breul, M.A., Ph.D. 3J. 
 
 Freytag. Der Staat Friedriclis des Grossen. With Notes. 
 
 By WiLHELM Wagner, Ph.D 2j. 
 
 German Dactylic Poetry. Arranged and annotated by 
 
 WlLHELM Wagner, Ph.D. 3^. 
 
 Goethe's Knabenjahre. (1749— 1759.) Arranged and anno- 
 tated by WlLHELM Wagner, Ph.D. 2J. 
 
 Hermann und Dorothea. By Wilhelm Wagner, 
 
 Ph.D. Revised edition by J. W. Cartmell, M.A. 3^. 6d. 
 
 Gutzkow. Zopf und Schwert. Lustspiel in fiinf Aufziigen. 
 
 By H J. Wolstenholme, B.A. (Lond.). 3J. 6d. 
 
 Hauff. Das Bild des Kaisers. By Karl Hermann Breul, 
 
 M.A., Ph.D., University Lecturer in German. 35. 
 
 Das Wirthshaus im Spessart. By A. Schlottmann, 
 
 Ph.D. 3^- 6rf. 
 
 Die Karavane. Edited with Notes by A. Schlott- 
 
 MA-NN, Ph.D. 2,3. td. 
 
 Immermann. Der Oberhof. A Tale of Westphalian Life, by 
 
 Wilhelm Wagner, Ph.D. 3J. 
 
 Kohlrausch. Das Jahr 1 8 1 3. With English Notes by Wilhelm 
 
 Wagner, Ph.D. ■zs. 
 
 Lessing and Gellert. Selected Fables. Edited with Notes 
 
 by Karl Hermann Breul, M.A., Ph.D. 3J. 
 
 Mendelssohn's Letters. Selections from. Edited by James 
 
 Si ME, M.A. 35. 
 
 Raumer. Der erste Kreuzzug (1095— 1099). By Wilhelm 
 
 Wagner, Ph.D. is. 
 
 Riehl. Culturgeschichtliche Novellen. Edited by H. J. 
 
 Wolstenholme, B.A. (Lond.). 3J. 6d. 
 
 Schiller. Wilhelm Tell. Edited with Introduction and Notes 
 
 by Kakl Hermann Bkhul, M. A., Ph.D. 2^ 6.7. 
 
 TJhland. Ernst, Herzog von Schwaben. With Introduction 
 
 and Notes. By H. J. Wolstenholme, B.A. 3^. dd. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse^ Ave Maria Lane, 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 5 
 
 V. ENGLISH. 
 
 Ancient Philosophy from Thales to Cicero, A Sketch of. By 
 
 Joseph B. Mayor, M.A. sj. 6d. 
 
 Bacon's History of the Reign of King Henry VII. With 
 
 Notes by the Rev. Professor Lumby, D.D. 3J. 
 
 Cowley's Essays. With Introduction and Notes, by the Rev. 
 
 Professor Lumby, D.D. 4J. 
 
 More's History of King Richard III. Edited with Notes, 
 
 Glossary, Index of Names. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. y. 6d. 
 
 More's Utopia. With Notes, by Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 3^-. 6d. 
 The Two Noble Kinsmen, edited with Introduction and Notes, 
 
 by the Rev. Professor Skeat, Litt.D. ^s. 6d. 
 
 VI. EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Comenius, John Amos, Bishop of the Moravians. His Life 
 
 and Educational Works, by S. S. Laurie, A.M., F.R.S.E. 3J. 6d. 
 
 Education, Three Lectures on the Practice of. I. On Mark- 
 ing, by H. W. Eve, M.A. IL On Stimulus, by A. Sidgwick, M.A. III. On 
 the Teaching of Latin Verse Composition, by E. A. Abbott, D.D. 2s. 
 
 Stimulus. A Lecture delivered for the Teachers' Training 
 
 Syndicate, May, 1882, by A. Sidgwick, M.A. is. 
 
 Locke on Education. With Introduction and Notes by the 
 
 Rev. R. H. Quick, M.A. 3J. 6d. 
 
 Milton's Tractate on Education. A facsimile reprint from 
 
 the Edition of 1673. Edited with Notes, by O. Browning, M.A. 2s. 
 
 Modem Languages, Lectures on the Teaching of. By C. 
 
 Colbeck, M.A. 2j. 
 
 Teacher, General Aims of the, and Form Management. Two 
 
 Lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge in the Lent Term, 1883, by 
 F. W. Farrar, D.D., and R. B. Poole, B.D. ij. 6d. 
 
 Teaching, Theory and Practice of. By the Rev. E. Thring, 
 
 M.A., late Head Master of Uppingham School. New Edition, 45. 6d. 
 
 British India, a Short History of. By E. S. Carlos, MA., 
 
 late Head Master of Exeter Grammar School, u. 
 
 Geography, Elementary Commercial. A Sketch of the Com- 
 modities and the Countries of the World. By H. R. Mill, D.Sc, F.R.S.E. xs. 
 
 Geography, an Atlas of Commercial. (A Companion to the 
 
 above.) By J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.G.S. With an Introduction by Hugh 
 Robert Mill, D.Sc. 3^. 
 
 VII. MATHEMATICS. 
 
 Euclid's Elements of Geometry. Books I. and II. By H. M. 
 
 Taylor, M.A., Fellow and late Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. i.s-. 6d. 
 
 Books III. and IV. By the same Editor. 
 
 [/« the Press. 
 
 Other Volumes are in preparation. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse^ Ave Maria Lane. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 W\jt Camhritise ^Mt for 
 'tJ)Ciols anH CoUeses. 
 
 General Editor : J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., 
 Dean of Peterborough. 
 
 "// is difficult to commend too highly this excellent series. — Guardian. 
 
 " The modesty of the general title of this series has, we believe, led 
 many to misunderstand its character and tmderrate its value. The books 
 are well suited for study in the upper forms of our best schools, but not 
 the less are they adapted to the wants of all Bible students who are not 
 specialists. We doubt, indeed, whether any of the numerous popular 
 commentaries recejitly issued in this country will be found more ser- 
 viceable for general use.'''' — Academy. 
 
 Now Ready. Cloth, Extra Fcap. 8vo. With Maps. 
 Book of Joshua. By Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 2s. 6d. 
 Book of Judges. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3^. 6d. 
 First Book of Samuel. ByRev.Prof. Kirkpatrick,B.D. y.6d. 
 Second Book of Samuel. By Rev. Prof. Kirkpatrick, B.D. 
 
 First Book of Kings. By Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 35. 6d. 
 Second Book of Kings. By Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D. y. 6d. 
 Book of Job. By Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D. ^s. 
 Book of Ecclesiastes. By Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. ^s. 
 Book of Jeremiah. By Rev. A. W. Streane, M.A. 4^. 6d. 
 Book of Hosea. By Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. y. 
 Books of Obadiah & Jonah. By Archdeacon Perowne. 2s. 6d. 
 Book of Micah. By Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. \s. 6d. 
 Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi. By Arch. Perowne. y. 6d. 
 Book of Malachi. By Archdeacon Perowne. is. 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. By Rev. A. Carr, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 Gospel according to St Mark. By Rev. G. F. Maclear, 
 
 D.D. 2s.6d. 
 
 Gospel according to St Luke. By Arch. Farrar, D. D. 4^. 6d. 
 Gospel according to St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4J. 6d. 
 Acts of the Apostles. By Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4^. 6d. 
 Epistle to the Romans. By Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A. ^s. 6d. 
 First Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. With Map. 2s. 
 Second Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. With Map. 2s. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse^ Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 7 
 
 Epistle to the Ephesians. By Rev. H.C.G.Moule,M.A. is.(>d. 
 Epistle to the Philippians. By Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A. 
 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. By Arch. Farrar, D.D. 3^. 6^. 
 General Epistle of St James. By Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, 
 
 D.D. IS. 6d. 
 
 Epistles of St Peter and St Jude. By Very Rev. E. H. 
 
 Plumptre, D.D. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Epistles of St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A., D.D. y. 6d. 
 
 Preparing. 
 Book of Genesis. By Very Rev. the Dean of Peterborough. 
 Books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. By Rev. 
 
 C. D. GiNSBURG, LL.D. 
 
 Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. By Rev. Prof. Ryle, M.A. 
 
 Book of Psalms. By Rev. Prof. Kirkpatrick, B.D. 
 
 Book of Isaiah. By Prof. W. Robertson Smith, M.A. 
 
 Book of Ezekiel. By Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D. 
 
 Book of Malachi. By Archdeacon Perowne. 
 
 Epistle to the Galatians. By Rev. E. H. Perowne, D.D. 
 
 Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon. By Rev. H. C. G. 
 
 Moule, M.A. 
 
 Epistles to Timothy & Titus. By Rev. A. E. Humphreys, M.A. 
 Book of Revelation. By Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. 
 
 Cftt Sbmaller Camftriirge asible for ^rftoolsi* 
 
 Tbe Smaller Cambridge Bible for Schools will form an entirely 
 new series of commentaries on so?ne selected books of the Bible. It is expected 
 that they will be prepared for the most part by the Editors of the larger 
 series {The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), The volumes 
 will be issued at a low price, and will be suitable to the requirements of 
 preparatory and elementary schools. 
 
 Now ready. 
 
 First and Second Books of Samuel. By Rev. Prof. Kirk- 
 patrick, B.D. IS. each. 
 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. By Rev, A. Carr, M.A. is. 
 
 Gospel according to St Mark. ByRev.G.F. Maclear,D.D. \s. 
 
 Gospel according to St Luke. By Archdeacon Farrar. ij-. 
 
 Lo7idon : Cambridge Warehotise, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
8 PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 CIk Cambnlrse ^xttk CesJtament &r 
 
 with a Revised Text, based on the most recent critical authorities, and 
 English Notes, prepared under the direction of the General Editor, 
 
 The Very Reverend J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., 
 Dean of Peterborough. 
 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. By Rev. A. Carr, M.A. 
 
 With 4 Maps. 4^-. 6d. 
 
 Gospel according to St Mark. By Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 
 
 With 3 Maps. 4^. 6d. 
 
 Gospel according to St Luke. By Archdeacon Farrar. 
 
 With 4 Maps. 6s. 
 
 Gospel according to St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 
 
 With 4 Maps. 6s. 
 
 Acts of the Apostles. By Rev. Professor Lumby, D.D. 
 
 With 4 Maps. 6^. 
 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3^. 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 
 
 [In the Press. 
 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. By Archdeacon Farrar, D.D. y. 6d. 
 Epistle of St James. By Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. 
 
 [Preparing, 
 
 Epistles of St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A., D.D. 4^. 
 
 Sonton: C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 OBlagfiofaj: 263, ARGYLE STREET. 
 
 Cambtiifie: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. 
 
 leipjig: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 
 cambridgb: printkd by c. j. clay, m.a. and sons, at the university press. 
 
8 PI 
 
 with a 
 Eng] 
 
 Gospc 
 
 Wi 
 
 Gosp< 
 
 Wi 
 
 Gospi 
 
 Wi 
 
 Gosp 
 
 Wi 
 
 Acts 
 
 Wi 
 
 First 
 Seco: 
 
 Epis 
 Epis 
 
 Epis 
 
 CAMT 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 TO^w»> 202 Main Library 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the doe date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405^ ^ 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 :M0V 1 8 1987 
 
 '■ HPftftiseQEC23^ 
 
 i ( ^,vTn.t)isc»PR 
 
 9 17 
 
 (TTn-r- 
 
 CIRCULATION r>r^c' 
 
 DEC1H 9»^ 
 
 FORM NO. DD6, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKEL 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 BOQDS^EMfll 
 
 K 
 
 >-^r 
 
 ^ 
 
 « ^ 
 
 
 » ■»- -« 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 i*m 
 
 jwi 
 
 
 M 
 
 m^