A1: / Really? Has he taken flight? /


A1: “So to with Meletus. He will perhaps first
weed out those of us who blight the young shoots, as he claims, and afterwards
he will obviously look after their elders and become responsible for many great
blessings to the City, the natural result of so fine a beginning.”

This is suggesting that Meletus will weed out
the young ones and then take care of the elders. He will create many blessings
for the City, which would be observed a natural occurrence.


A2: “I would hope so, Socrates, but I fear lest
the opposite may happen. He seems to me to have started by injuring the City at
its very hearth in undertaking to wrong you. But tell me, what does he say you
do to corrupt the youth? / It sounds a bit strange at first hearing, my friend.
He says I am a maker of gods, and because I make new ones and do not worship
the old ones, he indicted me on their accounts, he says.”

charges go hand in hand because Euthyphro stated how did Socrates corrupt the
youth, which the other charge is him not worshiping the same gods and
influencing others to do the same. Based upon this, the two charges against
Socrates is him corrupting the youth and not believing in the city’s gods.


A3: “What about that, Euthyphro? Are you plaintiff
or defendant? / Plaintiff. / Against whom? / Someone I am again thought mad to
prosecute. / Really? Has he taken flight? / He is far from flying. As a matter
of fact, he is well along in years. / Who is he? / My father. / Your father,
dear friend?”

is wondering why Euthyphro is in court and questions which side is he on. Once
Euthyphro states that he is the plaintiff in this situation, Socrates then asks
who is the defendant. It is strange that Euthyphro would be prosecuting his own
father because most people would be questioning as to why would he be doing
that because it is his blood and relative he is prosecuting.


A4: “They little know, Socrates, how things
stand in religious matters regarding the holy and the unholy.”

would not be much use, Socrates, nor would Euthyphro differ in any way from the
majority of men, if I did not know all such things as this with strict accuracy.”

states that if he did not know what he did so well, he would not be of much
use. He claims to be an expert in all religious matters because others know so
little about what is holy and unholy.


A5: “Well then, my gifted friend, I had best
become your pupil. Before the action with Meletus begins I will challenge him
on these very grounds. I will say that even in former times I was much
concerned to learn about religious matters, but that now, in view of his
claiming that I am guilty of loose speech and innovation in these things, I
have become your pupil.”

did not have much knowledge on religious matters, therefore he wanted to become
Euthyphro’s pupil and wanted to gain his wisdom.  He wants to gain information from someone who
knows about what they are talking about and specifically in religious matters.  


A6: “Then tell me, what do you say the holy is?
And what is the unholy? / Well, I say that the holy is what I am doing now,
prosecuting murder and temple theft and everything of the sort, whether father
or mother or anyone else is guilty of it. And now prosecuting is unholy. Now,
Socrates, examine the proof I give you that this is a dictate of divine law.”

is giving an example of what is holy and what is unholy. He is saying that what
is holy is him prosecuting the murder or someone who does things related to that.
He is stating that what he is doing is holy and the opposite would be
considered unholy. This is the first definition of piety and what is impiety.


A7: “I wonder if this is why I am being
prosecuted, Euthyphro, because when anyone says such things about the gods, I
somehow find is difficult to accept? Perhaps this is why people claim I
transgress. But as it is, if even you who know such things so well accept them,
people like me must apparently concede. What indeed are we to say, we who
ourselves agree that we know nothing of them. But in the name of Zeus, the God
of Friendship, tell me: do you truly believe that these things happened to so?”

believes that he is on trial because he has his own beliefs about the gods and
he did not agree with people and their ideas.


A8: “Do you recall
that I did not ask you to teach me about some one or two of the many things
which are holy, but about that characteristic itself by which all holy things
are holy? For you agreed, I think, that it is by one character that unholy
things are unholy and holy things holy. Or do you not recall?”

did not ask for examples of being pious or impious, he asked for definitions
and for Euthyphro to teach him the definitions as a whole for the two subjects.
Therefore, he did not accept the examples Euthyphro gave as definitions for
what he asked for.


A9: “Then what is dear to the gods is holy, and
what is not dear to them is unholy. / Excellent, Euthyphro. You have now
answered as I asked. Whether correctly, I do not yet know – but clearly you
will now go on to teach me in addition that what you say is true. / Of course.
/ Come then, let us examine what it is we are saying. The thing and the person
dear to the gods is holy; the thing and the person hateful to the gods is
unholy; and the holy is not the same as the unholy, but its utter opposite. Is
that what we are saying?”

is stating that what the gods consider to be dear to them is what should be
considered holy and what they do not like should be considered unholy. Socrates
is then going back over and making his own definition in his head about what is
holy, which is someone or something dear to the gods, and what is unholy, which
is what the gods are hateful towards.


A10: “Then by your account, my noble friend,
different gods must believe that different things are just – and beautiful and
ugly, good and evil. For surely they would not quarrel unless they disagreed on
this. True? / You are right. / Now, what each of them believes to be beautiful
and good and just they also love, and the opposites of those things they hate?
/ Of course. / Yes, but the same things, you say, are thought by some gods to
be just and by others unjust. Those are the things concerning which
disagreement causes them to quarrel and make war on another. True?”

goes through the dialogue by stating that different gods have to believe in
different things and that the gods would not argue unless the disagreed on
something. He is stating that what some of the gods love, others hate upon
which is why disagreements happen between them. The statement is correct
because if the gods agreed upon everything and what is unjust and just, then
there would be no disagreements and vice versa. Since there are disagreements,
the gods could not agree upon everything.


A11: “Then the same things, it seems are both
hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and would be both dear to the gods and
hateful to the gods. / It seems so. / Then by this account, Euthyphro, the same
things would be both holy and unholy. / I suppose so. / Then you have not
answered my question, my friend. I did not ask you what sane thing happens to
be both holy and unholy; yet what is dear to the gods is hateful to the gods,
it seems. And so, Euthyphro, it would not be surprising if what you are doing
now in punishing your father wee dear to Zeus, but hateful to Cronos and
Uranus, and loved by Hephaestus, but hateful to Hera, and if any of the other
gods disagree about it, the same will be true of them too.”

is saying the Euthyphro did not answer his question. He is also saying that
since some god believe that something is pious and others believe it is
impious, then therefore it must be both. This conclusion is based from the
previous answer about the disagreements between the gods and how if they did
not believe is different things, then there would be no arguments.


A12: “So they do not contend that those who do
wrong should not answer for it, but rather, perhaps, about who it is that did
the wrong, and what he did, and when. / True. / Now is it not also the same
with the gods, if as your account has it, they quarrel about that is just and
unjust, and some claim that others do wrong and some deny it? Presumably no one,
god or man, would dare to claim that he who does a wrong should not answer for

there is someone who did something wrong, they do not argue about if they
should be penalized or not, but they argue about the person who is in the wrong
and the other details that go along with it. When dealing with wrongs and
penalties, there is a belief system. If someone did something wrong, there
would not be anyone who would stand up and say that they should not be
penalized for their wrong doings.


“And yet you are as much wiser than I am as you are younger. As I said, you are
lazy and soft because of you wealth of wisdom. My friend, extend yourself: what
I mean is not hard to understand. I mean exactly the opposite of what the poet
meant when he said that he was ‘unwilling to insult Zeus, the Creator, who made
all things; for where there is fear there is also reverence.’ I disagree with
him. Shall I tell you why? / Yes, certainly. / I do not think that ‘where there
is fear there is also reverence.’ I think people fear disease and poverty and
other such things — fear them, but have no reverence for what they fear. /
Yes, certainly. / Where there is reverence, however, there is also fear. For if
anyone stands in reverence and awe of something, does he not at the same time
fear and dread the imputation of wickedness? / Yes, he does. / where there is reverence
there is also fear, even though reverence is not everywhere that fear is: fear
is broader that reverence. Reverence is part of fear just as odd is part of
number, so that it is not true that where there is number there is odd, but
where there is odd there is number. Surely you follow me now?”

Socrates is stating that reverence is a part of fear and odd is a part of
a number, but it is not true that there is a number odd, but there is odd there
is a number. In other words, they are comparable because odd is a part of a
number and fear is a part of reverence, but it is not the same as a number
being a part of odd and reverence is not a part of fear. It does not work in


A14: “Well, Socrates, I think that part of the
just which is pious and holy is about ministering to the gods, and the
remaining part of the just is about ministering to men. / …. / Now, it not all
ministering meant to accomplish the same thing? I mean this: to take care of a
thing is to aim at some good, some benefit, for the thing cared for, as you see
horses benefited and improved when ministered to by horse-training. Do you not
agree? / ….. / I did not think you meant that, Euthyphro. Far from it. That is
why I asked you what you meant by ministering to the gods: I did not believe
you meant such a thing as that.” “…the
kind of care, Socrates, that slaves take of their masters”

and Euthyphro are stating that the two kinds of care include taking care of a
thing is to aim at some good, some benefit, for the thing cared for. He uses
the horse example to show his point. Prior to this, they talk about ministering
to many people and in religious backgrounds, this example can be used widely to
show how religion is a type of care. Socrates could also be saying that they do
not care for the gods like raising them (the horse breeder example) while
Euthyphro believes that they care for the gods like slaves to them.


A15: “But, Socrates, so you think the gods benefit from the things
they receive from us? / Why, Euthyphro, whatever could these gifts of ours to
the gods then be? / What do you suppose, other than praise and honor and as I
just said, things which are acceptable. / Then the holy is what is acceptable,
Euthyphro, and not what is beneficial or loved by the gods? / I certainly think
it is loved by the gods, beyond all other things. / Then, on the contrary, the
holy is what is loved by the gods. / Yes, that beyond anything. / Will it
surprise you if, in saying this, your words get up and walk? You call me a
Daedalus. You say I make them walk. But I say that you are a good deal more
skillful than Daedalus, for you make them walk in circles. Or are you not aware
that our account has gone round and come back again to the same place? Surely
you remember in what went before that the holy appeared to us not to be the
same as what is loved by the gods: the two were different. Do you recall? /
Yes, I recall. / Then do you not now realize that you are saying that what is
loved by the gods is holy? But the holy in fact is something other than dear to
the gods, is it not? / Yes. / Then either we were wrong a moment ago in
agreeing to that, or, if we were right in assuming it then, we are wrong in
what we are saying now. / It seems so.”

argument did come full circle
because in the beginning Socrates was questioning Euthyphro on what is piety
and impiety, because Euthyphro claimed to know about that. Throughout, Socrates
keep questioning Euthyphro which made him realize that maybe he does not know
what he claims to know. Socrates questioning Euthyphro allowed him to answer
his own question. I believe that Euthyphro has learned a few things within this
discussion, he learned about his own ignorance on the subject, the answer to
Socrates question, and about life/beliefs. Although in the end, Euthyphro seems
to just want to run off and not talk to Socrates, underneath, I still believed
that he learned something.  


A16: Let us begin again from the beginning, and ask what holy is, for I
shall not willingly give up until I learn.
Please do not scorn me: Bend every effort of your mind and now tell me the
truth. You know it if any man does, and, like Proteus, you must not be let go
before you speak. For if you did not know the holy and unholy with certainty,
you could not possibly undertake to prosecute your aged father for murder in
behalf of a hired man. You would fear to risk the gods, lest your action be
wrongful, and you would be ashamed before men. But as it is, I am confident
that you think you know with certainty what is holy and what is not. So say it,
friend Euthyphro. Do not conceal what it is you believe.

believe that the impression Plato wants us to get of Socrates would be that he
is determined to get his answer and in life, as well as very argumentative. He
could possibly come across as egotistical or a “know-it-all,” but that is not
the main impression.


A17: Throughout this, I have learned the
difference between knowing and questioning things

life. Also, I learned that with their belief in multiple gods, comes very
hectic and more work in not being able to control your own life. Socrates was
charged with corrupting the youth and putting his own beliefs (not believing in
the other gods like other people) onto other people (questioning them). This
puts a strain on your life if you were the one doing that, because you would
not be able to express yourself, which shows how much we have grown over the
course of thousands of years. Therefore, I learned that multiple things occur
in order to know something, like questioning life and questioning others.