_Soc._ But they will be sure to listen if they find that you are a good speaker. There was a notion that came into my mind while you were speaking; I said to myself: ‘Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to me that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how do I know anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for granting that this action may be hateful to the gods, still piety and impiety are not adequately defined by these distinctions, for that which is hateful to the gods has been shown to be also pleasing and dear to them.’ And therefore, Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove this; I will suppose, if you like, that all the gods condemn and abominate such an action. But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety? _Euth._ Why not, Socrates? _Soc._ Why not! certainly, as far as I am concerned, Euthyphro, there is no reason why not. But whether this admission will greatly assist you in the task of instructing me as you promised, is a matter for you to consider. _Euth._ Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious. _Soc._ Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What do you say? _Euth._ We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand the test of enquiry. [Sidenote: But does the state follow the act, or the act the state?] _Soc._ We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it 10 is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods. _Euth._ I do not understand your meaning, Socrates. _Soc._ I will endeavour to explain: we speak of carrying and we speak of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen. You know that in all such cases there is a difference, and you know also in what the difference lies? _Euth._ I think that I understand. [Sidenote: _The priority of the act to the state._] _Soc._ And is not that which is beloved distinct from that which loves? _Euth._ Certainly. _Soc._ Well; and now tell me, is that which is carried in this state of carrying because it is carried, or for some other reason? _Euth._ No; that is the reason. _Soc._ And the same is true of what is led and of what is seen? _Euth._ True.