Abstract

Plato’s Euthyphro has been interpreted in two ways. The first one, given by Vlastos, is the so-called “developmentalism” according to which in the Euthyphro (and in the early dialogues) we cannot find any ‘theory of Forms’, which belongs only to Plato’s middle dialogues, but nothing more than a search for definitions. The second one, supported by Allen, claims instead that in the Euthyphro we can find the early (or Socratic) theory of Forms, a theory that has some common items as well as some differences with the later (or Platonic) theory of Forms. Through the detailed analysis of the refutation of Euthyphro second definition of holiness I argue that the ontological status of Holiness and its causal role is already the status and the role played by the Forms in Plato’s middle works. So a metaphysical meaning can be assigned to εἶδος, ἰδέα, παράδειγμα already in the Euthyphro.