e　highest　opinion　of　themselves　and　a　spite　against　philosophers；　whom　they　imagine　to　be　their　rivals。　　They　are　a　class　who　are　very　likely　to　get　mauled　by　Euthydemus　and　his　friends；　and　have　a　great　notion　of　their　own　wisdom；　for　they　imagine　themselves　to　have　all　the　advantages　and　none　of　the　drawbacks　both　of　politics　and　of　philosophy。　　They　do　not　understand　the　principles　of　combination；　and　hence　are　ignorant　that　the　union　of　two　good　things　which　have　different　ends　produces　a　compound　inferior　to　either　of　them　taken　separately。
  Crito　is　anxious　about　the　education　of　his　children；　one　of　whom　is　growing　up。　　The　description　of　Dionysodorus　and　Euthydemus　suggests　to　him　the　reflection　that　the　professors　of　education　are　strange　beings。　　Socrates　consoles　him　with　the　remark　that　the　good　in　all　professions　are　few；　and　recommends　that　'he　and　his　house'　should　continue　to　serve　philosophy；　and　not　mind　about　its　professors。
  。。。
  There　is　a　stage　in　the　history　of　philosophy　in　which　the　old　is　dying　out；　and　the　new　has　not　yet　come　into　full　life。　　Great　philosophies　like　the　Eleatic　or　Heraclitean；　which　have　enlarged　the　boundaries　of　the　human　mind；　begin　to　pass　away　in　words。　　They　subsist　only　as　forms　which　have　rooted　themselves　in　languageas　troublesome　elements　of　thought　which　cannot　be　either　used　or　explained　away。　　The　same　absoluteness　which　was　once　attributed　to　abstractions　is　now　attached　to　the　words　which　are　the　signs　of　them。　　The　philosophy　which　in　the　first　and　second　generation　was　a　great　and　inspiring　effort　of　reflection；　in　the　third　becomes　sophistical；　verbal；　eristic。
  It　is　this　stage　of　philosophy　which　Plato　satirises　in　the　Euthydemus。　　The　fallacies　which　are　noted　by　him　appear　trifling　to　us　now；　but　they　were　not　trifling　in　the　age　before　logic；　in　the　decline　of　the　earlier　Greek　philosophies；　at　a　time　when　language　was　first　beginning　to　perplex　human　thought。　　Besides　he　is　caricaturing　them；　they　probably　received　more　subtle　forms　at　the　hands　of　those　who　seriously　maintained　them。　　They　are　patent　to　us　in　Plato；　and　we　are　inclined　to　wonder　how　any　one　could　ever　have　been　deceived　by　them；　but　we　must　remember　also　that　there　was　a　time　when　the　human　mind　was　only　with　great　difficulty　disentangled　from　such　fallacies。
  To　appreciate　fully　the　drift　of　the　Euthydemus；　we　should　imagine　a　mental　state　in　which　not　individuals　only；　but　whole　schools　during　more　than　one　generation；　were　animated　by　the　desire　to　exclude　the　conception　of　rest；　and　therefore　the　very　word　'this'　（Theaet。）　from　language；　in　which　the　ideas　of　space；　time；　matter；　motion；　were　proved　to　be　contradictory　and　imaginary；　in　which　the　nature　of　qualitative　change　was　a　puzzle；　and　even　differences　of　degree；　when　applied　to　abstract　notions；　were　not　understood；　in　which　there　was　no　analysis　of　grammar；　and　mere　puns　or　plays　of　words　received　serious　attention；　in　which　contradiction　itself　was　denied；　and；　on　the　one　hand；　every　predicate　was　affirmed　to　be　true　of　every　subject；　and　on　the　other；　it　was　held　that　no　predicate　was　true　of　any　subject；　and　that　nothing　was；　or　was　known；　or　could　be　spoken。　　Let　us　imagine　disputes　carried　on　with　religious　earnestness　and　more　than　scholastic　subtlety；　in　which　the　catchwords　of　philosophy　are　completely　detached　from　their　context。　　（Compare　Theaet。）　　To　such　disputes　the　humour；　whether　of　Plato　in　the　ancient；　or　of　Pope　and　Swift　in　the　modern　world；　is　the　natural　enemy。　　Nor　must　we　forget　that　in　modern　times　also　there　is　no　fallacy　so　gross；　no　trick　of　language　so　transparent；　no　abstraction　so　barren　and　unmeaning；　no　form　of　thought　so　contradictory　to　experience；　which　has　not　been　found　to　satisfy　the　minds　of　philosophical　enquirers　at　a　certain　stage；　or　when　regarded　from　a　certain　point　of　view　only。　　The　peculiarity　of　the　fallacies　of　our　own　age　is　that　we　live　within　them；　and　are　therefore　generally　unconscious　of　them。
  Aristotle　has　analysed　several　of　the　same　fallacies　in　his　book　'De　Sophisticis　Elenchis；'　which　Plato；　with　equal　command　of　their　true　nature；　has　preferred　to　bring　to　the　test　of　ridicule。　　At　first　we　are　only　struck　with　the　broad　humour　of　this　'reductio　ad　absurdum：'　gradually　we　perceive　that　some　important　questions　begin　to　emerge。　　Here；　as　everywhere　else；　Plato　is　making　war　against　the　philosophers　who　put　words　in　the　place　of　things；　who　tear　arguments　to　tatters；　who　deny　predication；　and　thus　make　knowledge　impossible；　to　whom　ideas　and　objects　of　sense　have　no　fixedness；　but　are　in　a　state　of　perpetual　oscillation　and　transition。　　Two　great　truths　seem　to　be　indirectly　taught　through　these　fallacies：　　（1）　The　uncertainty　of　language；　which　allows　the　same　words　to　be　used　in　different　meanings；　or　with　different　degrees　of　meaning：　　（2）　The　necessary　limitation　or　relative　nature　of　all　phenomena。　　Plato　is　aware　that　his　own　doctrine　of　ideas；　as　well　as　the　Eleatic　Being　and　Not…　being；　alike　admit　of　being　regarded　as　verbal　fallacies。　　The　sophism　advanced　in　the　Meno；　'that　you　cannot　enquire　either　into　what　you　know　or　do　not　know；'　is　lightly　touched　upon　at　the　commencement　of　the　Dialogue；　the　thesis　of　Protagoras；　that　everything　is　true　to　him　to　whom　it　seems　to　be　true；　is　satirized。　　In　contrast　with　these　fallacies　is　maintained　the　Socratic　doctrine　that　happiness　is　gained　by　knowledge。　　The　grammatical　puzzles　with　which　the　Dialogue　concludes　probably　contain　allusions　to　tricks　of　language　which　may　have　been　practised　by　the　disciples　of　Prodicus　or　Antisthenes。　　They　would　have　had　more　point；　if　we　were　acquainted　with　the　writings　against　which　Plato's　humour　is　directed。　　Most　of　the　jests　appear　to　have　a　serious　meaning；　but　we　have　lost　the　clue　to　some　of　them；　and　cannot　determine　whether；　as　in　the　Cratylus；　Plato　has　or　has　not　mixed　up　purely　unmeaning　fun　with　his　satire。
  The　two　discourses　of　Socrates　may　be　contrasted　in　several　respects　with　the　exhibition　of　the　Sophists：　　（1）　In　their　perfect　relevancy　to　the　subject　of　discussion；　whereas　the　Sophistical　discourses　are　wholly　irrelevant：　　（2）　In　their　enquiring　sympathetic　tone；　which　encourages　the　youth；　instead　of　'knocking　him　down；'　after　the　manner　of　the　two　Sophists：　　（3）　In　the　absence　of　any　definite　conclusionfor　while　Socrates　and　the　youth　are　agreed　that　philosophy　is　to　be　studied；　they　are　not　able　to　arrive　at　any　certain　result　about　the　art　which　is　to　teach　it。　　This　is　a　question　which　will　hereafter　be　answered　in　the　Republic；　as　the　conception　of　the　kingly　art　is　more　fully　developed　in　the　Politicus；　and　the　caricature　of　rhetoric　in　the　Gorgias。
  The　characters　of　the　Dialogue　are　easily　intelligible。　　There　is　Socrates　once　more　in　the　character　of　an　old　man；　and　his　equal　in　years；　Crito；　the　father　of　Critobulus；　like　Lysimachus　in　the　Laches；　his　fellow　demesman　（Apol。）；　to　whom　the　scene　is　narrated；　and　who　once　or　twice　interrupts　with　a　remark　after　the　manner　of　the　interlocutor　in　the　Phaedo；　and　adds　his　commentary　at　the　end；　Socrates　makes　a　playful　allusion　to　his　money…getting　habits。　　There　is　the　youth　Cleinias；　the　grandson　of　Alcibiades；　who　may　be　compared　with　Lysis；　Charmides；　Menexenus；　and　other　ingenuous　youths　out　of　whose　mouths　Socrates　draws　his　own　lessons；　and　to　whom　he　always　seems　to　stand　in　a　kindly　and　sympathetic　relation。　　Crito　will　not　believe　that　Socrates　has　not　improved　or　perhaps　invented　the　answers　of　Cleinias　（compare　Phaedrus）。　　The　name　of　the　grandson　of　Alcibiades；　who　is　described　as　long　dead；　（Greek）；　and　who　died　at　the　age　of　forty…four；　in　the　year　404　B。C。；　suggests　not　only　that　the　intended　scene　of　the　Euthydemus　could　not　have　been　earlier　than　404；　but　that　as　a　fact　this　Dialogue　could　not　have　been　composed　before　390　at　the　soonest。　　Ctesippus；　who　is　the　lover　of　Cleinias；　has　been　already　introduced　to　us　in　the　Lysis；　and　seems　there　too　to　deserve　the　character　which　is　here　given　him；　of　a　somewhat　uproarious　young　man。　　But　the　chief　study　of　all　is　the　picture　of　the　two　brothers；　who　are　unapproachable　in　their　effrontery；　equally　careless　of　what　they　say　to　others　and　of　what　is　said　to　them；　and　never　at　a　loss。　　They　are　'Arcades　ambo　et　cantare　pares　et　respondere　parati。'　　Some　superior　degree　of　wit　or　subtlety　is　attributed　to　Euthydemus；　who　sees　the　trap　in　which　Socrates　catches　Dionysodorus。
  The　epilogue　or　conclusion　of　the　Dialogue　has　been　criticised　as　inconsistent　with　the　general　scheme。　　Such　a　criticism　is　like　similar　criticisms　on　Shakespeare；　and　proceeds　upon　a　narrow　notion　of　the　variety　which　the　Dialogue；　like　the　drama；　seems　to　admit。　　Plato　in　the　abundance　of　his　dramatic　power　has　chosen　to　write　a　play　upon　a　play；　just　as　he　often　gives　us　an　argument　within　an　argument。　　At　the　same　time　he　takes　the　opportunity　of　assailing　another　class　of　persons　who　are　as　alien　from　the　spirit　of　philosophy　as　Euthydemus　and　Dionysodorus。　　The　Eclectic；　the　Syncretist；　the　Doctrinaire；　have　been　apt　to　have　a　bad　name　both　in　ancient　and　modern　times。　　The　persons　whom　Plato　ridicules　in　the　epilogue　to　the　Euthydemus　are　of　this　class。　　T