he 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。 They occupy a border…ground between philosophy and politics； they keep out of the dangers of politics； and at the same time use philosophy as a means of serving their own interests。 Plato quaintly describes them as making two good things； philosophy and politics； a little worse by perverting the objects of both。 Men like Antiphon or Lysias would be types of the class。 Out of a regard to the respectabilities of life； they are disposed to censure the interest which Socrates takes in the exhibition of the two brothers。 They do not understand； any more than Crito； that he is pursuing his vocation of detecting the follies of mankind； which he finds 'not unpleasant。' （Compare Apol。）
Education is the common subject of all Plato's earlier Dialogues。 The concluding remark of Crito； that he has a difficulty in educating his two sons； and the advice of Socrates to him that he should not give up philosophy because he has no faith in philosophers； seems to be a preparation for the more peremptory declaration of the Meno that 'Virtue cannot be taught because there are no teachers。'
The reasons for placing the Euthydemus early in the series are： （1） the similarity in plan and style to the Protagoras； Charmides； and Lysis；the relation of Socrates to the Sophists is still that of humorous antagonism； not； as in the later Dialogues of Plato； of embittered hatred； and the places and persons have a considerable family likeness； （2） the Euthydemus belongs to the Socratic period in which Socrates is represented as willing to learn； but unable to teach； and in the spirit of Xenophon's Memorabilia； philosophy is defined as 'the knowledge which will make us happy；' （3） we seem to have passed the stage arrived at in the Protagoras； for Socrates is no longer discussing whether virtue can be taughtfrom this question he is relieved by the ingenuous declaration of the youth Cleinias； and （4） not yet to have reached the point at which he asserts 'that there are no teachers。' Such grounds are precarious； as arguments from style and plan are apt to be （Greek）。 But no arguments equally strong can be urged in favour of assigning to the Euthydemus any other position in the series。
EUTHYDEMUS
by
Plato
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE： Socrates； who is the narrator of the Dialogue。 Crito； Cleinias； Euthydemus； Dionysodorus； Ctesippus。
SCENE： The Lyceum。
CRITO： Who was the person； Socrates； with whom you were talking yesterday at the Lyceum？ There was such a crowd around you that I could not get within hearing； but I caught a sight of him over their heads； and I made out； as I thought； that he was a stranger with whom you were talking： who was he？
SOCRATES： There were two； Crito； which of them do you mean？
CRITO： The one whom I mean was seated second from you on the right…hand side。 In the middle was Cleinias the young son of Axiochus； who has wonderfully grown； he is only about the age of my own Critobulus； but he is much forwarder and very good…looking： the other is thin and loo