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.'