With this confusion, the dialogue closes. The Sokratic notion of _good_, as what every one loves--_evil_ as what every one hates--also of evil-doing, as performed by every evil-doer only through ignorance or mistake is brought out and applied to test the ethical phraseology of a common-place respondent. But it only serves to lay bare a state of confusion and perplexity, without clearing up any thing. Herein, so far as I can see, lies Plato's purpose in the dialogue. The respondent is made aware of the confusion, which he did not know before; and this, in Plato's view, is a progress. The respondent cannot avoid giving contradictory answers, under an acute cross-examination: but he does not adopt any new belief. He says to Sokrates at the close--"The debate has constrained rather than persuaded me".[31] This is a simple but instructive declaration of the force put by Sokrates upon his collocutors; and of the reactionary effort likely to be provoked in their minds, with a view to extricate themselves from a painful sense of contradiction. If such effort be provoked, Plato's purpose is attained. [Footnote 31: Plato, Hipparch. 232 B. [Greek: ê)na/gkake ga\r (o( lo/gos) ma=llon e)me/ ge ê)\ pe/peiken.]] One peculiarity there is, analogous to what we have already seen in the Hippias Major. It is not merely the Collocutor who charges Sokrates, but also Sokrates who accuses the Collocutor--each charging the other with attempts to deceive a friend.[32] This seems intended by Plato to create an occasion for introducing what he had to say about Hipparchus--_apropos_ of the motto on the Hipparchean Hermes--[Greek: mê\ phi/lon e)xapa/ta]. [Footnote 32: Plato, Hipparch. 225 E, 228 A.] [Side-note: Historical narrative and comments given in the dialogue respecting Hipparchus--afford no ground for declaring the dialogue to be spurious.]