Crito: Difference between revisions

Part of a series on
Platonism
Life Theory of forms Form of the Good Theory of soul Epistemology Political philosophy Euthyphro dilemma Demiurge Atlantis
The Republic
Allegory of the cave Analogy of the Sun Analogy of the divided line Philosopher king Ship of State Ring of Gyges Myth of Er
The works of Plato
Euthyphro Apology Crito Phaedo Cratylus Theaetetus Sophist Statesman Parmenides Philebus Symposium Phaedrus First Alcibiades Second Alcibiades Hipparchus Rival Lovers Theages Charmides Laches Lysis Euthydemus Protagoras Gorgias Meno Hippias Major Hippias Minor Ion Menexenus Clitophon Republic Timaeus Critias Minos Laws Epinomis Epistles Definitions On Justice On Virtue Demodocus Sisyphus Halcyon Eryxias Axiochus Epigrams
Related articles
Commentaries The Academy in Athens Middle Platonism Neoplatonism Allegorical interpretations of Plato Plato's unwritten doctrines Pseudo-Platonica
Related categories
Plato
Philosophy portal
v t e

Crito (/ˈkraɪtoʊ/ KRY-toh or /ˈkriːtoʊ/ KREE-toh; Ancient Greek: Κρίτων [krítɔːn]) was a dialogue by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It depicts a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito regarding justice (δικαιοσύνη), injustice (ἀδικία), and the appropriate response to injustice after Socrates' own imprisonment, chronicled in the Apology. Socrates believes that injustice may not be answered with injustice, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government.^[1]

In contemporary discussions, debate over the meaning of Crito attempts to determine whether it is a plea for unconditional obedience to the laws of a society.^[2]

The text has secured a place in many courses on legal ethics^[3] and has been lauded for being an excellent introduction to the subject.^[4] Anti-Platonists believe that it was written to slander Crito for not being able to save Socrates, as the character's lack of philosophical knowledge severely handicaps any arguments he made.^[5]

The conversation, which may be based on a true historical event is thought to have been published in 399 BCE. Since his trial in Apology, Socrates has been imprisoned for four weeks, with his execution coming in a matter of days. Historians are not aware of the exact location of Socrates' cell, but according to excavations, it is about 100 meters southwest of the Heliaia court, just outside the site of the agora.^[6]

Plato's representation of Socrates was very intimate, but as it is a literary work, the historical validity of what was said and how much of what Plato's interpretation of Socrates actually aligns with his real beliefs is uncertain.^[6]

Other than Socrates, Crito was the only other character in the story. Crito himself was a rich Athenian, who like Socrates was from Demos Alopeke. Once charged with corrupting the youth and atheism, Crito unsuccessfully vouched to pay Socrates' bail.^[7] Additionally, after Socrates was sentenced to death, Crito was ready to pledge to the court that Socrates would not flee in order to spare him the prison sentence. This plea was ultimately rejected.^[8] Through both the trial and the execution, Crito was present.^[9]

In other dialogues, Crito was a conventional Athenian, who couldn't understand Socrates' philosophy despite his attempts to do so.^[9]

Unlike many of Plato's potential works, the Crito is widely considered to be a genuine dialogue. In recent research, only Holger Thesleff has doubted its authenticity.^[10] Some have claimed the piece to be written during Plato's middle period, but the general consensus places it in his early bibliography.^[11]

Mario Montuori and Giovanni Reale make the case that the Crito was written closer to the Laws than to the Apology, whose date is controversial.^[12][13] Nonetheless, the piece was still written after Socrates' execution in 399 BCE.^[14]

It is known to historians that serious escape plans had been drafted by Plato's friends, as Xenophon had stated on more than a few occasions.^[15] It is unknown, however, to what extent the theoretical plan aligned with the historical ones.^[14] Some historians of philosophy assume that the Socratic figure depicted in the Crito is in fact similar to the historical figure.^[16] William K. C. Guthrie considers the social contract to be true to Socrates' philosophical interests.^[17]

The oldest manuscript was produced in 895 CE, in Byzantium.^[18] In the Latin-speaking world, the Crito was an unknown work, but the Islamic world had produced translations of it for years.^[19]

In the early hours of the morning, before visitors may arrive to meet with prisoners, Crito arrived at Socrates' cell, and bribed the guard for entry. Once inside, he sat beside Socrates until he woke up.^[20] Upon waking up, Socrates remarks that Crito arrived early, to which Crito expressed concern about how relaxed Socrates seemed to be about his upcoming execution. To this, Socrates responded that he was almost 70 years old, and that to be scared of death at that point would be inappropriate.^[21]

Crito had come to see Socrates because he had learned that his execution would take place the next day, and wished to rescue his friend. He planned to bribe all of the guards that were part of the execution, and assured Socrates that if he felt badly about using his friend's money, that he himself had enough money to see the plan through and that even if that weren't true, he had additional friends that were just as willing to pay. After being rescued from prison he would be taken to a home in Thessaly, where Crito and his friends would be pleased to house and feed Socrates.^[22]

Crito also brought up the point that if Socrates were to be executed, his sons would be deprived of the privileges that the sons of a philosopher would be entitled to -- namely a proper education and living conditions. Additionally, if Socrates were not to come with them, it would reflect poorly upon Crito and his friends, as people would believe they were too cheap to save Socrates.^[22]

After hearing Crito's arguments, Socrates requested that he would be allowed to respond with a discussion of related, open-ended issues, to which Crito was not to respond. Having agreed, as Socrates went on with his arguments, Crito only gave affirmation to what he had said.^[23]

Socrates first commented that only the opinions of the educated should be taken into consideration; the opinions of those with subjective biases or beliefs may be disregarded. Likewise, just because an opinion is popular doesn't make it valid. Socrates used the analogy of an athlete listening to their physician instead of their fans as the physician's knowledge would make their opinion more valuable.^[24]

Socrates also claimed that similarly to how life is pointless for one who has injured themselves out of incompetence, damage to the soul in the form of injustice makes life worthless for a philosopher. The goal should be to live a virtuous and just life, not a long one. Therefore, escape from the prison would rely on a discussion on justice.^[25]

Socrates disregarded Crito's fears of a damaged reputation and his children's futures, as those are irrelevant to him. He compared such motivations to someone who sentences someone to death and then proceeds to regret the action.^[26]

He then claimed that Crito and his friends should know better, as they have shared the same principles for a long time: that to abandon them at their age would be childish. To wrong the state would be an injustice even if in reaction to an injustice.^[27]

As Socrates then pointed out, the question would then be whether he should harm someone or ignore a just obligation. To solve this question, he created a personification of the laws of Athens and speaks through its point of view, which would be to defend the state and its decision against Socrates.^[28]

The Laws, Socrates said, would argue that without respect for their rules, a state cannot exist. They would criticize Socrates for believing that he and every other citizen had the right to brush off court judgments, as only chaos could ensue.^[29]

Crito – or Socrates, if he agreed with Crito – could have replied that he does not oppose the entire law, but only a wrong judgement. But then it would be up to him to ask what right he has to critique his hometown, whose legal system he undermines with his behavior. Socrates would be reminded and have to refute of the basis of his existence: that the existence of the state allowed his father to marry his mother. Thanks to this order, he was born and educated. Like all Athenians, he owes all the good things that a lawful order can give to citizens. Anyone who disapproved of the conditions and laws in Athens could emigrate with all their possessions, but those who decide to remain automatically chose to follow the laws of the state. If they thought something in the law is wrong, it is up to them to argue against it; if they were unable to do so, they would have to respect the applicable law. This is especially true for Socrates, as he spent his whole life in Athens, preferring it to anywhere else, even the states he used to compliment. He also demonstrated his agreement with the Athenian living conditions by establishing a family in his hometown. In addition, he had rejected banishment as a possible alternative to execution and explicitly preferred death. If he had wanted to, he could have opted for exile during the trial and then left Athens legally.^[30] An afterthought to unilaterally undo a free and binding decision would be disgraceful.^[31]

Furthermore, the Laws claimed that Socrates, if he accepted the offer, would have exposed his helpers to flee the risk of fleeing or losing their assets. In addition, as a fugitive in a well-established state, he would be suspicious of good citizens, because he would be suspected of violating the laws there as well. He would have to be content with a region like Thessaly, which was chaotic and disorganized. There he could only entertain crowds with the story of his unjust escape. As a philosopher who had become unfaithful to his principles, however, he would be so discredited that he would have to give up his previous life content. Then his sense of life would only be through food. If he did not want to abandon his children, he would have to take them to Thessaly, where they would be homeless. On the other hand, if he left them in Athens, their good education would be guaranteed by Socrates' friends, but his survival would be of no use to them.^[32]

In conclusion, if Socrates were to accept his execution, he would die wronged by men rather than the law, remaining just. However, if he were to take Crito's advice and escape, he would wrong the laws and betray his life's pursuit of justice.^[33]

After completing the imaginary plea of the Laws, Socrates claims he was chained to the laws as a dancer to flute music, and requested that if Crito had any rebuttals, that he give them. Crito had no objections, and before leaving, Socrates referred to the same divine guidance that he hoped to be helped by.^[34]

The piece puts an emphasis on reason, and claims that it should be the sole criterion for understanding ethics. Unlike other works by Plato, Socrates takes a more objective stance on epistemology, being optimistic about the knowledge coming from experts in a subject.^[35]

Not particularly discussed in the piece are the ethical and political implication of the personified laws. In the Crito, the laws are only personified in order to explain how Socrates should behave.

The personification of the laws runs contrary to Plato's tendency to criticise the Athenian state and institutions. The state's demand for loyalty is a social contract theory: where citizens have a mutual agreement with the state understanding what being a citizen of the state means. A citizen only becomes such after undertaking a test called dokimasia (δοκιμασία), rather than at birth.^[36][1] The test is mentioned within the Crito.^[37]

One of the most controversial issues raised by the piece is Socrates' legalist representation of the laws as a human being. It presents a view of society in which citizens who are incapable of changing laws by convincing lawmakers must abide by said laws to be "just". Those who do not want to live under such laws are to emigrate if they desire an ethical life.^[38]

Although Socrates ultimately rejects the idea of expulsion, he believes it to be ethical, as the court had suggested it originally, and since the ruling was unjust. However, it follows from the overall context of Platonic ethics in the sense that it prioritizes avoiding injustice.^[16]

Sandrine Berges proposes a Liberal interpretation of the law which starts from the consideration that the agreement between the state and the individual implies a mutual obligation. The legislation provides the citizen their livelihood and an environment conducive to its prosperity and so they consider themselves to be loyal to the laws. Prosperity, in the sense of Socrates, means the formation of character, that is, the acquisition of virtue as a prerequisite for a good life. In this sense, the analogy to the relationship between parent and child is to be understood: parents educate their children to be good people and can expect their obedience. The laws promote the virtue of citizens and should therefore be respected. In both cases, the parent entity must fulfill its obligation to be eligible for obedience. In the relationship between Socrates and the Athenian laws, this is the case despite the judgement of the court. Otherwise, there would be no obligation to comply with the law.^[39]

According to Richard Kraut, the laws require a serious effort to command respect. If this attempt fails, then civil disobedience is permissible.^[16] However, a number of critics argue that this cannot be inferred from the text; rather, in the event of a failure of the conviction attempt, unconditional obedience to the law is demanded.^[40][41][42]

While the Liberal interpretation of the personified laws has been controversial, one measuring "authoritarian" starting point to a Liberal outcome has found much favor in recent research. The representatives of this approach assume that the personification of the laws is indeed to be understood in an authoritarian sense, but does not or only partially agree with Socrates' own position. Thus, although Plato's Socrates makes a case for this authoritarian rule, his order of values differs from their own.

Although Socrates is impressed by the reasoning of the laws, according to the weaker version of this hypothesis, this does not mean that he identifies with all his reflections and affirms their consequences. According to the stronger variant, he agrees to the laws only with regard to the result—the refusal to flee—but rejects the way in which they have come to the conclusion. In principle his approval of the ethical understanding of the laws is not serious, but ironic.^[43]

Representatives of this interpretation point out that Socrates, at the end of the dialogue, compares the effect that the pleading of the laws has on him with the "...frenzied dervishes of Cybele seem to hear the flutes".^[34] This is an irrational aspect that contrasts with the philosophical demand for unconditional reason. In Plato's works, Socrates appears as a philosopher who always acts rationally and stuns admirers with his extraordinary self-restraint, but at the same time as a person exposed to very strong emotions. Therefore, the comparison with these "Dervishes" is an indication that there is a difference between the radical, suggestive demands of the law and the philosophically reflected position of Socrates. Thus, Socrates' description of his emotion is ironic, as in Apology, his defense speech to court, where he ironically claims that the persuasive power of his prosecutors had almost led him to forget himself.^[44]

The strong variant of the interpretation, which distinguishes the point of view of the Socrates from that of the laws, represents in particular Roslyn Weiss. She points out that although Crito in the dialogue is an old friend of Socrates and should therefore know Socratic ethics well his reflections and reactions show that he is an unphilosophical man.^[45] According to Weiss's hypothesis, this is the reason why Socrates lets the laws appear and assigns to them the task of making it understandable to Crito—that is, authoritarian—that an escape would be wrong. Weiss sees this as an indication that Socrates only introduces the laws after Crito has told him that he can not follow the philosophical argument. As a further indication, Weiss argues that Socrates describes the arguments as being in favour of respecting the law—like something a speaker would present. This expresses a distancing, since the Platonic Socrates generally rejects rhetoric as a dishonest, manipulative way of persuading.^[46]

Thomas Alexander Szlezák also emphasizes that the justification for Socrates' attitude towards his friend is not philosophically demanding, but emotional, because it is inevitably based on Crito's level of reflection. The crucial point for Socrates was not to be found here, but to be found in Phaedo dialogue.^[47] Socrates in Crito avoids the word "soul"—a concept introduced and discusses in various dialogues—and deals with a metaphysically neutral paraphrase, apparently because Crito does not accept the philosophical assumption of an immortal soul.^[48]

David Bostock believes that the authoritarian concept is the exact view that Plato wanted to convey in the Crito. Only in later works did the philosopher recognize the problematic of this position and modify his point of view.^[49] Also, a number of other voices in recent research hold to the traditional interpretation, according to which the position of the laws to identify with the Platonic Socrates.^[50]

Multiple researchers have claimed that there is a purposeful rhetorical incongruity between the Apology and the Crito from Plato's representation of Socrates' dialogues.^[51] In the Apology, Socrates explains that he would not obey a hypothetical court verdict that forces him to renounce public philosophizing on pain of death, for such a demand would be an injustice to him.^[52]

Michael Roth claims that there is no inconsistency, and that the real in the Crito and the hypothetical in the Apology are two fundamentally different systems to be held to different standards.^[2] According to another solution, Socrates' argument in the Apology is a purely theoretical nature, since a prohibition of philosophy has no legal basis and no situation is conceivable in which the court could have actually imposed such a penalty on Socrates, unless the defendant had proposed this himself.^[53] On the other hand, if Socrates' punishment cannot occur, Necip Fikri Alican makes the point that Socrates could not simply just be using meaningless thought experiments.^[54]

Italian historians of philosophy Mario Montuori and Giovanni Reale use chronological distance to explain this difference: that the Apology and the Crito were written at different times and for different reasons.^[12] In the Apology—which is the younger work—Plato essentially reports what Socrates had said without much embellishment, but when writing the Crito, he had given his thoughts on the matter through the mask of Socrates.^[13]

James Stephens simply believes the problem to have no solution.^[55]

Roman philosopher and politician Cicero took the piece as meaning that citizens were obligated to serve the state out of gratitude.^[56]

In anti-Platonic circles, the piece was not well regarded. The philosopher Athenaios believed the Crito served as Plato's means of attacking the real life Crito.^[5] Athenaios claims that since Crito showed no philosophical ability, the fact that he was unable to present a proper argument was to be expected. Another anti-Platonic author, this time the Epicurean Idomenus of Lampsacus, claimed that the escape plan had not really come from Crito, but instead from Aeschines of Sphettus. The only reason for the switch, to Idomenus, was because Aeschines was not favoured by Plato.^[57]

The Western world had rediscovered the Crito during the age of Renaissance humanism. The first Latin translation was made by the Italian humanist and statesman Leonardo Bruni in 1410, but he was not satisfied with this translation, and thus worked upon another which was completed by 1427. Bruni was so satisfied with the arguments presented by the laws that he had used them in his own work, De militia.^[58] A revision of Bruni's Latin translation was created by Rinuccio da Castiglione.^[59] Marsilio Filino was the third humanist translator, and published the translation in Florence in 1484.

The first edition of the Greek text was published in September 1513 in Venice by Aldo Manuzio in the complete edition of Plato's works published by Markos Musuros.

The philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) made reference to the Crito as the only ancient text that held the idea of a citizen's implicit promise of loyalty. He said Plato's Socrates founded the social contract in the manner of Whigs and influences passive obedience as seen from the Tories.^[60]

Translator and philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher asserted in his translation's introduction that the work was not a dialogue invented by Plato, but rather that it was a successful conversation he had had.^[61]

The piece is esteemed by such literary analysts as Paul Shorey,^[62] William Guthrie,^[63] and Thomas Alexander Szlezák, the last of whom claims that its "speech, argumentation and character are masterfully matched."^[64]

Philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff found no philosophical content in the Crito.^[65] The dialogue only teaches "about the duty of the citizen, but not in the abstract, rather Socratic; Athenian".^[66] Socrates is presented as an "embarrassingly obedient and dutiful citizen"; in doing so, Plato wanted to justify him “to the good citizens who did not care about philosophy”.^[67]

In contemporary specialist literature, too, Plato is not considered to be concerned with philosophically presenting and justifying universal principles, but rather only to make Socrates understandable to his readers.^[67]

Olof Gigon sees the dialogue as a light work, but one that is welcoming to aspiring philosophers.^[68] Despite this, the work is regarded as a key Western parallel to Legalism according to such philosophers as Reginald E. Allen.^[69]

Yet Hellmut Flashar argues that despite its initial appearances, the Crito's depth can be discerned through dialogue. Moreover, he claims that in doing so, it may even be revealed as a difficult text.^[70]

In modern discussions of law and order, the responsibilities of citizens to follow rules unconditionally has many commonalities with the Crito's presentation of Crito's lenient understanding of the Laws, and Socrates' rigid one. The piece is a foundation in Anglo-Saxon studies on legal ethics.^[3] However, Flashar posits that attempting to apply modern ideas to Platonic philosophy will estrange the themes.^[70]

The quality of the laws' arguments are relative to one's interpretation; in research literature, those that interpret the piece as being "authoritarian" view the Laws' as having a very weak argument that is based more on feeling than rationality. For instance, the metaphor of one's parents being a parallel to the state implies a debatable view of obligation rather than an objective one. Indeed, some even claim that Socrates is a vessel for Plato's beliefs. Defenders of the piece say that this overlooks the possibility that the arguments' weaknesses as being inherent for the dialectical process.^[16]

Romano Guardini emphasizes the piece's inherent correctness; it being "the basic philosophical experience of validity" exists beyond empiricism.^[4]

Austrian philosopher Karl Popper claims that the representation of Socrates in this work is the quintessential version of him, and the piece may have been a request by Socrates himself. In tandem with the Apology, Socrates' last will may be formed. Convicted as an Athenian, Socrates chooses not to flee because of his virtue as such an Athenian, and the loyalty to the state that follows. If he were to choose to go into self-exile as Crito had suggested, he would undermine the fundamental system that the state he pledges allegiance to is based upon.^[71]

Peter Sloterdijk believes that the Crito is one of the "initial texts of philosophy par excellence" with which Plato has founded "a new way of looking for the truth". Crito is the defender of this world against the death of his master. He played a "half ridiculous, half moving role". For Socrates, life was nothing but a lesson, so he consequently "turned his last breath into an argument and his last hour into evidence."^[72]

• Trial of Socrates

• Greek text at Perseus
• Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Greek with translation by Harold N. Fowler. Loeb Classical Library 36. Harvard Univ. Press (originally published 1914).
• Fowler translation at Perseus
• Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Greek with translation by Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy. Loeb Classical Library 36. Harvard Univ. Press, 2017. ISBN 9780674996878 HUP listing
• Plato. Opera, volume I. Oxford Classical Texts. ISBN 978-0198145691
• Plato. Complete Works. Hackett, 1997. ISBN 978-0872203495

• Allen, R.E. (1980). Socrates and Legal Obligation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
• Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Smith, Nicholas D. (2002). The Trial and Execution of Socrates: Sources and Controversies. New York: Oxford University.
• Colaiaco, James A. (2001). Socrates Against Athens. New York: Routledge.
• Kraut, Richard (1984). Socrates and the State. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.
• McNeal, Richard A. (1992). Law and Rhetoric in the Crito. New York: Peter Lang.
• Stokes, Michael C. (2005). Dialectic in Action: An Examination of Plato's Crito. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.
• Stone, I.F. (1988). The Trial of Socrates. New York: Little, Brown.
• Weiss, Roslyn (1998). Socrates Dissatisfied: An Analysis of Plato's Crito. New York: Oxford University.
• Woozley, A.D. (1979). Law and Obedience: The Arguments of Plato's Crito. London: Duckworth.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Crito (dialogue).

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Crito

Wikiquote has quotations related to Crito.

• Translated by Woods & Pack, 2007
  • Bundled with Euthyphro, Socrates' Defense (aka Apology) and the death scene from Phaedo
• Jowett's translation of the Crito, at the Internet Classics Archive
• Approaching Plato: A Guide to the Early and Middle Dialogues
• Guides to the Socratic Dialogues, a beginner's guide
• G. Theodoridis, 2015: full-text translation