Crito

“I thought that a beautiful and comely woman dressed in white approached me. She called me and said: ‘Socrates, may you arrive at fertile Phthia on the third day.’”

Here Socrates recounts to Crito his prophetic dream in which a woman quotes a line of the Iliad (Book 9, line 363). Socrates interprets this dream to mean that he will not be executed the next day, as Crito believes, but the day after the next. The ancient Greeks used inclusive counting, so when Socrates refers to the “third day,” he means the day after tomorrow (the three days include today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow).

“You see, Socrates, that one must also pay attention to the opinion of the majority. Your present situation makes clear that the majority can inflict not least but pretty well the greatest evils if one is slandered among them.”

When Socrates tells Crito to ignore any anxieties he has about his reputation, since the opinion of the majority is unimportant, Crito counters that Socrates’s fate is due to the opinion of the majority (namely, the majority of the jurors at Socrates’s trial). By “the greatest of evils,” Crito means the death penalty, and when he says “slandered among them,” he refers to the prosecution and trial of Socrates.

“Besides, Socrates, I do not think that what you are doing is just, to give up your life when you can save it, and to hasten your fate as your enemies would hasten it, and indeed have hastened it in their wish to destroy you.”

Crito tells Socrates that by refusing to escape imprisonment, he is taking the unjust or coward’s way out. To Crito, Socrates is giving in to the desires of his enemies since they spearheaded his prosecution and death sentence. In saying this, however, Crito shows that he prioritizes life and personal relationships above the larger values that Socrates will ultimately argue for—living a good life and honoring the state and laws.

“It was said on every occasion by those who thought they were speaking sensibly, as I have just now been speaking, that one should greatly value some people’s opinions, but not others. Does that seem to you a sound statement?”

Socrates here begins the first major logical argument of the dialogue, focusing on whose opinions are worthwhile. As is his style, Socrates begins such an argument by presenting a view to his interlocutor (Crito). Socrates will then lead Crito through a series of logical steps and reasoning to show why this view is (or is not) valid. In this case, the view is not valid because, as Socrates will show, only the opinion of the expert is worthwhile.

“And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and injustice, is inferior to the body?”

Here, Socrates begins to close the first portion of his argument, which concerns the worth of different people’s opinions. He made the core of this argument an analogy about opinions regarding fitness—only those opinions of fitness experts or doctors are worthwhile, and the opinions of others can cause harm. In this quote, Socrates brings the argument back to his larger ideas about justice by getting Crito to agree that life is not worth living without the part of oneself that guides one to do justice.

“Examine the following statement in turn as to whether it stays the same or not, that the most important thing is not life, but the good life […] And that the good life, the beautiful life, and the just life are the same; does that still hold, or not?”

Here Socrates references concepts that appear throughout Plato’s dialogues—the good life, the beautiful life, and the just life. Plato often uses Socrates to associate goodness, beauty, and justice, delving further into these concepts in other dialogues such as the Republic. In Crito, the idea of the good life is important in the context of Socrates’s imminent execution, as Socrates, by refusing to escape, clearly prioritizes quality of life over quantity.

“Neither to do wrong nor to return a wrong is ever correct, nor is doing harm in return for harm done.”

Socrates continues his discussion with Crito by proposing that doing wrong or harm is always bad, even if someone had done wrong or harm to you. This statement brings their discussion of justice closer to Socrates’s situation since the supporters of Socrates certainly believe that the majority of the jurors in Socrates’s trial have harmed him. Thus, Socrates’s statement here, with which Crito ultimately agrees, shows that it would be bad for Socrates to lash out against these people, even though they have sentenced him to death.

“Socrates, do not wonder at what we say but answer, since you are accustomed to proceed by question and answer.”

When the laws confront Socrates in the hypothetical situation he proposes to Crito, they treat Socrates very much as Socrates treats his interlocutors throughout Plato’s dialogues—by asking Socrates many questions to lead him to the correct conclusion. This method of question and answer forms the basis of what will be known as the “Socratic method” of education.

“Do you think you have this right to retaliation against your country and its laws? That if we undertake to destroy you and think it right to do so, you can undertake to destroy us, as far as you can, in return?”

The correct answer to this question, which the laws pose to Socrates, is no—Socrates does not have this right. In the first place, as Socrates says in the quote above, it is always wrong to harm others. In addition, it is particularly wrong for Socrates to harm the laws of Athens for many reasons which they will then explain (such as that the laws raised Socrates as if he were their child). 

“It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” 

Previously the laws had compared their relationship with Socrates to that between a father and son. Here they state that their relationship is even more sacred. The example of harming a mother or father makes this point clear because in ancient Athens such an action was considered a horrendous crime. It makes a strong statement to say that harming one’s country is more impious. It is also a pointed statement in light of the specific charges of which Socrates has been convicted—one of which is impiety. To Socrates, piety is, at least in part, respecting the laws of the state.

“At your trial you could have assessed your penalty at exile if you wished, and you are now attempting to do against the city’s wishes what you could then have done with her consent.”

The laws again reference the trial of Socrates by pointing out that Socrates had a city-sanctioned way to avoid execution. At his trial, after his conviction, Socrates had the opportunity to propose a punishment. The jurors would then choose between his proposal and that of the prosecutor (which was execution). Scholars believe that the jurors in Socrates’s trial might not have voted for execution if they had an acceptable alternative such as exile. However, Socrates proposed a ridiculous “punishment”—that he be fed at the city’s expense for life—leaving the juror’s little choice but to sentence him to death.

“It is clear that the city has been outstandingly more congenial to you than to other Athenians, and so have we, the laws, for what city can please without laws?”

The laws tell Socrates that another reason it is wrong for him to harm them (which he would do by escaping) is that the city and her laws have treated Socrates well throughout his life. He has done so well in Athens that he chooses to live there, even into his old age, and has never left except when on military service.

“Or will you avoid cities that are well governed and men who are civilized? If you do this, will your life be worth living? Will you have social intercourse with them and not be ashamed to talk to them? And what will you say?”

When the laws propose these questions to Socrates, they reveal some of the things that Socrates considers most important to his own life. Socrates has already shown that he values only a life worth living, not life in and of itself, especially given his advanced age. Here he shows that part of a life worth living is the ability to have worthwhile conversations with worthwhile interlocutors. If he were to escape to a city that he considers to be not “civilized,” his life would not be worth living because he could not have such conversations.