Classics 158 (Greco-Roman Politics)
Cross-listed with Philosophy 195 and Political Science 195

Notes on Plato's Crito:

Background Material
This material is placed here for your information. I will not cover it in class.

Dramatic Date: The dramatic date is clear enough--it is the third day before the sacred ship from Delos will arrive in Athens, and so the third day from Socrates’ death.
The boat is further discussed at Phaedo 58a1ff.--the month was Anthesterion, or Feb/March.

Absolute Date: The Crito must have been written soon after Apology. Perhaps before Euthyphro, because that dialogue has things which more closely resemble the theory of forms.
Guthrie thinks 45b7 “What you said in court, that you could not live abroad” and 52c4 “you could have been punished with exile if you wanted in the trial” more likely refer to Plato’s Apology than to Socrates’ actual defense.
53b4-5, that Thebes and Megara are well-governed, has been taken by well-known scholars (Ryle and Wilamowitz) as evidence that the dialogue must have been written after 370 and 395 respectively. That is poppycock for the obvious reason that Thebes and Megara are said to be well-governed not at the time of the dialogue’s writing, but at the fictional dramatic date of the dialogue. Whether they were or not is not our concern right now.

Historicity: a private conversation. Perhaps Crito told Plato about it.
Xenophon, Apol. 23 says that Socrates’ friends urged him to escape, but Xenophon may not have first hand evidence--he could be getting it from the Apology. But the information was probably notorious, and easily verified.

Crito the character and the historical figure:
Found in Apology at 33d9f. (he is a demesmate (Alopeke) and peer of Socrates, and is among those cited whom Meletus did not produce as witnesses against Socrates, and his son Critoboulos is also mentioned) and 38b6-7 (Crito and his son bid Socrates offer to pay 30 Minae).
He will reappear in the Phaedo 59b, during Socrates’ last hours, and at 115d7, he is said to have offered to go bail for Socrates, as surety that Socrates would not escape--Burnet’s note tells us that Crito offered to be surety to him during the interim period between the trial and the return of the boat.
In the Euthydemus, he is Socrates’ main interlocutor in the frame of the dialogue, and he consults Socrates about the education of his son.
He was supposedly quite rich.
Idomeneus in Jakoby Fr. Gr. H. 388 F 17--somehow differs with Plato on Crito.
Xenophon lists him among the true Socratics (Mem. 1.2.48) and tells us a story that blackmailers were bamboozling him until Socrates suggested a way to solve the problem by getting someone to bamboozle the blackmailers, which worked (Mem. ii.9)
D.L., who is perhaps not to be trusted, says he wrote 17 dialogues!

Philosophical Background Material
The Crito follows Plato's Apology. In the Apology, Socrates defends himself against charges that he: 1) Corrrupts the youth, 2) Does not believe in the gods of the state, and 3) Introduces new gods. A plausible interpretation of the charges has it that his philosophical beliefs and the fact that he shares them with the youth and anyone else who will listen constitute the basis for those charges.

In the Apology, Socrates suggests that his philosophical activity is the result of a divine mission given to him by the oracle at Delphi, which said that no one was more wise than Socrates. Socrates, who was unaware of being wise in anything at all, proceeded to try to show that other people were wiser than he. None of them, however, have passed muster as of the time of his trial. So he concluded that he is wiser than they in this and this alone: he knows no more than they do about virtue, except that he alone realizes/admits that he does not know it.

What Socrates does not know is a matter of debate. He says he does not know the most important things, how to live one's life. In other words, he does not know right and wrong, how to be excellent as a human. His answer to remedy his ignorance is to search for knowledge. Thus he continually asks people questions and interrogates their supposed knowledge. Famously, he says that the unexamined life is not worth living. Hence he talks with people: many youths think of him as their teacher (they do learn from him), and many folk resent his curmudgeonly logic-splitting way of embarrassing them when they claim knowledge of anything important.

This is about political thought, so what do we know of Socrates as a citizen? The Apology says that his trial was his first appearance before the court. He may have been in juries. He also claims not to have spoken in assemblies. He had served in the army and acquitted himself honorably. He once presided over the council, and refused to try the Ten Generals who had failed to pick up the dead at Arginusai on the grounds that it was illegal to do so: the crowd would have gladly executed him for that opposition. Also, under the short-lived Oligarchy called The Thirty, he refused to bring Leon of Salamis to execution: that too was an action that imperilled his life. Other than those brave civic acts, which he did not seek out, but were thrust upon him, he has lived a quietist life, it seems, in spite of being a citizen of Athens, th emost participatory of participatory democracies. And yet, as can be seen in the Apology and Gorgias, Socrates realizes and even boasts that his activity is of great political import: he keeps people focussed on the most important things, namely how to live one's life, how to be an excellent human, and that is surely the key to how the polis can be the best that it can be.

One claim made by Socrates in the Apology has particular import for the Crito. Socrates says in the Apology that had the jurors freed him on condition that he not philosophize (i.e. not carry on his characteristic activity of interrogating people), he would have continued to philosophize in contravention of their decree. That is to say, even if the polis had passed a law forbidding such activity, he would have disobeyed!!! Compare Antigone's claim that she will follow the unwritten law even in defiance of the written law. This is not civil disobedience as we might think of it, an extreme persuasion tactic to force change by subjecting oneself to flagrant prosecution for violating an unjust law: it is rather obedience to a higher law.

Matters Of Interest in the Crito:

Socrates is devoted entirely to reason, or so he says in the Crito. What can that mean?

Why obey/stay in/be loyal to a democratic system of government when one does not trust the opinion of the many?

Socrates held that in order to say that something is an X, one first had to know what X’s are.
He does not know what right and wrong are, he says.
How can he know that staying in Athens is right and leaving wrong?
What special status does abiding by an agreement (to abide by a verdict) have, especially in the face of a manifestly unjust verdict?

Socrates seemed to indicate in the Apology that those jury members who condemned him had no standing as far as justice was concerned. If that is so, he is clearly claiming that his condemnation is unjust, isn't he? Why obey an unjust verdict? Could it be that there is no higher law that tells him what to do, as there would be in the case that the jury forbade him from philosophizing? Or maybe it is that he just does not consider death a harm to him.

What about claims made in the Euthyphro and in the Apology to the effect that Socrates did not think people had real knowledge about religion? If that is so, how can they condemn him for religious offenses? If they do not have such knowledge, why should he abide by their incompetent judgment?

Are the results of the Crito  intended to be universally applicable? i.e. should everyone abide by all decisions of the courts? only some?
OR, is it intended to apply to Socrates and Socrates alone, because of something unique about him or his position? OR is there some middle ground (it should apply to those who grew up in a system?).

Crito says:
  1. The masses will think Crito is not willing to help his friend
  2. One must pay attention to the masses because they can do tremendous harm.
  3. Socrates should not worry about Crito possibly exposing himself to censure for bribery--foreigners can bankroll the escape (45a-b) Crito has friends in Thessaly who will take Socrates in.
  4. Morally, Socrates is bound not to throw away his life and to support his family.
Socrates' reply:
  1. 44c6-9--Socrates tells Crito that his worries about the opinion of the masses are inappropriate--the best sort will know, and who cares about the masses’ opinions anywho?
  2. The many cannot harm Socrates--44d1-10--why does Socrates think that the many cannot do him any harm? Apology 40a8 said that the many think death an extreme of evil, but Socrates rejected that belief there. In other words, even if they put him to death, they will not have harmed Socrates.
    Also therein is the important and strange Socratic principle that the expert at doing good will also be the best qualified for doing harm!-- m€a dÊnamiw t«n §nant€vn (44d7) -- but Socrates seems also to hold that knowing the good compels its performance--intellectualism. Given intellectualism, is this ability to do harm only theoretical?
    Perhaps he is saying that the masses are by nature neither intelligent nor unintelligent--neither rational nor irrational--they are like the tree falling, they are just non-rational. That is perhaps questionable, and we are still left with the bizzarre claim that the masses cannot do harm, but we are also left with the result that harm can perhaps still be done by individuals. Crito 484b4-C9Burnet suggests that the reason why they can neither harm nor benefit is that they cannot make a soul wise or foolish, and that is the only real harm or benefit. One does wonder then why Socrates seems to think that the masses (d∞mow) is a seductive and corrupting influence? esp. in the Gorgias and the Alcibiades I. Perhaps the key to that lies in the power one grants to the people over one’s soul--one can let them seduce one or not, and therein lies the culpability.
  3. Socrates does not need to reply to this, although it is an interesting question why he did not propose exile as a penalty: he would not really have been killed elsewhere: he was a celebrated intellectual and would have found perhaps controversial welcome, but nonetheless welcome somewhere, and he could have moved on if need be.
  4. Principles cannot be selectively applied--what Socrates claimed before he was condemned to death must be the same afterward, unless Socrates has changed his mind about his principles. Crito is an exploration of that possibility. The meta-principle that principles cannot be selectively applied is an important and strong one.

Crito 48b-49b: Gregory Vlastos on its importance

In this text, Socrates argues in favor of reforming Greek morality.

As analyzed by Vlastos in Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Chapter 7, Cornell 1991.

Crito 484b4-C9
 I. "We should never do injustice."
 II. "Therefore, we should never return an injustice."
 III. "We should never do evil [to anyone]."
 IV. "Therefore, we should never return evil for evil [to anyone]."
 V. "To do evil to a human being is no different from acting unjustly to him."

 Add to that:
Crito 49a4-b6
 VI. It is never good [for anyone] or noble [for anyone] to do a wrong.

 If we take these statements seriously, Socrates is claiming not just that doing wrong is bad, but that it is so bad that it can NEVER be good. It's clear that some wrongs lead to large amounts of things people value (pleasure, comfort, security, life-preservation, money and other possessions, esteem), but Socrates says all wrong is bad. There can be no good that results from a wrong that is sufficient to counterbalance the wrong.

 Why is that?

 Vlastos' answer: doing wrong harms the wrongdoer in ways that make the wrongdoer's life not good.

A Theory of Political Obligation in the Crito

This section is largely dependent on Penner's contribution to The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought.
One simple point seems to be made in the Crito: citizens should either persuade of obey. Unjust laws, verdicts, etc. will occur, and the citizen is obliged to do one of two things: persuade other citizens to change or remedy the injustice, or obey the law, verdict, etc. even though it is unjust.

Reasons:
This is usually held to be somewhat different from the social contract theory, for in the social contract theory, the agreement to the contract is the source of obligations. Here, however, the antecedent raising and procreating create the obligations. And yet, it seems that in the Crito there are two arguments:
Are the two arguments separate or not?

Some claim that the Crito is about the moral obligations which precede the social contract. That is problematic, for Socrates apparently says he would disobey the law in the Apology (see above). The Crito, however, seems to say that all disobedience is immoral. We can avoid that problem as follows:
At 53c, Socrates has the laws say that if he stays and is executed, he will have been wronged by men, not the laws themselves (the verdict was unjust, not the law, I guess), but if he escapes, he will have wronged the laws. Being wronged by men (not laws?) is preferable to wronging laws.

Socrates is a quietist, who thinks it is best to keep one's head down and let others worry about running the state, for they are at best traffic engineers: they are not engaged in truly important things. The truly important things are care of one's soul and that of others. Socrates engages in that wholeheartedly.