Crito

1. Introduction

Crito is a short Platonic dialogue set in the prison cell of Socrates, in the interval between his trial and execution. It is commonly grouped with Euthyphro, Apology, and Phaedo as part of the “Last Days of Socrates” and is often read as the immediate dramatic and philosophical sequel to the Apology. Whereas the Apology presents Socrates defending himself before an Athenian jury, Crito stages a private conversation in which he must decide whether to accept the city’s death sentence or escape with the help of his friends.

The dialogue focuses on questions of justice (dikē), obedience to law, and political obligation. Socrates’ friend Crito urges him to flee, appealing to friendship, reputation, and family duties. Socrates replies that these considerations are secondary to the fundamental question of what is just. Through his characteristic elenchic method and an extended personification of the Laws (Nomoi) of Athens, Socrates develops a stringent view: one must never do wrong, even in response to injustice, and must honor just agreements, including the obligations he believes he has incurred toward the Athenian legal order.

Interpreters have treated Crito as a key text for the history of the social contract idea and for debates about civil disobedience. Some scholars view the dialogue as presenting a strongly conservative stance on obedience to law; others read it as a more conditional or context‑specific defense of legal authority. The work has thus occupied a central place in discussions of the tension between personal moral conviction and the demands of the political community.

Within Plato’s corpus, Crito is typically classified among the early, more “Socratic” dialogues. Its relative brevity, focused argumentation, and close connection to the historical circumstances of Socrates’ death have made it a staple text in courses on ancient philosophy, ethics, and political theory.

2. Historical and Political Context

Crito is set in Athens in 399 BCE, immediately after Socrates’ conviction on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. The dialogue presupposes the institutions and practices of Athenian democracy, especially the system of popular juries and legally prescribed penalties.

The Athenian Polis After the Peloponnesian War

The decades preceding Socrates’ trial were marked by war, regime change, and internal strife:

Many scholars argue that these experiences heightened Athenian concern for civic cohesion and obedience to law, a concern echoed in the Laws’ speech in Crito. The emphasis on the city’s survival and the integrity of its legal system may reflect anxieties in the restored democracy.

Legal and Social Background

The dialogue assumes familiarity with Athenian legal norms:

• Popular courts: Ordinary citizens sat as jurors, making the “opinion of the many” directly relevant to legal outcomes.
• Penalties and exile: Convicted defendants could sometimes propose alternative penalties; exile was a common possibility.
• Imprisonment and escape: Prolonged imprisonment before execution was unusual, but the dramatic frame posits a delay due to a religious mission to Delos.

Some interpreters maintain that Plato emphasizes the fragility of the Athenian legal order after civil conflict: Socrates’ refusal to escape can be read as an affirmation of legality against the temptation to private retaliation. Others suggest that the historical democracy’s tendency to make volatile or unjust decisions underlines the tension between the Laws’ idealized voice in the dialogue and actual Athenian politics.

Socrates’ Public Reputation

Socrates’ association with controversial figures and his critical stance toward democratic decision‑making formed part of the background to his trial. In Crito, Crito’s fear of public opinion and blame reflects the continuing social pressures surrounding Socrates’ fate and his friends’ responses to it. The dialogue thus assumes a polis in which legal verdicts are both expressions of mass opinion and focal points of intense political and moral scrutiny.

3. Author, Date, and Composition

Authorship and Dialogic Form

Crito is universally attributed to Plato in antiquity and in modern scholarship. Ancient catalogues of Plato’s works include it without dispute, and stylistic tests generally place it among the early dialogues. The text is composed in Plato’s characteristic dialogue form, with Socrates as the central speaker. The argument is developed almost entirely through the interaction of Socrates and Crito, supplemented by the imagined voice of the Laws.

Date of Composition

Scholars typically date composition to the late 5th or early 4th century BCE, often between roughly 399 and 387 BCE. This range is based on:

• Historical references: The dialogue presupposes the trial and execution of Socrates in 399 BCE.
• Developmental chronology: Linguistic and stylistic analyses group Crito with dialogues such as Euthyphro and Apology, usually regarded as early.
• Philosophical content: The focus on Socratic ethical themes, and the relative absence of mature Platonic metaphysics, support an earlier dating.

Some interpreters narrow the date further, suggesting that Crito was composed soon after Socrates’ death as part of Plato’s initial literary response. Others allow a slightly later date within Plato’s early period, seeing the dialogue as reflecting preliminary reflections on political obligation that will be reworked in the Republic and Laws.

Relation to Other Dialogues

Many readers treat Crito as dramatically and thematically connected to the Apology and Phaedo:

There is ongoing debate about whether Crito primarily conveys historical Socrates’ views or Plato’s emerging political philosophy. “Socratic” readers treat it as a relatively faithful representation of Socrates’ own stance; others argue that Plato is already shaping a distinctive theory of legal obligation and the social contract that anticipates later works.

4. Characters, Setting, and Dramatic Framing

Principal Characters

• Socrates: The central figure, condemned to death and awaiting execution. In Crito, he embodies calm deliberation and steadfast commitment to principles of justice, even under the threat of death.
• Crito: A wealthy and loyal friend of Socrates, older than Socrates in some traditions. He represents ordinary decent Athenian opinion, emphasizing practical concerns, family responsibilities, and social reputation.
• The Laws (Nomoi): Not human characters but a personified collective voice of the Laws of Athens, imagined by Socrates. They articulate arguments for obedience, drawing analogies with parents and masters.

Minor figures (e.g., jailers, other unnamed friends) are only mentioned or implied and do not participate in the dialogue.

Setting

The dramatic setting is Socrates’ prison cell in Athens, at dawn, shortly before his scheduled execution. Crito has gained early access, reportedly by bribing the jailer, and wakes Socrates from sleep. The temporal framing includes a reference to a sacred mission to Delos, which has delayed the execution until the ship’s return.

The confined, private setting contrasts with the public court of the Apology and allows Plato to explore Socrates’ reasoning in an intimate, conversational context. The stillness of early morning, Socrates’ serenity, and the imminence of death together heighten the stakes of the decision.

Dramatic Framing and Narrative Voice

Crito is framed as a direct, dramatic dialogue rather than a narrated recollection; Plato does not insert an external narrator as in the Phaedo. The action is minimal: the entire piece consists of the conversation between the two men. The framing emphasizes:

• Urgency: Crito presents the escape plan as requiring immediate action before the authorities arrive.
• Secrecy: The plan involves bribery and clandestine travel, underscoring the conflict between private loyalty and public law.
• Dream motif: Socrates recounts a dream of a woman in white predicting that he will die “on the third day,” which some interpreters read as foreshadowing his acceptance of fate and divine order.

The introduction of the Laws’ speech constitutes an internal shift in dramatic mode: Socrates speaks on their behalf, effectively staging an internalized, quasi‑legal hearing within the prison. This device allows Plato to present a structured defense of the polis’s authority while keeping Socrates’ own voice formally distinct, a point that has been central to interpretive debates about whether the Laws’ arguments reflect Socrates’ own considered views.

5. Structure and Organization of the Dialogue

Although relatively brief, Crito has a clear internal organization. Scholars often divide it into several parts, roughly corresponding to the outline already noted in the reference data.

Overview of Major Parts

Progression of Argument

The dialogue progresses from practical considerations to ethical principles and finally to a political‑legal framework:

1. Crito begins with concerns about reputation, loss of a friend, and Socrates’ duties to his children.
2. Socrates redirects the discussion to the question of what is just, challenging the authority of majority opinion.
3. He secures Crito’s agreement to the broad principle that one must never do wrong or repay injustice with injustice.
4. To assess whether escaping would violate this principle, Socrates introduces the Laws as a hypothetical interlocutor.
5. The Laws’ speech systematically argues that Socrates has binding obligations toward the Athenian legal order, culminating in the claim that escape would be a grave injustice.

Some commentators emphasize the two‑stage structure: (a) Socrates’ own ethical discussion with Crito; (b) the extended monologue of the Laws. Others note a more intricate layering, in which Socrates’ earlier premises constrain how the Laws’ arguments can be assessed. The final, brief resolution leaves Crito silent, a dramatic choice often read as signaling either genuine conviction or helpless acquiescence.

6. Crito’s Arguments for Escape

Crito presents a cluster of arguments designed to persuade Socrates to flee. These are primarily practical, emotional, and reputational, rather than theoretical.

Reputation and the Opinion of the Many

Crito worries that if Socrates does not escape, people will think his friends were unwilling to spend money or take risks to save him. He emphasizes the power of public opinion, arguing that the many can inflict great harm, including death, and that their judgments about the friends’ loyalty matter. For Crito, avoiding the shame of appearing cowardly or miserly is a compelling reason to act.

Injustice of Submitting to an Unjust Verdict

Crito insists that the conviction was unjust and that passively accepting execution compounds this injustice. He frames escape as a kind of self‑defense: failing to evade an unjust sentence, when escape is feasible, amounts to cooperating with wrongdoers. On this view, it is cowardly or “womanish” to submit to injustice when one has the means to avoid it.

Duties to Family, Friends, and Self

Crito stresses Socrates’ responsibilities:

• To his children: Socrates has a duty to raise and educate them; dying now would abandon them to an uncertain future.
• To his friends: They will lose his companionship and guidance; moreover, they have arranged the escape and are willing to bear the risks.
• To himself: Crito portrays life as a good in itself and considers premature death an avoidable misfortune.

Crito suggests Socrates is choosing the easier path by staying, rationalizing what is essentially a failure of courage or care.

Feasibility and Safety of Escape

Crito also provides logistical assurances: he has money, friends abroad (e.g., in Thessaly), and a carefully planned escape route. He claims that the political climate in other cities would be welcoming rather than hostile. This is meant to undercut any prudential objection that escape would endanger Socrates or his associates.

Interpreters often classify Crito’s appeals as characteristic of a conventional moral outlook, grounded in loyalty, prudence, and concern for honor. The dialogue’s subsequent sections present Socrates’ systematic re‑evaluation of these arguments in light of his stricter conception of justice and right action.

7. Socrates on Justice and Never Doing Wrong

At the center of Crito is Socrates’ reaffirmation of an uncompromising ethical principle: one must never do wrong (adikein), not even in retaliation for injustice or harm.

The Fundamental Principle (48b–49d)

Socrates leads Crito through a brief dialectical exchange to secure agreement on several points:

1. Doing injustice harms the soul of the agent and is therefore worse than suffering injustice.
2. One must never knowingly do injustice.
3. Returning injustice for injustice, or harm for harm, is itself unjust.

He insists on continuity with past discussions:

"

“We must never do wrong (adikein), nor return wrong for wrong, nor injure anyone, whatever injury we have suffered from him.”

— Plato, Crito 49c–d (paraphrased)

This principle is presented as something they have already agreed on “before now”, suggesting it is a stable element of Socrates’ ethical outlook rather than a new invention for this case.

Application to the Question of Escape

The key issue becomes whether escaping from prison would constitute doing wrong. Socrates does not yet answer this directly but establishes criteria: if escape involves injustice toward the city or its laws, then it must be rejected, regardless of any benefits to himself or his friends. Thus, the practical considerations Crito raised—reputation, children, safety—are made conditional on the prior determination of justice.

Interpretive Questions

Scholars have debated:

• Scope of the principle: Some understand it as an absolute prohibition on any intentional harm, including self‑defense or resistance to oppressive regimes. Others argue that Socrates has in mind only wrongful harm that corrupts the agent’s soul, leaving room for certain forms of justified force or disobedience.
• Relation to other dialogues: Comparisons with Gorgias and Republic explore whether this “never do wrong” principle remains consistent or is modified in Plato’s later ethical theory.
• Eudaimonism: Many interpreters stress that the principle is grounded in a eudaimonistic framework: the good life consists in the virtuous condition of the soul, which is incompatible with committing injustice, regardless of external outcomes.

In Crito, this ethical commitment provides the standard by which Socrates later assesses his obligations to the Laws and the justice or injustice of escape.

8. The Personified Laws and the Social Contract

To examine whether escape would violate his ethical principles, Socrates imagines what the Laws of Athens would say if he attempted to flee. This device introduces both the personification of the Laws and a proto‑social contract argument.

The Speech of the Laws

Beginning around 50a, Socrates speaks as the Laws, who address him directly. They claim:

• They gave him birth, upbringing, and education.
• They regulate marriage, property, and all civic institutions.
• They have long enjoyed his obedience and approval.

The Laws liken themselves to parents and masters, asserting a superior authority over citizens.

Tacit Consent and Political Obligation (51c–53a)

The Laws argue that by choosing to remain in Athens as an adult, marrying and raising children there, and not seeking exile or legal reform, Socrates has tacitly consented to obey them. They frame the relationship as contractual:

"

“By doing this you agreed, not in word but in deed, to live in accordance with us and to do whatever we command.”

— Plato, Crito 51e–52a (paraphrased)

Key elements of this reasoning include:

• Voluntary residence: Citizens are free, the Laws claim, to leave if they find the city’s arrangements unacceptable.
• Benefits received: Enjoying the advantages of citizenship without honoring its burdens is depicted as unjust.
• Obligation to judgments: Obedience extends not only to general laws but also to particular legal verdicts, including Socrates’ own sentence.

Interpretive Perspectives

Commentators differ on how to understand this social‑contract‑like view:

Some see the Laws as expressing Plato’s early theory of political obligation, anticipating later contractarian thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Others interpret the Laws’ speech as a dramatic construct that may not fully coincide with Socrates’ own deepest views, leaving room for critical distance between Socrates and the Laws.

In any case, the personified Laws provide the framework within which Socrates judges that escaping would constitute a breach of his agreed obligations to the city.

9. Obedience, Legal Obligation, and Civil Disobedience

Crito has been central to discussions of when, if ever, citizens may rightly disobey the law. Within the dialogue, Socrates appears to endorse a robust duty to obey legal decisions, even when they are unjust in particular cases.

Obedience and Legal Obligation in the Dialogue

The Laws contend that undermining legal verdicts by private disobedience would damage the entire legal order, making it ineffective. For Socrates, if escape constitutes breaking an agreement with the Laws, it would be unjust, and thus impermissible. Obedience is grounded in:

• Gratitude for benefits provided by the city.
• Tacit agreement through residence and participation.
• Concern for the integrity of the legal system as a whole.

At the same time, in the Apology Socrates famously declares that he will not obey any order to cease philosophizing, even if legally mandated. This tension has generated extensive debate.

Interpretations of Civil Disobedience in Light of Crito

Different interpretive approaches handle this tension in distinct ways:

Modern theorists of civil disobedience—such as Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.—have often been read against the backdrop of Crito. Some see Socrates as a model of principled obedience, accepting punishment even under unjust laws; others treat him as a precursor to conscientious disobedience in Apology, but not in Crito.

Law versus Justice

A recurring question is whether Socrates equates lawfulness with justice. In Crito, he seems to maintain that fulfilling just agreements—including legal obligations one has freely accepted—is itself part of justice. Critics argue that this view can blur the line between legality and morality, potentially justifying submission to oppressive systems. Alternative readings emphasize that the Laws’ claims presuppose a basically just constitution and opportunities for lawful dissent, which may limit the relevance of Socrates’ choice to more pathological political contexts.

10. Key Concepts and Technical Terms

Crito employs several concepts that are central both to the dialogue and to broader Greek ethical and political thought. The glossary below highlights key terms with their role in the work.

These concepts are deployed in a way characteristic of early Platonic dialogues: they are not formally defined through explicit theory, but rather operationalized in Socrates’ practical reasoning about his immediate decision.

11. Famous Passages and Their Interpretation

Several passages in Crito have attracted particular attention and extensive commentary.

1. Opinion of the Many (44c–48a)

Socrates’ challenge to Crito’s concern with reputation is often cited:

"

“We should not value all the opinions of men, but those of the one who understands…”

— Plato, Crito 47a–b (paraphrased)

Interpreters connect this to Socratic intellectualism: only those with knowledge of justice can reliably guide action. Some see this as an elitist critique of democracy; others emphasize its continuity with broader Greek notions of expertise (technē).

2. Never Doing Wrong (48b–49d)

The passage in which Socrates insists that one must never commit injustice, even in return, is a cornerstone of ancient ethical thought. Commentators debate:

• Whether this forbids all forms of retributive punishment or only private retaliation.
• How it relates to later Platonic ideas about the role of punishment as correction rather than revenge.

The passage is often juxtaposed with other dialogues (e.g., Gorgias 469–481) to explore Socrates’ distinctive valuation of suffering injustice over committing it.

3. The Speech of the Laws (50a–54d)

The extended monologue of the Laws, including the parental analogy and tacit consent argument, is the most discussed section of Crito. It has been interpreted as:

• An early expression of political obligation via social contract.
• A dramatic representation of the city’s ideological self‑justification.
• A device that allows Plato to present, but not fully endorse, a strong obedience doctrine.

Some scholars note tensions within the Laws’ speech—for example, between claims of absolute authority and acknowledgments that citizens may leave or seek legal change.

4. Consequences of Escape (53a–54b)

Here the Laws outline the damage Socrates’ escape would do: undermining laws, harming friends, and setting a bad example for his sons. This passage is central to interpretations that stress the systemic character of legal order: one person’s disobedience is portrayed as threatening the whole structure.

Debate focuses on whether this is realistic or rhetorical exaggeration, and whether it reflects Plato’s own governmental ideals or merely dramatizes one side in a broader inquiry.

Overall, these passages serve as focal points for reconstruction of Socrates’ ethics, Plato’s views on law, and the relationship between individual conscience and civic authority.

12. Philosophical Method and Socratic Ethics

Socratic Method in Crito

The dialogue showcases several features of Socratic philosophical practice:

• Elenchus (Refutation): Socrates questions Crito’s assumptions about what matters (reputation, safety) and leads him to agree that justice is primary.
• Appeal to Prior Agreement: Socrates emphasizes premises they have “agreed upon before,” underscoring the importance of consistency.
• Hypothetical Interlocutor: The personification of the Laws extends the dialogical method inward, as Socrates examines what he “would say to himself” if he considered escape.

This method is less confrontational than in some other dialogues; Crito yields quickly, and much of the work becomes a monologue. Some interpreters see this as reflecting Crito’s limited philosophical sophistication; others view it as a deliberate device to focus attention on the substantive arguments rather than dialectical drama.

Core Elements of Socratic Ethics

Crito illustrates several characteristic Socratic ethical commitments:

Socrates’ refusal to escape is presented as an instance of ethical integrity: he applies his general principles to his own extreme case, resisting both emotional appeals and self‑interest.

Relation to Other Socratic Themes

Comparisons are often drawn with:

• Apology, where Socrates insists on obeying a divine command to philosophize.
• Gorgias, where he argues that committing injustice is the greatest evil.
• Republic, which develops a more elaborate theory of justice and the ideal city.

Some scholars see Crito as a bridge between purely individual ethics and a more political conception of justice: the concern with the Laws and the city broadens Socratic ethics beyond personal virtue to include the health of the polis as a moral community.

Others, however, argue that Socrates’ fundamental orientation remains ethical rather than political: his overriding concern is the condition of his own soul, and his acceptance of legal obligation is justified insofar as it fits within that ethical framework.

13. Textual History, Manuscripts, and Editions

Manuscript Tradition

Like other Platonic dialogues, Crito survives only through medieval manuscript copies. The transmission is relatively secure compared to some ancient works, but involves the usual complexities of scribal copying.

Major aspects include:

• Byzantine manuscripts: The principal witnesses to the text are Byzantine codices containing collections of Plato’s works, often arranged in tetralogies. Crito typically appears with Euthyphro, Apology, and Phaedo.
• Indirect tradition: Quotations and paraphrases of key passages by later authors (e.g., Plutarch, early Christian writers) provide occasional confirmation or minor variants.

Scholars generally agree that no single archetype survives; editors reconstruct the text by comparing various medieval manuscripts and evaluating likely errors and corrections.

Critical Editions

The standard modern Greek text is:

"

Plato, Opera, ed. John Burnet, Oxford Classical Texts, vol. 1, 1900.

Burnet’s edition has been widely used in scholarship and forms the basis of many translations. Later editors have sometimes proposed emendations or alternative readings, but Crito does not present unusually severe textual problems.

Textual Issues and Debates

While the overall text is stable, some points attract scholarly discussion:

• Minor lexical variants: In a few lines, manuscripts diverge on specific words or phrases, affecting nuances of argument (e.g., the strength of claims about obligation).
• Punctuation and paragraphing: Because ancient manuscripts lacked modern punctuation, editors must decide how to segment arguments, especially in the Laws’ long speech.
• Authenticity questions: Unlike a few other Platonic works, Crito has not been seriously challenged on authenticity; stylistic and linguistic analyses support its inclusion among genuine dialogues.

Translations and Accessibility

Crito has been translated into most major modern languages. Widely used English translations include those in:

The relative simplicity of the Greek and the short length of the dialogue have contributed to its popularity in both academic and general contexts.

14. Reception, Influence, and Modern Debates

Ancient and Pre‑Modern Reception

In antiquity, Crito was read alongside other “trial and death” dialogues as part of a canon shaping the image of Socrates as a model of philosophical steadfastness. Later Platonists and early Christian writers drew on its themes of obedience to law and readiness to accept martyrdom. Roman thinkers interested in civic duty and legal order also engaged, directly or indirectly, with its ideas.

Influence on Social Contract Theory

The Laws’ argument from tacit consent has been seen as an important precursor to early modern social contract theories. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau differ sharply in their details, but many historians of philosophy note structural similarities:

• Citizens’ obligations are tied to benefits received from living in a political community.
• Residence and participation are interpreted as a kind of consent.
• Obedience to law is justified by the need to preserve social order.

Some scholars, however, caution against overstating direct influence, emphasizing the distance between Plato’s largely ethical‑legal argument and later, more systematic contractarian political philosophy.

Debates on Civil Disobedience and Legal Obligation

Modern political theorists frequently juxtapose Crito with:

• Socrates’ stance in Apology (apparently defying a hypothetical legal command).
• Modern paradigms of civil disobedience, such as those articulated by Thoreau or Martin Luther King Jr.

Key questions include:

• Does Crito advocate absolute obedience to law, or obedience conditional on a broadly just constitution?
• How should one reconcile Socrates’ acceptance of his sentence with his willingness, elsewhere, to oppose unjust commands?

Different schools of thought answer by stressing either the continuity of Socratic integrity (obey the law, but never betray divine or moral duty) or by highlighting tensions between obedience and conscience.

Contemporary Scholarly Debates

Current discussions often focus on:

• Internal vs. external voice: Whether the Laws’ speech represents Socrates’ considered view or a dramatized position open to critique.
• Law and democracy: Whether the dialogue endorses Athenian democracy, a more idealized law‑governed polity, or simply the concept of lawful order as such.
• Individual vs. collective goods: How Socrates balances his own moral integrity and family obligations against the supposed needs of the city.

These debates make Crito a staple in courses on philosophy of law, political obligation, and ethics, and ensure its continued relevance to contemporary questions about the relationship between citizens and the state.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

Crito has had a lasting impact on philosophical, legal, and cultural understandings of the relationship between the individual and the political community.

Foundational Status in Political Obligation

The dialogue is frequently cited as one of the earliest systematic explorations of why citizens should obey the law. Its combination of:

• the never‑do‑wrong ethical principle,
• the tacit consent rationale,
• and concern for the stability of legal institutions

has made it a touchstone for later theories of political obligation. Even when modern thinkers reject its conclusions, they often frame their positions in dialogue with it.

Influence on Ideals of Philosophical Integrity

Socrates’ decision to accept execution rather than escape has become emblematic of philosophical integrity and moral steadfastness. The figure of Socrates in Crito has influenced portrayals of conscientious refusal or acceptance of martyrdom in religious, political, and literary traditions. Early Christian martyrs, modern dissidents, and advocates of nonviolent resistance have been compared—sometimes explicitly—to Socrates’ stance.

Role in Legal and Civic Education

Crito is widely used in courses on:

• Ethics and moral philosophy
• Philosophy of law
• Political theory
• Classical civilization

It introduces students to basic questions about law versus justice, the limits of obedience, and the weight of public opinion. Its brevity and clear argumentative structure make it a common entry point into Plato’s thought.

Continuing Relevance

Contemporary debates about:

• obedience to unjust laws,
• whistleblowing and conscientious objection,
• the legitimacy of civil disobedience,

often return, implicitly or explicitly, to issues framed in Crito. The dialogue’s enduring significance lies not in providing a final answer, but in articulating, with unusual clarity, the conflict between personal conviction, legal authority, and the common good—questions that remain central in modern pluralistic societies.