logo

39 pages 1 hour read

Plato

The Last Days of Socrates

Nonfiction | Biography | Adult | BCE

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

CritoChapter Summaries & Analyses

Crito Summary

Crito visits Socrates before dawn. The day of his execution is imminent, and Crito begs Socrates to allow his friends to spirit him away into exile. Socrates insists that he will only do so if he can find a just reason. Crito argues that it is unjust for Socrates not to escape, as he will be betraying himself and his sons, who he could still raise to be excellent men. Not escaping would be lazy and would make his friends seem cowardly, bringing shame on them. Crito is worried about what people will say.

Socrates argues that the only opinions they should be concerned with are “the right sort of opinions,” as a patient or athlete will only listen to the praises and criticisms of doctors and trainers, who have the applicable knowledge of specialists (102). Praise and criticism from those who do not have the “requisite knowledge” could have a “bad effect” hence should not be listened to (103). As in these cases and others like them, Socrates and his companions should not be shamed by criticism from ordinary citizens whose opinions will “corrupt and main” their souls, which are more valuable than their bodies (103). They should only care about the opinions of the just and the good. Socrates argues that living should not be the top priority but “living well” (104). Crito agrees. Living well means living justly, thus their only concern must be whether it is just for Socrates to escape. Crito agrees with Socrates’s next proposition that they should never intentionally act unjustly, even in retaliation to those who have treated them unjustly. They should never do harm even if they have been harmed.

Speaking in the voice of the city’s laws, Socrates asks whether, by leaving the city he will be harming its citizens by flouting its laws and rendering them void. He had agreed to abide by the city’s laws, as his parents had when they married, bore their children, and educated them in Athens. All his life was lived under the auspices of the city’s laws. He participated in the trial, attempted to convince the jury of his innocence, and failed. They have decided that he is harmful and must be destroyed, and for Socrates to escape would be doing them the same harm he claims they are doing to him. He has not persuaded the city to change its mind, so to escape would be to abandon his position. This would not be just.

As an adult, Socrates chose to remain in Athens, married and had children in the city, served in the military, and rejected exile as a possible penalty, choosing death instead. He was not forced to do any of this; to escape would be to break the implicit contract that he entered willingly. Further, to escape would be to harm not only himself but also his friends, who would be held liable along with him. Any well-governed city he might escape to will look upon him as a destroyer of laws, and by extension a destroyer of people. Even Hades, god of the underworld, will not welcome him kindly knowing him to be a destroyer of laws, since his realm operates under a system of justice, too.

 

Since Crito can offer no reply, Socrates instructs him to “let it be” (112).

Crito Analysis

Why Socrates ultimately chooses death has been a topic of debate. In the Apology, he makes several explicit and oblique critiques about the city that invite readers to view his reasoning in Crito as contradictory. However, his reasoning can also be read as consistent in that citizens directly participated in all business pertaining to the city. Athenians valued freedom of speech, and legal cases could not be brought because of personal harm. Meletus and Socrates’s other accusers could not bring a case against him because they felt he had injured them personally. They could only do so if they could demonstrate that he had harmed the entire city. This illuminates the significance of the language of the charges that Socrates did not worship the city’s gods, which could harm the city if it incurred divine displeasure, and that he harmed the city’s youth.

Socrates’s decision not to accept exile can seem peculiar to modern readers, but it may be consistent with what is known about life in the direct democracy of fifth century Athens. Since citizens vote on the laws, Socrates reasons that it is not possible to harm the laws without also harming all those who live under them. Further, since Socrates insists that it is not just to intentionally harm others, even those who have done one harm, it would be unjust, by his standard, to knowingly abandon the city to potential harm.

Finally, Socrates’s rejection of exile reflects that it is not Socrates himself, the living person, who is needed to protect the city but the persistence of his techniques, of dialogue. If he has created the conditions for the dialogue to continue after he is gone, then Socrates’s service to Athens will never end. His death continues to be debated 2500 hundred years later. Indeed, the dialogue has not ended. 

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text