Hubbry Logo
CritoCritoMain
Open search
Crito
Community hub
Crito
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Crito
Crito
Crito
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Beginning of Crito in the Codex Oxoniensis Clarkianus 39 of the Bodleian library (dating from around 895).

Crito (/ˈkraɪtoʊ/ KRY-toh or /ˈkriːtoʊ/ KREE-toh; Ancient Greek: Κρίτων [krítɔːn]) is a dialogue written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It depicts a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito of Alopece regarding justice (δικαιοσύνη), injustice (ἀδικία), and the appropriate response to injustice. It follows Socrates' imprisonment, just after the events of the Apology.

In Crito, Socrates believes injustice may not be answered with injustice, personifies the Laws of Athens to prove this, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government. In contemporary discussions, the meaning of Crito is debated to determine whether it is a plea for unconditional obedience to the laws of a society. The text is one of the few Platonic dialogues that appear to be unaffected by Plato's opinions on the matter; it is dated to have been written around the same time as the Apology.

Setting

[edit]

This dialogue takes place in 399 BC, in a prison cell, roughly a month after the events of the Apology, where Socrates has been found guilty of impiety by the Athenian jury.[1]

Characters

[edit]

The speakers in this dialogue are:

Other characters mentioned:

Background

[edit]

Following his trial in the Apology, Socrates had been imprisoned for four weeks and would be executed in a matter of days. Historians are not aware of the exact location of Socrates' cell but according to archaeologists, the ancient Athenian prison is about 100 meters (330 ft) southwest of the Heliaia court, just outside the site of the agora.[2]

Plato's representation of Socrates is a literary work, so the historical validity of what was said and how much of Plato's interpretation of Socrates aligns with his real beliefs is uncertain.[2] According to Xenophon, Plato's friends drafted escape plans.[3] The extent the theoretical plan aligned with the historical ones is unknown.[4] Some historians of philosophy assume the Socratic figure depicted in Crito is similar to the historical figure.[5] William K. C. Guthrie considers the social contract to be true to Socrates' philosophical interests.[6][page needed][volume needed]

Dating and authorship

[edit]

In research published in 2009, Holger Thesleff doubted Crito's authenticity.[7] However, Crito is widely considered to be a genuine dialogue, generally one of the "early" dialogues.[8]

Summary

[edit]
Part of a series on
Platonism
The Republic
Timaeus
Related articles
Related categories
Plato

Crito has come to see Socrates because he has learned his execution will take place the next day, and wishes to rescue his friend.[9] Crito has planned to bribe all of the guards who are part of the execution and assures Socrates he has enough money to see the plan through and that he has additional friends who are also willing to pay. After being rescued from prison, Socrates would be taken to a home in Thessaly, where Crito and his friends would be pleased to house and feed him.[10] Crito asserts that if Socrates is executed, Crito will suffer a personal misfortune through the loss of a great friend. Crito also says if Socrates is executed, his sons will be deprived of the privileges to which the sons of a philosopher would be entitled—a proper education and living conditions. He also points out that when one takes on the responsibility of having children, it is immoral to abandon that duty.[11] Additionally, if Socrates did not go with them, it will reflect poorly upon Crito and his friends because people would believe they were too miserly to save Socrates.[12] Crito also claims that it is important that they consider the thoughts of the majority as they "can inflict … the greatest evils if one is slandered among them". Finally, Crito argues that Socrates should not worry about the potential punishments that he and his conspirators could face as they feel that the risk is worth taking. [13]

After hearing Crito's arguments, Socrates asks to be allowed to respond with a discussion of related, open-ended issues.[14] Socrates first says the opinions of the educated should be taken into consideration and that the opinions of those with subjective biases or beliefs may be disregarded. Likewise, the popularity of an opinion does not make it valid. Socrates uses the analogy of an athlete listening to his physician rather than his supporters because the physician's knowledge makes his opinion more valuable.[15] According to Socrates, damage to the soul in the form of injustice makes life worthless for a philosopher in the same way life for a person who has injured himself out of incompetence is pointless. A person's goal should be to live a virtuous and just life rather than a long one, thus escape from the prison would rely on a discussion on justice.[16] Socrates disregards Crito's fears of a damaged reputation and his children's futures, which are irrelevant to him. He compares such motivations to a person who sentences someone to death and then regrets the action.[17] Socrates then says Crito and his friends should know better because they have shared the same principles for a long time and that abandoning them at their age would be childish. To wrong the state, even in reaction to an injustice, would be an injustice.[18]

Socrates then points out the question would then be whether he should harm someone or ignore a just obligation. To solve this question, Socrates asks Crito to imagine justifying the decision to escape Athens before the laws and the state themselves, as if they could speak directly.[19] According to Socrates, the laws would argue a state cannot exist without respect for its rules. They would criticise Socrates for believing he and every other citizen had the right to ignore court judgements because chaos could ensue.[20] If Socrates were to accept Crito's offer, he would be known as someone who exposed his accomplices to the risk of fleeing or losing their assets. As a fugitive in a well-established state, good citizens would be suspicious of Socrates because he would be suspected of violating the laws in his place of exile, so he would have to live somewhere chaotic and disorganised, and where he could only entertain crowds with the story of his unjust escape. As a philosopher who had become unfaithful to his principles, he would be discredited and would have to give up his previous life content and his sense of life would only be through food.[21] In conclusion, if Socrates accepts his execution, he will be wronged by men rather than the law, remaining just. If he takes Crito's advice and escapes, Socrates would wrong the laws and betray his lifelong pursuit of justice.[22]

After Socrates concludes this exposition, he likens the conviction he has to the Korybantes, who seem to hear the music of their flutes to the exclusion of all else, and asks Crito to rebuff him if he wishes. Crito has no objections.[23]

Reception

[edit]

Ancient

[edit]

The Epicurean philosopher Idomeneus of Lampsacus claimed that the escape plan came from Aeschines of Sphettus rather than Crito, and that the names were transposed because Aeschines was not favored by Plato.[24]

Roman philosopher and politician Cicero interpreted Crito to mean citizens are obliged to serve the state out of gratitude.[25][non-primary source needed]

The philosopher Athenaeus said Crito serves as Plato's means of attacking the real-life Crito; because Crito showed no philosophical ability, his inability to present a proper argument is to be expected.[26][non-primary source needed]

Medieval

[edit]

The oldest manuscript of Crito was produced in 895 CE in Byzantium.[27] In the Latin-speaking world, Crito was an unknown work but the Islamic world had produced translations of it for years.[28]

Renaissance

[edit]
The beginning of Crito, as printed in the first edition by Aldo Manuzio.

Crito first became available in Western Europe during the age of Renaissance humanism. The first Latin translation was made in 1410 by the Italian humanist and statesman Leonardo Bruni, who was not satisfied with this translation and worked upon another that 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.[29] A revision of Bruni's Latin translation was created by Rinuccio da Castiglione.[30] Marsilio Ficino was the third humanist translator; he published the translation in Florence in 1484.[31] 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, which was published by Marcus Musurus.[32]

Modern

[edit]

Philosophical aspects

[edit]

The philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) made reference to Crito as the only ancient text that holds the idea of a citizen's implicit promise of loyalty.[33] He said Plato's Socrates founded the social contract in the manner of Whigs and influences passive obedience as seen from the Tories.[34]

The philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff found no philosophical content in Crito.[35] According to him, the dialogue teaches "about the duty of the citizen, but not in the abstract, rather Socratic; Athenian".[36] Gabriel Danzig states the text presents Socrates 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".[37]

Danzig added that in contemporary specialist literature, Plato is considered to be only concerned with making Socrates understandable to his readers rather than philosophically presenting and justifying universal principles.[37] Olof Gigon saw the dialogue as a light work that is welcoming to aspiring philosophers.[38] Despite this, the work was regarded as a key Western parallel to Legalism according to philosopher Reginald E. Allen.[39] Hellmut Flashar argued that despite its initial appearances, Crito's depth can be discerned through dialogue and that in doing so, it may be revealed as a difficult text.[40]

In modern discussions of law and order, the responsibilities of citizens to follow rules unconditionally has many commonalities with Crito's presentation of Crito's lenient understanding of the Laws and Socrates' rigid one.[41] According to Flashar, attempting to apply modern ideas to Platonic philosophy estranges the themes.[40]

According to Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, the representation of Socrates in Crito 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. Socrates, who was convicted as an Athenian, chose not to flee Athens because of his virtue as an Athenian and the loyalty to the state that follows. If he chose to go into self-exile as Crito had suggested, he would undermine the fundamental system the state he pledges allegiance to was based upon.[42] Peter Sloterdijk said Crito is one of the "initial texts of philosophy par excellence" with which Plato founded "a new way of looking for the truth". Crito was the defender of this world against the death of his master. He played a "half ridiculous, half moving role". For Socrates, life was a lesson so he consequently "turned his last breath into an argument and his last hour into evidence".[43]

Philosophical implications

[edit]

In the Crito, unlike Plato's other works, Socrates takes a more objective stance on epistemology, being optimistic about the knowledge coming from experts in a subject.[44]

Authoritarianism

[edit]

One of the most controversial issues raised by Crito is the presentation of a society in which citizens who are incapable of changing laws by convincing lawmakers have to abide by the laws to remain "just". The state's demand for loyalty was a social contract theory in which citizens have a mutual agreement with the state and understand what being a citizen of the state entails. A person only became a citizen after undertaking a test called dokimasia (δοκιμασία); citizenship was not conferred at birth.[45][46] Those who do not want to live under such laws are to emigrate if they desire an ethical life.[47] Although Socrates ultimately rejects the idea of expulsion, he believes it to be ethical because the court had suggested it and because the ruling was unjust. It followed, however, from the overall context of Platonic ethics in the sense that it priorities the avoidance of injustice.[5]

Sandrine Bergès proposed a Liberal interpretation of the law in which the agreement between the state and the individual implies a mutual obligation. The legislation provides the citizens' livelihoods and an environment conducive to their prosperity and so they consider themselves to be loyal to the laws. Prosperity, in the sense of Socrates, means the formation of character – the acquisition of virtue as a prerequisite for a good life. In this sense, the analogy of the relationship between parent and child is to be understood as parents having the obligation to educate their children to be good people and can expect their children's obedience in return. The laws promote the virtue of citizens and should therefore be respected. In both cases, the parent entity must fulfil its obligation to be eligible for obedience. In the relationship between Socrates and the Athenian laws, this was the case despite the judgement of the court. If it was otherwise, there would be no obligation to comply with the laws.[48]

According to Richard Kraut, the laws require a serious effort to command respect. If this attempt was to fail, civil disobedience would be permissible.[5] A number of critics, however, argue this could not be inferred from the text; rather, in the event of a failure of the conviction attempt, unconditional obedience to the law was demanded.[49][50][51] According to David Bostock, the authoritarian concept is the exact view Plato wanted to convey in Crito, but in later works Plato recognized the problems with this position and modified his point of view.[52] A number of other commentators support the traditional interpretation that the position of the Laws was to identify with the Platonic Socrates.[53] Defenders of the piece say that this view ignores the possibility that the arguments' weaknesses are inherent to the dialectical process.[5]

Although Socrates presents this authoritarian argument to Crito, this does not mean he agrees with the conclusion, only the result; the refusal to flee.[54] According to Verity Harte, when Socrates compares himself at the end of the dialogue to the "Corybants who seem to hear the flutes", this shows that Socrates decision to stay was an irrational aspect that contrasts with the philosophical demand for unconditional reason.[55] According to Roslyn Weiss, Socrates presents an authoritarian argument in favor of respecting the law rather than a reasoned argument because Crito could not follow Socrates' philosophical argument.[56] Thomas Alexander Szlezák also said the justification for Socrates' attitude towards his friend is emotional rather than not philosophically demanding because it is inevitably based on Crito's level of reflection. The crucial point for Socrates is in the Phaedo dialogue rather than Crito.[57] Socrates in Crito avoids using the word "soul" – a concept that is introduced and discussed in various dialogues – and dealt with a metaphysically neutral paraphrase, apparently because Crito does not accept the philosophical assumption of an immortal soul.[58]

Lawfulness and ethical autonomy

[edit]

Multiple researchers have claimed that there is a purposeful rhetorical incongruity between the Apology and Crito from Plato's representation of Socrates' dialogues.[59] In the Apology, Socrates explained that he would not obey a hypothetical court verdict that forced him to renounce public philosophising on pain of death, for such a demand would be an injustice to him.[60]

Michael Roth claimed that there was no inconsistency, and that the real in Crito and the hypothetical in the Apology were two fundamentally different systems to be held to different standards.[61] According to another solution, Socrates' argument in the Apology was of a purely theoretical nature, since a prohibition of philosophy had no legal basis and no situation was conceivable in which the court could have actually imposed such a penalty on Socrates, unless the defendant had proposed this himself.[62]

Italian historians of philosophy Mario Montuori and Giovanni Reale used chronological distance to explain this difference: that The Apology and the Crito were written at different times and for different reasons.[63] In the Apology — which was the younger work — Plato essentially reported what Socrates had said without much embellishment, but when writing Crito, he had given his thoughts on the matter through the mask of Socrates.[64]

On the other hand, if Socrates' punishment could not occur, professor of morality Necip Fikri Alican argued that Socrates could not simply just be using meaningless thought experiments.[65] Philosophy professor James Stephens simply believed the problem has no solution.[66]

Texts and translations

[edit]
  • 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
  • The Last Days of Socrates, translation of Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Hugh Tredennick, 1954. ISBN 978-0140440379. Made into a BBC radio play in 1986.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Crito

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Crito (Greek: Κρίτων) is a Socratic dialogue composed by the ancient Athenian philosopher Plato in the early fourth century BCE. It dramatizes a conversation between the philosopher Socrates, awaiting execution by hemlock in an Athenian prison, and his longtime friend Crito, a wealthy shipowner who arrives early in the morning to urge Socrates to accept bribes for guards and flee to safety in Thessaly. Socrates refuses, initiating a dialectical examination of whether escape would constitute injustice against the city that nurtured and educated him. Through personification of the Laws of as authoritative voices, Socrates argues that citizens enter a binding agreement to abide by legal judgments by choosing to remain in the , enjoy its protections, and raise families there, rendering unilateral violation—even in the face of an unjust sentence—a of reciprocal obligations that undermines . Crito raises practical counterarguments centered on reputation among peers, paternal duties to orphaned sons, and the perceived cowardice of submission to corrupt , but prioritizes philosophical consistency over expediency, insisting that one must never retaliate harm with harm or evade valid agreements. The dialogue's core contention—that true justice demands upholding the irrespective of personal grievance—has influenced enduring debates on civic duty, , and the implied between and state.

Authorship and Composition

Dating the Dialogue

The Crito is classified among Plato's early dialogues, composed shortly after the execution of in 399 BCE. This timing aligns it with works like the Apology and , which collectively depict the sequence of ' trial, imprisonment, and death, suggesting drew from recent personal recollections as a direct witness and associate. Stylometric analyses, which examine linguistic features such as sentence structure, vocabulary preferences, and idiomatic usage, consistently position the Crito in Plato's initial compositional phase, preceding the more elaborate metaphysical developments in middle-period works like the Republic. Scholars such as Leonard Brandwood, using quantitative metrics on rhetorical patterns and connective particles, group it with the Apology, Charmides, and Euthyphro in a primary cluster lacking the transitional complexities of later texts. The dialogue's references to historical details, including the postponement of Socrates' execution pending the return of the sacred ship from during a —a practice corroborated in ' accounts of Athenian rituals—further support an early dating, as such precise institutional knowledge implies composition close to the events rather than decades later. Estimates typically range from the late 390s BCE to around 390 BCE, reflecting Plato's immediate post-Socratic reflections before his extended travels and founding circa 387 BCE.

Platonic Authenticity and Influences

The Crito enjoys unanimous scholarly acceptance as an authentic work of , classified among his early dialogues composed in the years immediately following ' execution in 399 BCE. Its stylistic features, including concise dramatic structure and Socratic elenchus without developed metaphysical theory, align closely with undisputed early works like the Apology and , and no ancient catalog or commentator, such as or Thrasyllus, questions its attribution—unlike pseudepigrapha such as the Axiochus. The dialogue's core arguments on obedience to law reflect positions attributable to the historical Socrates, as evidenced by parallel accounts in Xenophon's Memorabilia (4.4.12–13; 4.6.1–5), where Socrates analogously upholds filial and civic piety as inviolable duties, equating the polis to a parent whose authority demands compliance even in hardship. However, Plato dramatizes these ideas through the innovative device of the personified Laws' speech (50a–54e), transforming biographical anecdote into a structured philosophical refutation, likely to emphasize ethical universality over mere historical reportage. Xenophon's more prosaic treatment lacks this allegorical depth, underscoring Plato's expository adaptation. In its reasoning, the Crito draws on Athenian legal traditions of reciprocal citizen obligations, such as the expectation of and participation in exchange for civic protections, which Socrates invokes to frame escape as a breach of implicit compact (51b–c). It also implicitly counters sophistic debates privileging physis (natural impulse) over nomos (conventional law), as advanced by figures like or , by insisting that wrongdoing against laws violates personal justice regardless of natural self-interest, without conceding relativism—thus reinforcing nomos as ethically binding rather than arbitrary.

Historical and Dramatic Setting

Socrates' Trial and Imprisonment Context

In 399 BCE, faced trial in before a of approximately 500 male citizens on charges of toward the city's gods and corrupting the youth through his philosophical teachings. The proceedings exemplified Athenian democratic judicial practices, where ordinary citizens served as jurors and decided guilt by majority vote without professional judges or appeals in capital cases. A slim majority—roughly 280 jurors—rendered the guilty verdict, after which proposed a fine or civic maintenance as alternative penalties, but the opted for death by drinking hemlock poison, the standard execution method for such offenses. Following the conviction, Socrates was confined to an Athenian , but execution was postponed due to religious protocols prohibiting bloodshed in the city during sacred voyage to honoring Apollo. Adverse weather delayed the ship's return, extending the imprisonment to about one month and allowing associates like Crito to visit and converse with him under relatively permissive custodial conditions. This procedural interlude underscored the integration of religious observance with legal enforcement in ' system, where democratic majorities held authority yet adhered to traditional piety to legitimize state actions. The trial unfolded amid ' fragile recovery from the Peloponnesian War's defeat in 404 BCE, which had dismantled its empire, triggered an oligarchic coup by the , and prompted a volatile restoration of in 403 BCE. ' persistent questioning of democratic norms, associations with controversial figures like and , and perceived subversion of civic values intensified accusations, highlighting tensions between individual and the collective will of the demos in a scarred by recent upheaval. This context amplified the dialogue's exploration of obedience to lawfully enacted majority decisions, even when personally unjust.

Characters and Their Relationships

Socrates, the central figure, is depicted as an Athenian philosopher imprisoned following his 399 BCE trial and conviction for impiety and corrupting the youth, remaining resolute in his commitment to philosophical principles despite the opportunity for evasion. Crito, his interlocutor, is a prosperous Athenian landowner from the deme of Alopece, portrayed as a devoted companion who shares Socrates' suburban origins and has maintained a close association since their youth, as evidenced in contemporary Socratic literature. Their longstanding bond reflects Athenian social norms of mutual benefit and reciprocity (charis), wherein Crito views funding Socrates' potential escape—including bribes to prison guards and relocation abroad—as a fitting return for the wisdom and moral guidance he received from Socrates over years of association. This dynamic highlights tensions between personal and broader duties, with Crito's pragmatic appeals rooted in concern for his friend's among mutual acquaintances and fear of reputational harm to himself for failing to intervene, contrasting Socrates' emphasis on principled steadfastness. A peripheral figure, the unnamed jailer, briefly appears to admit Crito and enable their undisturbed exchange after prior arrangements, lending dramatic authenticity to the confined setting without deeper involvement. Notably, ' immediate family—his wife and three sons—are absent from the scene, despite Crito's references to their welfare as a motive for escape; this omission shifts focus from domestic ties to the interpersonal and civic dimensions of and animating the exchange.

Dialogue Summary

Crito's Case for Escape

Crito opens his plea by highlighting the practicality of escape, asserting that he and mutual acquaintances, such as Simmias of Thebes, have secured the necessary funds and arrangements, including bribes for guards and a ship from to ensure safe passage to a welcoming . He dismisses any financial burden on , offering to bear the costs personally while underscoring that delay risks complicating the logistics further. On reputational grounds, Crito expresses concern over public perception, warning that Socrates' acceptance of death would lead others to view him as having endured a craven life by yielding to an unworthy fate, thereby tarnishing his legacy. He also laments the damage to his own and his friends' standing, as uninformed observers would accuse them of stinginess or indifference for failing to ransom despite ample means, fostering shame among their circle. Crito invokes familial duties, arguing that Socrates' three young sons would be left fatherless and deprived of proper upbringing and education, constituting a of paternal responsibility in favor of passive submission to the state's penalty. Retributively, Crito frames escape as a justified counter to the jury's perceived , insisting that allowing execution aids Socrates' "enemies and destroyers" who orchestrated the verdict, and that true allies must actively oppose such harm rather than acquiesce. This reflects Crito's implicit stance that entails supporting friends against adversaries, positioning the Athenian authorities as foes in this context.

Socrates' Counterarguments via the Laws

Socrates responds to Crito's pleas by envisioning a dialogue with the personified Laws of , who collectively address him as a disobedient son contemplating and . The Laws first assert their foundational role in his existence, likening the to parents who begat, nurtured, educated, and protected him from infancy, granting him the opportunity to emigrate if dissatisfied yet allowing him to remain and procreate within its bounds. By not departing during his seventy years of life—except for obligatory military campaigns—Socrates implicitly to their authority, including submission to judicial verdicts as part of the social agreement forged through his voluntary participation in Athenian life. This consent forms a causal chain: birth and upbringing under the laws bind him to uphold them, rendering escape a violation equivalent to dismantling the legal order that sustained him. The Laws emphasize that Socrates had viable alternatives to evasion: he could have persuaded them of the trial's through public discourse, as he frequently challenged other citizens and institutions, or sought formal prior to conviction rather than accepting the jury's decision. His failure to pursue these paths—despite his dialectical prowess—affirms the binding nature of the verdict, as lifelong residence without protest equates to of the democratic processes, flaws notwithstanding, that produced it. Escape, they contend, would not only injure the specific law on oaths but erode the entire system, portraying Socrates abroad as a lawbreaker whose actions undermine the stability of any willing to harbor him, thus harming his associates and the polis's reputation. This visionary device underscores a realist view of civic obligation rooted in empirical reciprocity: the state's provision of security and civic privileges demands adherence, with violation risking reciprocal destruction of the communal framework. accepts the Laws' reasoning, affirming their truthfulness and rejecting Crito's proposal as it would contradict his principled life of legal compliance. The argument's force lies in its portrayal of the laws as an interconnected whole, where breaching one link threatens the chain's integrity, grounded in ' observable conduct of never fleeing ' jurisdiction.

Fundamental Philosophical Arguments

Prohibition Against Wrongdoing in Response to Wrong

In the dialogue Crito, articulates a foundational ethical : it is never just to commit , even as retaliation for suffered. He explicitly states to Crito, "We ought not to retaliate or render for to anyone, whatever we may have suffered from him," emphasizing that responding to harm with harm violates an absolute prohibition against . This holds irrespective of the perceived fairness of the initial wrong, positioning ethical integrity as non-negotiable and independent of reciprocal logic. This principle aligns with Socrates' earlier arguments in the Gorgias, where he maintains that committing injustice inflicts greater harm on the perpetrator's soul than any suffering endured as a victim. In the Gorgias, wrongdoing is depicted as a degradation of the soul's order and harmony, akin to a physical that corrupts from within, rendering the agent worse off regardless of external gains or justifications. Applied to the prospect of , Socrates reasons that violating the laws—through flight—would constitute such self-inflicted injury, corrupting his own character and soul, even if the trial's verdict was unjust. The act's wrongness stems not from its consequences to others but from its intrinsic effect on the doer's moral state, rejecting Crito's proposal that the state's alleged injustice licenses reciprocal evasion. Socrates thereby prioritizes the preservation of personal over situational expediency or harm minimization, insisting that true resides in the soul's uncorrupted condition rather than prolonged or familial protection. This stance debunks reciprocity-based , such as "," by underscoring that ethical consistency demands rejecting all , as any commission thereof undermines the agent's and rational order. The principle's rigor lies in its causal focus: generates inevitable internal disorder, unmitigated by the external wrong that provoked it.

The Implicit Social Contract and Civic Duty

In Plato's Crito, the personified Laws of articulate a proto-contractarian framework wherein citizens implicitly to legal authority through sustained voluntary residence and participation in the . This agreement binds individuals to obey laws, including judicial verdicts, as a condition of benefiting from civic institutions. The Laws contend that ratified this pact by remaining in for seventy years after attaining majority, forgoing opportunities to emigrate to places like Lacedaemon or , and instead defending himself in court rather than fleeing earlier. Such actions constitute tacit endorsement of the city's sovereignty, forging an "implied contract" to "do as we command." The duties under this arrangement are reciprocal: the state, functioning as a parental entity, generates, nurtures, educates, and safeguards citizens, providing the framework for and . In exchange, citizens must refrain from actions that injure the laws, such as evading , which would equate to harming one's progenitors and erode the stability enabling these mutual advantages. The Laws warn that violating this bond invites anarchy, as selective disobedience undermines the uniform authority necessary to avert societal dissolution, even if the regime operates imperfectly as a . This perspective underscores a causal prioritization of enduring communal order over immediate personal grievances, positing that individual escapes, while seemingly just in isolation, erode collective trust and reciprocity foundational to civilized life. By upholding the , citizens sustain the 's capacity to deliver long-term benefits, countering the risks of fragmented loyalty that historically precipitate institutional breakdown.

Consequences for Personal Justice and the Polis

Socrates argues that attempting escape would harm his personal justice by committing an act of wrongdoing, which corrupts the —a greater detriment than any physical suffering or inflicted on the body. In the , he insists that destroys the part of oneself that benefits, rendering the soul's integrity paramount over bodily preservation, as a corrupted soul makes life unlivable irrespective of external conditions. This stance inverts Crito's appeal to , aligning instead with Socrates' ethical commitment to as the soul's true welfare, where prioritizing flight equates to valuing temporal existence over moral consistency. On the communal level, Socrates warns that evasion would undermine the polis's stability by assaulting its laws, which form the city's essential structure; such defiance sets a for others to ignore legal obligations, fostering reciprocal law-breaking and eroding civic cohesion. The Laws contend that escape treats the state as an adversary, justifying its defensive retaliation and weakening the mutual agreements binding citizens to governance. In , reeling from defeat in the in 404 BCE, the imposition of the ' oligarchy, and fragile democratic restoration in 403 BCE, this act by a figure of ' stature risked magnifying dissent and instability, as the young regime sought to consolidate authority amid lingering oligarchic sympathies and war-induced paranoia. Even conceding potential injustice in his conviction, Socrates implies that laws—regardless of flaws—sustain societal order through enforced reciprocity; violating them invites cascading disregard, as a polity bereft of law ceases to function as a coherent , a dynamic in historical collapses where selective noncompliance precipitated tyrannical overreach or . This causal linkage underscores the interdependence of individual rectitude and collective endurance, where personal exceptions threaten the polis's foundational equilibrium.

Major Interpretive Controversies

Absolute Obedience to Law vs. Right to Persuasion

In Plato's Crito, the personified Laws articulate the principle that citizens must "either persuade [the state] or do what it commands," presenting obedience as the default unless rational persuasion alters the law's course. This formulation, repeated at key points such as 51b and 52a, underscores a conditional duty: unilateral action like escape constitutes harm to the legal order by circumventing deliberative change, as Socrates argues that violating agreements undermines the causal mechanisms for just governance. Scholars interpreting this as favoring near-absolute obedience emphasize that persuasion requires prior engagement—public argument or legal reform—before any dissent, viewing Socrates' refusal to flee as exemplary adherence that preserves societal stability against arbitrary disruption. Conversely, advocates for a stronger "right to persuasion" highlight how Socrates' lifelong practice of elenctic questioning implicitly conditions obedience on the law's alignment with justice, critiquing rote submission as antithetical to philosophical inquiry. In this reading, the Crito's doctrine softens authoritarian demands by prioritizing dialectical challenge over blind compliance, allowing citizens to withhold obedience if persuasion reveals systemic injustice, though Socrates himself deems his trial defenses sufficient attempts at such persuasion without justifying extralegal evasion. This perspective counters absolutist claims by noting the impracticality of total obedience in flawed polities, where unpersuaded laws may perpetuate error, but insists persuasion remains verbal and non-violent to avoid reciprocal harm. A balanced interpretation reconciles these by positing obedience as the presumptive norm essential for civic order, with persuasion serving as the exclusive channel for dissent to enable gradual, reason-based legal evolution rather than precipitous breakdown. This view debunks misreadings that license anarchic disobedience, as Socrates' acceptance of punishment affirms that failed persuasion does not negate one's bonds to the state; instead, it reinforces causal realism in politics, where rational dialogue fosters reform without eroding the rule of law's foundational trust. Such analyses, drawing on the dialogue's internal logic, portray the tension not as contradiction but as a framework prioritizing stability while accommodating critique, influencing later debates on legitimate resistance without endorsing vigilante action.

Alleged Inconsistencies with Socratic Ethics Elsewhere

Scholars have noted an apparent tension between ' acceptance of the Athenian court's verdict in the Crito, where he refuses escape to uphold legal obligations, and his pointed critiques of democratic institutions in the Apology, such as his defiance of potential bans on philosophizing and his portrayal of the jury as swayed by demagoguery. This seems at odds with the 's advocacy for rule by philosopher-kings over democratic , raising questions about whether the Crito's legalism reflects uncharacteristic deference to a flawed . The resolution lies in distinguishing procedural fidelity—respecting the verdict as a product of established legal processes—from substantive endorsement of democracy's outcomes; critiques the democracy's capacity for wisdom but maintains that individuals must either persuade the laws or submit, avoiding retaliation through evasion. Roslyn Weiss argues that the Crito's arguments, particularly the personified Laws' speech, are rhetorically tailored to Crito's conventional, non-philosophical perspective, emphasizing civic reputation, family ties, and state benefits to dissuade him from escape, rather than articulating Socrates' unqualified ethics. For Socrates, true virtue demands dialectical pursuit of the good beyond such prudential concerns, rendering the dialogue's legalistic frame a concession to Crito's limitations rather than a universal doctrine; inconsistencies arise only if one mistakes this pedagogical accommodation for Socratic principle. Defenders of consistency emphasize Socrates' unwavering commitment to non-retaliation, reiterated across dialogues: wrongdoing in response to perceived injustice corrupts the soul, irrespective of the polity's merits, prioritizing internal harmony with just principles over external expediency. In the Apology, Socrates' threats of disobedience target specific tyrannical edicts, not the rule of law itself, aligning with the Crito's conditional obedience—persuasion remains viable, but flight equates to harming the laws that nurtured him, embodying a principled realism over democratic idolatry. This framework resolves apparent clashes by grounding ethics in the pursuit of personal justice amid imperfect regimes, without irony or contradiction.

Critiques Favoring Escape or Conditional Disobedience

Some interpreters contend that ' conviction for and corrupting the youth was demonstrably unjust, as evidenced by the procedural irregularities in his trial and the politically motivated jury verdict following ' defeat in the in 404 BCE, thereby nullifying any implicit and justifying escape as a form of against state overreach. This view posits that unconditional obedience to flawed judicial outcomes would legitimize arbitrary power, setting a for future miscarriages of that erode civic trust more than isolated acts of evasion. Analogies to modern reinforce this critique, with Henry Thoreau's 1849 "" echoing Crito's by arguing that individuals must prioritize over complicity in unjust laws, such as those or imperial wars, rather than passively accepting punishment as Socrates did. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 "" distinguishes just laws aligned with order from unjust ones rooted in exploitation, advocating —including willingness to face consequences—over blanket submission, a stance some scholars see as compatible with Socrates' earlier defiance of the in 404 BCE but incompatible with his Crito refusal. These perspectives critique Socrates' position for overlooking how selective disobedience can catalyze reform without wholesale rejection of legal order, provided it accepts penalties to affirm respect for the system's integrity. Proponents of conditional disobedience further argue that in regimes where laws systematically enable tyranny or moral corruption—such as under oligarchic interludes—obligation dissolves if persuasion fails, as himself attempted through lifelong but deemed futile post-verdict. This interpretation, advanced in analyses like A.D. Woozley's examination of Socratic disobedience, holds that escape or evasion becomes permissible when the state's actions violate , preventing the causal erosion of personal agency without necessitating . Yet these critiques falter under scrutiny, as empirical indicators from data reveal that societies upholding —even amid isolated injustices—exhibit superior stability, with higher World Bank Rule of Law scores correlating to reduced rates (e.g., 1-5 per 100,000 in strong-rule nations like versus 20+ in high-disobedience contexts like ) and sustained averaging 2-3% annually more than in unstable peers. Selective rebellion, while intuitively appealing, often invites reciprocal harms by incentivizing vigilante responses and institutional distrust, as historical cases of fragmented obedience in post-colonial states demonstrate elevated risks exceeding 15% probability versus under 2% in consistent legal adherents. ' insistence on over evasion thus aligns with causal mechanisms preserving long-term order, where Crito-like escapes undermine the very reciprocity enabling civilized dissent.

Historical Reception and Influence

Ancient and Hellenistic Interpretations

Xenophon's Memorabilia, composed around 371 BCE, reinforces the portrayal in Plato's Crito of ' unwavering respect for Athenian laws, depicting him as prioritizing civic obedience over personal escape from perceived injustice. In Memorabilia 4.4.12–13 and 4.6.1–15, declares his preparedness to obey laws while emphasizing the need for instruction to prevent ignorant transgression, underscoring a shared Socratic ethic with that law-abiding conduct preserves and personal . During the Hellenistic era, after Alexander the Great's death in 323 BCE and the fragmentation of his empire into Hellenistic kingdoms under rulers like the Seleucids and Ptolemies, Stoic thinkers adapted Crito's obedience motif to advocate enduring political instability through inner ethical discipline rather than revolt. Zeno of Citium (c. 334–262 BCE), founder of Stoicism, and his successors positioned Socrates as a paradigmatic figure for rational acceptance of fate and law, interpreting the dialogue's personified Laws as emblematic of cosmic order (logos), where unjust rulers could be borne without compromising virtue, as escape would disrupt personal harmony with nature. Epicureans, contemporaries in this turbulent context, indirectly engaged Crito's themes by counseling pragmatic law-abidance to secure ataraxia (tranquility), avoiding entanglement in civic strife that could invite persecution, though prioritizing withdrawal from politics over Stoic cosmopolitan duty. Cicero (106–43 BCE), blending Stoic principles in Roman republican advocacy, echoed Crito's implicit contract in De Officiis 1.23–25 and 1.148–149, portraying patria as a parental benefactor demanding loyalty for communal stability, thus extending Hellenistic endurance of authority to counter factional threats like those from demagogues.

Medieval and Renaissance Engagements

In the medieval period, direct engagement with Plato's Crito was constrained by the scarcity of Latin translations of most Platonic dialogues beyond the Timaeus. Knowledge of Socratic themes, including obedience to law, filtered indirectly through patristic authors like Augustine and Boethius, who emphasized hierarchical order and divine sovereignty over human authority. Thomas Aquinas, while primarily Aristotelian, echoed Crito's insistence on civic duty in his discussions of human law's binding force, arguing in the Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 104, a. 6) that subjects must obey rulers in all matters not contrary to divine or natural law, integrating such obedience into frameworks like just-war theory where legitimacy hinges on alignment with eternal moral order rather than mere positive enactment. This paralleled Crito's portrayal of laws as parental guardians demanding reciprocity, reframed Christianly as provisional instruments subordinate to God's eternal justice, countering feudal disruptions by prioritizing soul's salvation over temporal rebellion. The marked a resurgence of Crito through Marsilio Ficino's complete Latin translation of (completed 1484), enabling humanists to appropriate its arguments for civic restraint amid political instability. Sir drew on Platonic ideals of communal duty in (1516), where citizens' voluntary adherence to rational laws mirrors ' implicit contract, fostering stability through principled acceptance rather than coercion, though More emphasized communal property and moral education over Crito's . In contrast, critiqued such restraint in (1532), implicitly rejecting ' refusal to escape as naive; where Crito prioritizes personal justice and harm avoidance even under unjust sentence, Machiavelli advocated pragmatic flexibility—breaking laws or oaths if necessary for state preservation—viewing moral absolutism as detrimental to amid principalities' volatility. This divergence highlighted a shift: humanists Christianized Crito by subordinating civic laws to divine , treating the soul's eternal justice as paramount while deeming temporal obedience binding absent higher contradiction, thus adapting pagan to ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Modern Applications in Political Thought

Plato's Crito has shaped Enlightenment theories by emphasizing implicit consent through residency and participation in civic life, contrasting with more explicit formulations that permit conditional withdrawal. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) allows citizens to reclaim natural rights if rulers violate the trust-based compact, yet Socrates' acceptance of execution despite perceived injustice in Crito illustrates a deeper, non-voluntarist bond to the polity, derived from lifelong benefits like and , which undercuts libertarian arguments for unilateral exit or . Jean-Jacques Rousseau's (1762) advances collective general will over individual consent, aligning partially with the Laws' personification in Crito as paternal authorities demanding reciprocity, but Socrates' unyielding duty prioritizes stability over Rousseauian transformative sovereignty, informing conservative critiques of contractual individualism as eroding communal obligations. In 20th-century , directly examined Crito to probe tensions between personal justice claims and legal authority, arguing that Socrates' deference to Athenian procedures reflects a principled restraint against retaliatory harm, even under flawed institutions, which prioritizes systemic integrity over Rawlsian that might justify redistributional overrides. This interpretation reinforces Crito's influence on rule-of-law doctrines, where obedience preserves procedural legitimacy amid substantive disputes, as opposed to utilitarian or egalitarian recalibrations that risk destabilizing the contractual order. ' analysis highlights how ' refusal to reciprocate perceived wrongs upholds a causal chain: individual defiance erodes the polity's educative and protective functions, echoing first-principles reasoning against cycles of retaliation. Contemporary constitutional debates invoke Crito to advocate realism in civic duty, favoring persuasion within legal bounds over extralegal disobedience justified by identity or . Thinkers like have applied its crisis to modern states, where ' implicit pact counters populist erosions of authority by affirming that residency entails non-harm to laws, debunking normalized exemptions that fragment rule-of-law universality. In critiques of libertarian , Crito bolsters conservative by demonstrating that unpersuaded citizens must endure verdicts to avoid anarchy, as evidenced in analyses of migration and obligation where exit privileges undermine reciprocal . This stance challenges identity-driven protests, such as those bypassing institutional reform for , by causal insistence on law's role in sustaining societal goods over subjective harms.

Textual History and Transmission

Surviving Manuscripts and Editions

The text of Plato's Crito survives through medieval Byzantine manuscripts containing the complete Platonic corpus, arranged in tetralogies attributed to Thrasyllus. Approximately 250 such minuscule manuscripts are known, with the majority dating from the 13th to 15th centuries and deriving from a small number of earlier archetypes. These copies were produced primarily in monastic scriptoria, ensuring the dialogue's preservation with fewer lacunae than many other ancient philosophical works. The earliest surviving manuscript including Crito is the Codex Clarkianus (, MS. E. D. Clarke 39), a 9th-century Byzantine codex dated to circa 895 CE. This manuscript preserves the first —Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and —and represents a key witness for the text, stemming from ancient editions likely organized in during the . While it includes some scribal interpolations common to early medieval copies, its completeness and antiquity make it foundational for reconstructing the dialogue. Subsequent manuscripts, such as the 11th-century Codex Venetus (Marc. Gr. IV.1), build on similar traditions and introduce variants, including occasional differences in speech attributions and phrasing. Critical editions employ stemmatic philology to collate these sources and resolve discrepancies. John Burnet's Platonis Opera in the Oxford Classical Texts series (1900–1907) established the modern standard, prioritizing the Clarkianus and Venetus while emending evident errors through comparative analysis. Burnet's accompanying commentary on , Apology, and Crito (1924) further details textual challenges specific to the dialogue, such as minor orthographic and dialectical variants.

Key Translations and Scholarly Apparatus

Marsilio Ficino's Latin translation of Plato's complete works, including Crito, first appeared in print in in 1484, marking a pivotal effort to render the Greek dialogues accessible to Western scholars and facilitating their integration into humanist curricula. This edition prioritized philosophical interpretation alongside literal accuracy, influencing subsequent European readings despite occasional liberties in phrasing to align with Neoplatonic themes. Benjamin Jowett's English translation, published in 1871 as part of his multi-volume Dialogues of , gained widespread popularity for its Victorian-era prose and interpretive notes, though its archaic style and occasional paraphrasing have drawn criticism for distancing modern readers from the Greek's precision. Jowett's version emphasized Socratic ethical dilemmas but has been superseded by renditions closer to the original syntax. Contemporary English translations prioritize literal fidelity to the , such as G.M.A. Grube's rendering in Plato: Five Dialogues (1981, revised edition 2002), which balances readability with philological exactness, and his contribution to the 1997 edited by John M. Cooper. C.D.C. Reeve's revisions enhance clarity without interpretive overlay, aiding analysis of legal and moral arguments in Crito. The edition, translated by Harold N. Fowler (1914, revised 2017), provides facing-page Greek and English, essential for verifying nuances in terms like nomos () and peitharcheein (obey or persuade). Scholarly apparatus includes targeted commentaries, such as Michael C. Stokes's Dialectic in Action: An Examination of Plato's Crito (2005), which dissects argumentative structure and Socratic elenchus through close textual analysis. For legal terminology, resources like A.D. Woozley's discussions in Law and Obedience (1979) elucidate Crito's implications for civic duty, grounding claims in Greek etymology rather than anachronistic projections. Digital tools, including the Perseus Digital Library's lemma-searchable Greek text, enable word-level scrutiny to mitigate translation biases and support empirical reconstruction of Platonic intent.
Edition/TranslatorYearKey Features
Ficino (Latin)1484First printed complete Plato; Neoplatonic influence
Jowett (English)1871Popularized access; interpretive notes, archaic prose
Grube (English, rev. Cooper/Reeve)1997/2002Literal, readable; in Complete Works and Five Dialogues
Fowler (Loeb Bilingual)1914/2017Greek-English facing pages; philological precision

References

  1. http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/platochron.html
  2. https://faculty.fiu.edu/~hauptli/Plato%27sCritoLectureSupplement.html
  3. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060032.pdf
  4. https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=philo
  5. https://ojs.library.dal.ca/dionysius/article/view/12200/10981
  6. https://journals.ku.edu/auslegung/article/download/12708/12004
  7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-plato/stylometry-and-chronology/84B9AC52A7AC86C1BD7BB50C51B49537
  8. https://iep.utm.edu/plato/
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-shorter/
  10. http://www.juliustomin.org/stylometricarguments.html
  11. https://www.worldhistory.org/timeline/plato/
  12. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005.09.65/
  13. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004369085/BP000022.xml?language=en
  14. https://journals.openedition.org/kentron/347
  15. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-law-and-jurisprudence/article/authority-of-law-in-platos-crito/EB08BC33A7218C48C64A4CCC3F71242F
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4182328
  17. https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/socrates-was-guilty-as-charged
  18. https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/trial-socrates/
  19. https://aeon.co/essays/the-civic-drama-of-socrates-trial
  20. https://www.famous-trials.com/socrates/833-h
  21. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/e/euthyphro-apology-crito-and-phaedo/summary-and-analysis/crito
  22. http://individual.utoronto.ca/pking/unpublished/WSCE.pdf
  23. https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2006-7-03.pdf
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373101740_A_Nuanced_Study_Putting_the_Trial_of_Socrates_in_the_Historical_Context
  25. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13726/13726-h/13726-h.htm
  26. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/arch/greeks/XenophonOeconomicus.html
  27. https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html
  28. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1657/1657-h/1657-h.htm
  29. https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20728514
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225243415_Socrates_on_How_Wrongdoing_Damages_the_Soul
  32. https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2025373
  34. https://orb.binghamton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=sagp
  35. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-020-09346-y
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/825655
  37. http://peitho.amu.edu.pl/volume2/domaradzki.pdf
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277227047_Defiance_Persuasion_or_Conformity_The_Argument_in_Plato%27s_Apology_and_Crito
  39. https://aporia.byu.edu/pdfs/benson-rule_of_law_in_plato.pdf
  40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4182318
  41. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/socrates-dissatisfied-9780195116847
  42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2659871
  43. https://studycorgi.com/socrates-arguments-inconsistency/
  44. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/12/30/platos-crito-when-should-we-break-the-law/
  45. https://ivypanda.com/essays/similarities-and-contrast-between-the-critos-apology-and-thoreaus-civil-disobedience/
  46. https://valuesofthewise.com/socrates-civil-disobedience/
  47. https://antigonejournal.com/2022/11/civil-disobedience-socrates-crito/
  48. https://aporia.byu.edu/pdfs/dingman-obedience_to_the_state_in_the_crito_and_the_apology.pdf
  49. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/the-limits-and-dangers-civil-disobedience-the-case-martin-luther-king-jr
  50. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004369085/BP000022.xml
  51. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1177/1177-h/1177-h.htm
  52. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3230/323062999014/html/
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-quarterly/article/socrates-in-hellenistic-philosophy/E4D47EFE019B676E3A971B4F107C0013
  54. https://donaldrobertson.name/2018/02/25/the-stoic-socrates/
  55. https://philpapers.org/archive/KEORCA.pdf
  56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969973
  57. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-teachings-of-plato-socrates-and-machiavelli/
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371741129_Plato%27s_Crito_and_the_Contradictions_of_Modern_Citizenship
  59. https://voegelinview.com/platos-crito-and-the-crisis-of-sovereignty/
  60. http://www.jennetkirkpatrick.com/s/Crito.pdf
  61. https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2024/05/11/how-did-the-works-of-plato-reach-us-the-textual-tradition-of-the-dialogues/
  62. https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/f57d074b-cff1-4172-8236-797c7b8f0403/
  63. https://plato-dialogues.org/works.htm
  64. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL167/1926/pb_LCL167.vii.xml
  65. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/euthyphro-apology-of-socrates-and-crito-9780198140153
  66. https://iep.utm.edu/ficino/
  67. https://owlofathena.substack.com/p/platos-crito-redivivus
  68. https://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-9772_1966_num_20_1_3256
  69. https://www.columbia.edu/itc/lithum/wong/textclip.html
  70. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Jowett%252C%2520Benjamin%252C%25201817%252D1893
  71. https://hackettpublishing.com/complete-works
  72. https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Hackett-Classics-Plato/dp/0872201368
  73. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL036/1914/volume.xml
  74. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plato_philosopher-crito/1914/pb_LCL036.149.xml
  75. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2008/2008.12.20/
  76. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0169%253Atext%253DCrito
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.