crito in plato’s euthydemus

8/13/2019 CRITO IN PLATOS EUTHYDEMUS

1/25

CRITO IN PLATOS EUTHYDEMUS:

THE LOVER OF FAMILY AND OF MONEY

Martin J. Plax1

Now I tell you that sophistry is an ancient art, and those men of ancienttimes who practiced it, fearing the odium it involved, disguised it in adecent dress. . . . But I believe that they did not accomplish any of theirdesigns, forthe purposes of their designs did not escapethe men of affairs ofthe city. Plato,Protagoras 316d, 317a

I

The Problem of Understanding Crito

Who is Crito and of what philosophic significance is he for Plato? Most stu-dents of Plato are familiar with him through the dialogue named after him. Inthat dialogue Crito uses his money to bribe the jail guard in the middle of the

night, while Socrates is asleep. He has done so because he wishes Socrates toescape from jail and thus avoid the death penalty. But Crito fails in his mission

because Socrates dissuades him from pressing his case by seemingly refutinghis opinions about the relationship of the citizen to the laws of the city.

Why, therefore, is it necessary to raise the questions? Because Platos Critocontinues to be read, and interpreted, as are nearly all Platonic dialogues, as a

study of a philosophic problem in which Socrates refutes the opinions of oneor more of his conversational companions. In this case, Socrates corrects theopinions of his life-long companion and benefactor. Whether one argues thatSocrates opinions about the obligation to obey the law reflect the opiniondefended by the laws of Athens or whether one argues that they do not reflectthat opinion, there appears to be agreement on one assumption, that Socrates

is the standard by which Critos nature, opinions and actions are to be mea-sured and judged. Compared to an Icon, Crito is commonly understood as oneof the Many, or an Everyman. In more scholarly language, he represents vul-gar, or unironic virtue as opposed to philosophic, or ironic virtue. It is fur-ther presumed that philosophic virtue is untouchable by vulgar virtue. Thus,

both interpretations share the common assumption that theCritois a particu-

lar case of the study of Otherness.

This essay will challenge this familiar understanding of the Platonic char-acter Crito.2 It will demonstrate that Crito, who is both a successful business-man-farmer and a father, and therefore a lover of money and family, is notentirely Other. Rather, he straddles between his philosopher friend and the

POLIS. Vol. 17. Issues 1 and 2, 2000

POLIS The Journal of the Society for Greek Political Thought

www.imprint-academic.com/polis

1 c/o AJC, 1422 Euclid Ave. #625, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, USA. Email: [email protected].

2 See my Review Essay, Taking Crito Seriously, Polis, Vol. 16 (1,2), 1999,pp. 8692.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2011For personal use only -- not for reproduction


2/25

Many. Like the Many, he envies others; but like Socrates, he is envied. Assuch, his opinions and his actions are more complex than has been appreciatedin recent scholarship.

This essay will expose that complexity by an analysis of a lesser-knownPlatonic dialogue entitled Euthydemus. It will also demonstrate that, as char-

acterized in this dialogue, Crito proves to be capable of both understandingSocratic irony and of practicing an irony of his own. Once exposed, it

becomes possible to see both Critos practised manner of speaking and thecharacter of his philanthropy. The latter is related to his being stronglyaffected by the passion of Envy.

Crito is a representative of a category of beings in-between the Many and

the Philosopher.3 He is a Gentleman (kalos kagathos) and he is present in thePlatonic corpus because of Platos interest in exposing the peculiar nature ofthe Gentleman and his relationship to the philosopher. While a friend of phi-losophy, Crito is also properly critical of the philosopher. His criticisms areaimed asmuch asat what Socrates has done as at what he has thought and said.

II

Critos Presence in Platos Dialogues

Crito appears in four dialogues. Three of these the Apology,the CritoandthePhaedo are related to Socrates indictment and trial, his conviction andsentencing and his imprisonment and his being put to death. The fourth is the

Euthydemus. Aside from the Crito, it is the only other Platonic dialogue inwhich Socrates and Crito carry on a sustained conversation. That conversa-tion took place prior to Socrates trial, but since both he and Crito are old menat the time, one can infer that the events reported in theEuthydemus took placeclose to the time of Socrates trial. One can rightfully expect, therefore, thatthe conversation with Crito about eristics is related in some way to Socratesindictment and, when studied, prepares the way for new questions about the

three more well known dialogues.There is a curious commonality among all four of the dialogues in which

Crito appears. In none of them does Socrates ask a question of the form: Whatis x? If this question signals a philosophic inquiry, then in none of these dia-logues is there a philosophic discussion. While in the Phaedo, Socrates doesraise serious questions regarding the soul, Crito is not present when these

questions are posed.4

This absence of philosophic inquiry may not be

36 M.J. PLAX

3 The clearest evidencethat Crito is nota representative of theMany is to be found intheApology. There, Socrates speaksdirectly to the Many, who convict himand sentencehim to death. When the issue of Socrates punishment is raised, three of his friendsoffered to pay a fine of 30 minae to insure Socrates release from prison Socratesdisciple Apollodorus, the philosopher Plato, and Crito. These three men stand in contrastto the Many. In relation to the other two, Crito appears to stand in-between being adisciple and a philosopher.

4 His son, Critobulus, is, however, a listener to these conversations.



3/25

CRITO IN PLATOS EUTHYDEMUS 37

accidental; it may follow necessarily from an understanding of who Crito is,as he is revealed in the Euthydemus.

The Euthydemus, when read literally, exposes the scandalous ways inwhich two teachers of eristic, the art of refutation, exploit the equivocal mean-ings of words in producing victory. Because it treats eristicsin a comic, almost

mocking fashion, theEuthydemusseemingly denies the credibility of eristicalrefutations.

But what seems to be the case, may prove to be a form of ironical feigningon the part of Socrates. The comic treatment of eristics in the Euthydemusis areflection of the low quality of the two brothers abilities. But this fact doesnot negate the power, or the truth, of eristics. As the dialogue exhibits, there

are a variety of eristical techniques. Taken collectively, the goal of eristics isnot simply to refute arguments but to change peoples opinions and to dis-suade them from taking certain actions. TheEuthydemusis a battle between alover of wisdom and a lover of money, each seeking to dissuade the other fromtaking certain actions.5

III

Crito in the Euthydemus

Whoisthe Platonic Crito? That there was an historical person named Crito isconfirmed by the fact that there is a brief biography of him in Book II of

Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Among others whose

lives are included in that same volume are Socrates and Xenonphon, alongwith Phaedo, Glaucon, Simmias and Cebes. These last four are also Platoniccharacters. Diogenes life of Crito is as follows:

Crito was a citizen of Athens. He was most affectionate in his dispositiontowards Socrates, and took such care of him that none of his wants were leftunsupplied. Further, his sons Critobulus, Hermogenes, Epigenes andCtessipus were pupils of Socrates. Crito too wrote seventeen dialogues,which are extant in one volume. The titles are: One Doesnt Become Goodby Learning; On the Meaning of Greed; What is Expedient, or the Politi-cian; On the Noble; On Doing Evil; On Orderliness; On Law; On What IsDivine and What is Not; On the Practical Arts; On Keeping Good Com-pany; On Wisdom; Protagoras, or the Politician; On Grammar; On Making(Producing) Things; On Learning;On Firm Knowledge; What is Knowing aThing?

Compared with Diogenes treatment of Crito, Platos Crito is not necessar-ilythe historical Crito. Platos Crito neverdirectlyindicates that he was the

author of anything. Furthermore, of the four dialogues in which Crito appears,only in the Euthydemus does Crito reveal that he has more than one son.There, Crito, a contemporary of Socrates, is an old man and mentions that he

5 Formallyspeaking, the Crito is also about thedissuasion ofCrito, from violatingthelaw that provides for the death penalty.



4/25

has two sons, not four. As the producer of sons and dialogues, Platos Crito islessthan, and in this sense, Other than, the historical Crito.

How does Crito appear in the Euthydemus? That dialogue consists of twokinds of conversations: those between Crito and Socrates directly and thoserecalled by Socrates and told to Crito. The latter are conversations he had with

the Sophists Euthydemus and his brother Dionysodorus, and about eristicconversations between the brothers and two young Athenians Cleinias andCtessipus and himself. Structurally, the conversations between Crito andSocrates surround, and divide, the Socratic recollections.

In a metaphorical sense, Crito is the father of Socrates narrated speeches.It was he who stimulated Socrates to remember what had been said the day

before and to tell him today. It was also Crito who concluded the dialogue. Inthat final conversation with Socrates, he chastised Socrates for engaging inconversations with the brothers in public. The conversation between Crito andSocrates in the middle of the dialogue begins when Crito interrupts Socratesnarrative and explicitly challenges the accuracy of Socrates recollection.Some of what Crito had already heard made him suspicious that Socrates was

being ironic.Internally, the narrated conversations are of two kinds. The first are refuta-

tions of a relatively innocent young man, Cleinias and one of his admirers,Ctessipus of Paeania,6by the two teachers of eristic who claim that their art isthe key to teaching virtue. The second are arguments by Socrates aimed at per-suading Cleinias to pursue virtue by acquiring knowledge through philoso-

phy. In both, Crito is the listener.Socrates internal narratives are introduced to Crito in a curious manner.

How can I relate what happened next? It is no small matter to be able torecall accurately their wisdom. So, like the poets, I must begin my narrativewith an invocation to the Muses and Memory (Mn em os yn e) . S oEuthydemus began,if I remember correctly, with words something like this.(275d)

Socrates account of eristics is poetic in character. When speaking to Critoabout eristics, he will be aided by divine inspiration. His ability to recollectwhat transpired the day before seems to need assistance. As the Muses aidedHomer and Hesiod to sing, Socrates narrative regarding what occurred theday before might be properly judged to be a song, whose words are inspired by

something more than the singer alone. To further indicate the shakiness of hismemory, Socrates begins with a hesitation if I remember correctly.

It would be an error to treat the Socratic account of his encounter with theteachers of eristic as though it were a literal reporting of the art of eristic refu-tation. This is the presupposition underlying recent insightful and analytically

38 M.J. PLAX

6 While he has the same name as one of Critos sons, the fact that he is from Paeaniareveals that he is not Critos son.



5/25


rich scholarly studies of the Euthydemus.7 These studies treat the recallederistic speeches in the dialogues as though they were complete and as thoughthey were recalled unironically.

The validity of this entire approach can be challenged on still othergrounds. Socrates tells Crito he convinced the brothers to compress their dis-

play when questioning Cleinias. One is dealing regularly, therefore, withincomplete arguments. Furthermore, the brothers move from directly exploit-ing the equivocations in words as they are used in daily speaking, to makingabsurd assertions that do not even depend on equivocations and which are notarguments at all. In the last eristic conversation, they argue as though theyhave become drunk, but without ever drinking.

It would also be an error to accept the alternative interpretation, thatbecause of the illogical evolution of the arguments, one must be totallydependent on ones poetic insight and intuitive understanding in order to pen-etrate the mysteries of theEuthydemus. Itmaybe truethat whena poetsits ona tripod of the Muses, he is not in his right mind,8but Socrates conversationswith Crito are laced with references to historically identifiable places and to

certain poets and Sophists. The two friends dont stop to acknowledge themeanings of these persons and places because they are shared memories.Therefore, they can be investigated as reflections of Memory alone, withoutthe aid of the Muses. But we, readers of the dialogue, who do not share theirmemories, must make an effort to ascertainthe meanings they mighthave for Crito.

IV

Crito as a Father

Who is the Platonic Crito in theEuthydemus?9 First, he is a father, and in morethan one sense. The opening words of the dialogue are his, expressed as a

question to Socrates that sets the dialogue in motion. In that opening scene hereveals himself as a father of a son who is a concern to him.

Cri: Who was it, Socrates, that you were talking with yesterday atthe Lyceum? Why, there was such a crowd standing about youthat when I came up in the hope of listening I could hear nothingdistinctly. Still, by craning over I got a glimpse, and it appearedto me that it was a stranger with whom you were talking. Whowas he?

7 See Thomas Chance, Platos Euthydemus (Berkeley, 1992); R.S.W. Hawtrey,Commentary on Platos Euthydemus (Philadelphia, 1981); R.K. Sprague, Platos Use of

Fallacy(New York, 1962), pp. 133.8 These are the words of the Athenian Stranger in Platos Laws (719).9 The method of analysis presented here was expressed in Jacob Klein,

A Commentary on Platos Meno (Chapel Hill, 1965), Introductory Remarks and inStanley Rosen,Platos Symposium(New Haven, 1968), Introduction.



6/25

Soc.: About which are you asking, Crito? There were two of them,not one.

Cri: The man who I mean was sitting next but one to you on yourright. Between you was Axiochus boy, and he, Socrates,seemed to me to have grown a great deal, so as to look almostthe same age as my Critobulus, whois rather puny, whereas this

boy has come on finely, and has a noble air about him. (271a,b)

Critos opening question was apparently stimulated by what he saw ratherthan what he heard. He saw an older man sitting next to a young man. The

youth, whom he recognizes as Axiochus son (he does not mention Cleiniasby name), is younger than his son Critobolus. Unlike Critobolus, however, hehas become physically well developed and handsome. Seeing the boy, Critoimmediately compares him to his own son, whom he described to Socrates as

weak and undersized. Given the positive way in which he spoke of Cleiniasphysique, Critos inquiry seems to have been the expression of disappoint-ment on his own behalf and pity on behalf of his son.

At the end of the Euthydemus, Crito exposes the extent of his disappoint-ment about Critobulus to Socrates. It is far more extensive than a simple sad-ness that his son has not developed physically as he had hoped. Crito

passionately expresses doubt about his whole way of life.

When I am in your company, the effect on me is such as to make me feel it ismere madness to have taken ever so many pains in various directions for the

good of my sons. First, I married with an eye to them being of very noblebirth, on their mother s side. Then, I spent my life making money with suchfervor so that they might be as well off as possible, that I have neglectedthem by neglecting their training. (306d,e)

This is the expression of self-doubt regarding the priorities that havedirected a large part of his activities. He has misspent his life because he hadthe wrong priorities. Evidently he was not of noble birth himself and has

devoted his life to transforming his status.10 It sounds as though Crito is com-plaining that he has lived his life through his aspirations for his children andnow may have doubts as to whether it has been entirely worth it. He hasdoubts, now, about having lived for their benefit and not for his own. Good

birth and money have not proven to be sufficient as the proper goods for hissons.

Critos message is an equivocal one. On the one hand, he expresses regretthat hes been too busy making money to attend to the education of his sons,and in particular, of Critobulus, who does not appear to have developed physi-cally as Crito would have hoped. He now seems to believe that a good educa-tion will be the proper corrective to what Crito judges is an error in nature.

40 M.J. PLAX

10 This would suggest that, at the time he married, class lines in Athens were notunalterably fixed. Critomay have beenconcerned that Critobolus was unprepared to farewell in the democracy in which they were currently living.



7/25


On the other hand, Critos enthusiasm for being in Socrates company alsoexpresses a sadness that hes wasted a great deal of his life worrying about hissons at all. Perhaps he should have imitated Socrates way of life and not haveconcerned himself with his sons, or even perhaps his wife. He is experiencingambivalence about which way of life he should have chosen. If anything,

Critos passionate confession is an expression of envy of the Socratic life.At the extremes of the dialogue Crito therefore exposes himself as being

reluctant to admit that he is ambivalent about anything. That reticence is con-sistent with his general reticence about revealing any of his emotions. Socra-tes narrative provides him with an opportunity to openly and passionatelyexpress at least one emotion, and that expression will permit us to penetrate

Critos poker face.Critos animated expression of self-doubt at the end of the dialogue was not

the first time he openly expressed himself enthusiastically. In the middle ofthe dialogue, Crito interrupted Socrates account of his conversation withCleinias. Socrates had been reporting on Cleinias rejection of generalship asthe art that will produce happiness. He had noted also that, almost as an aside,

Cleinias also rejected geometry, astronomy and calculation. Socrates thenpraised Cleinias. As though in a response to the praises, Crito boldly inter-rupted, challenging Socrates memory and asserting that Cleinias could nothave made those observations! In effect, Cleinias could not have been able tomake such observations. He is too young to be able to know these things.

If his first expression of envy of Cleinias was controlled, the second was far

m or e em phatic. Cr ito s m om entar y expr es s ion of enthus ias m isuncharacteristic.

Socrates was narrating his conversation with Cleinias in which the twowere searching for that art which would produce human happiness. Cleiniashad rejected speechmaking in general. He did so because speechmaking can

be divided into two parts: speech-writing and speech-delivering. Not all

speechwriters are good orators (or rhetors) and not all orators are goodspeechwriters. The rejection was based on the assumption that happinessrequires the unity of production and use.

Socrates ironically praised Cleinias for having offered sufficient proof forhis rejection. He then tells Crito directly that, for him, the art of the orator is a

part of the sorcerers art. Sorcerers charm snakes, tarantulas, scorpions and

other beasts and diseases. By implication, orators charm juries, assemblies,crowds, etc. Socrates is indirectly revealing the art required to tame the citi-zens of a democracy.

Having rejected speechmaking, Socrates and Cleinias came to a dead end.They are rescued by a Socratic inspiration Generalship or Strategy is the artthat produces happiness! Cleinias is quick to reject this, too. Generalship, per

Cleinias, is a species of hunting men, so generals, qua generals, too fail tomeet the criterion of self-sufficiency. Cleinias argues that hunters and



8/25

fisherman turn their catches over to caterers (or cooks, who prepare thecatch to be eaten), just as geometers, astronomers and calculators, at leastthose who are not foolish, turn their discoveries over to dialecticians to use

properly.Socrates calls Cleinias handsome and ingenious. Encouraged by the

praise, the young man continues. When generals have successfully captured acity or an army they turn it over to politicians, just as quail-hunters hand birdsto quail-keepers.

On hearing this, Crito bursts out:

Crito: What you are saying, Socrates? Such was said by that boy?Socrates: You dont believe it was he, Crito?

Crito: ByZeus,I dont.I amabsolutely certain thatif hedid, hewouldnot need an education from Euthydemus or any other humanbeing!

Socrates: Then, by the gods, perhaps it was Ctessipus, and my memoryfails me.

Crito: Ctessipus indeed!

Quite uncharacteristically, Crito challenges Socrates. He doesnt ask, in aquiet way, if Socrates is certain it was Cleinias who said it. Rather, he is ada-

mant in his expression of incredulity. When Socrates responds with a questionabout Critos belief, Crito answers firmly and affirms his certitude by swear-ing by Zeus.

As though mocking Crito, Socrates, curiously, answers an oath with an oathof his own. Crito, however, is not convinced that Socrates claim that hismemory failed him was serious. In other words, Crito is not unaware of Socratic irony.

Socrates recognizes that Crito, in expressing himself so directly and force-fully, wasacting out of character. Afterthen eliminating both Euthydemus andDionysodorus as sources of the statements, Socrates addresses Crito in a sur-

prising manner:

Socrates: Tell me,daimonic Crito, was there a superior power that wasthere to speak? For that speech I heard, I am sure.

It is unlike Crito to challenge Socrates. Something mysterious must be mov-

ing him to do so.11 Recognizing that he has revealed more of himself that hemight wish, Crito retreats to his sober self. He drops his quest for the authorof Socrates account, asking Socrates what art, that is, what human inventionsatisfies both the conditions of making and using properly.

42 M.J. PLAX

11 This parry to Critos thrust also affirms that Socrates narrative is a product of theMuse, not of Memory.



9/25


V

Critos Envy

What was it that prompted Crito to lose control, even if only for a moment?Critos guarded naturemake a direct answerimpossible to ascertain. But it can

be inferred from an explosive encounter in which Ctessipus (who may be apossible rival of Critobulus for the affections of Cleinias) expressed his indig-nation towards Dionysodorus. Socrates account of Ctessipus emphatic

accusation of Dionysodorus exposes an ambivalence in Ctessipus that pro-vides an indirect clue to a certain unexpressed ambivalence that Crito has

about his own son, Critobolus.After refuting Cleinias on the question of who aknoweris, the wise or the

ignorant, Dionysodorus asked Socrates whether he wants Cleinias to be wise,that is, not unwise. Socrates agrees. Dionysodorus then asks whether Cleinias

is wise yet. Socrates says no. Dionysodorus then concludes, So you wish himto be what he is not and to be no longer what he is now. (283e)

Socrates, pausing in his narrative to speak directly to Crito, admits he wasconfused. He then reports that Dionysodorus seized that moment, and exploit-ing the equivocal meanings of being (living or having a certain condi-tion) and not-being (dead or having a different condition, in this

instance wise), drives home the following conclusion: Since you want himto be no longer what he is now, you wish him,apparently, to be dead. (283e)

Ctessipus indignantly objected to the implication of this equivocation. It

clearly reflects badly on him and on his reputation, especially with Cleinias.He threatens Dionysodorus, reminding him that he is not a citizen, but a visi-tor to Athens, calling him stranger from Thurii. Ctessipus then accuses

Dionysodorus of speaking falsely about him when concluding that he,Ctessipus, wishes for the death of Cleinias. He charges the brothers with beinguncaring about love; they are cold towards eros. But before he expressed adesire for revenge, he hesitated, excusing himself on the grounds that it would

be too rude and impious to express it.Ctessipus might have simply laughed at the ridiculous nature of

Dionysodorus inference and ridiculed it. But he did not. What stimulatedCtessipus indignation? Ctessipus was not angry at simply being falselyaccused. His expression of indignation reveals ambivalence by Ctessipustowards Cleinias. Dionysodorus ridiculous conclusion exposed Ctessipus

equivocal admiration for his beloved. What appears to have been a ridiculouslogical jump by Dionysodorus, proved to be, in reality, an insightful psycho-

logical revelation.What did Ctessipus indignation cover up? That one who is a beloved is not

just pursued, butenviedby the lover for being so beautiful. The lover not onlyknows that he (or she) is the less beautiful. This knowledge makes the loverfeel inferior and compels him to wish that his beloved would be the pursuerinstead. Because Ctessipus feels inferior to Cleinias in beauty, he gets



10/25

pleasure, albeit a secret, impious pleasure, in contemplating Cleinias beautyto perish!12

Envy stems from our capacity to make comparisons. Making comparisons,humans become competitive and wish to attain superiority. But not all com-

parisons are true comparisons. People make imaginary ones every day. Most

often, these imaginary comparisons affirm ones own feeling of inferiorityand ones desire to feel superior. Thus, imaginary comparisons make it easy toconclude that what is mine isthe best. Only when these imaginary claims ofsuperiority are challenged is the person compelled to consider whether theself-affirming conclusion of a comparison is a misjudgment or not. Whencompelled to conclude that what is ones own is inferior, the person is inclined

to wish that what is his or her own would be other than what it presently is.People are also likely to become indignant (thymotic).

Envy, however, can also give rise to pleasure. In thePhilebus(48b), Socra-tes tells his companion, Protarchus, that the envious will come to light as tak-ing pleasure in the evils of his neighbors. Envy, which can be easily hidden,will be exposed when the person envied suffers in some way. Crito, the envi-

ous father, has no doubt been taking pleasure in listening to the way Cleiniashas been suffering at the hands of the two brothers, even though he does notexpress it to Socrates. As he does with other matters, Crito withholds expres-sion of his emotions. It would not be honourable to do so. He might also betaking secret pleasure, on behalf of his son Critobolus, in the thought of thehandsome Cleinias being dead.

What can be said, therefore, of Critos feelings towards his son, Critobolus?Envy is often accompanied by self-pity. So it is likely that on seeing Cleinias,Crito also experienced feelings ofshameand fearthat his son, and by exten-sion, himself and his wife, will be silently laughed at. In the Crito, heacknowledges that he is concerned with the opinion of the Many. It would not

be a surprise if Crito believes that Critobulus small size reflects badly on him,

and on his wife.There is no question that Crito loves his son. But having made the compari-

son with Cleinias, he was likely to secretly harbour his own wish thatCritobulus be other than he presently is. Dionysodorus bold assertion thatanyone who wishes for a beloved one to be other than he presently is wishesthat the beloved one be dead exposed a painful truth about Critos relation-

ship with his son Critobulus. The wish, even if it remained unspoken, couldhardly be anything but embarrassing for a father, especially for someone sosensitive to the opinions of the Many. Indignant, if not painfully guilty, at hisown impious wish, Crito underwent a momentary emotional change, that was

44 M.J. PLAX

12 The threat to Socrates from his formal accusers will come from defenders of thecity, whose thymos is directed at Socrates in the same fashion that Ctessipus defendsCleinias indignation by any hint that what is loved is being attacked and is beingthreatened with destruction. This analysis may suggest that they are similarlyambivalent, in this case, about the city and about the gods of the city.



11/25


made manifest in his emphatic expression of incredulity about who it was whouttered the denial of the absolute goodness of productions of generals, geome-ters, astronomers and calculators. Envy, therefore, was the stimulant that initi-ated the second (middle) discussion Crito had with Socrates.

In that middle conversation between Crito and Socrates, Crito appears

interested in finding out whether Socrates and Cleinias were able to identifythat art which produces human happiness. But Crito knows that Socrates hasnot been truthful with him, so he is likely suspicious about anything that Soc-rates will tell him.

In response to Critos question, Socrates in effect says, Dont be silly, wedidnt even get close to an answer. For having asked the question Crito is jok-

ingly referred to as innocent (makarie). Socrates reports that he and Cleiniasfailed in their quest to find the art that satisfies both the requirements of pro-duction and proper use of what is produced. Each time they thought they hadthe answer, they discovered it was not correct. The answers, Socrates tellsCrito, were like crested larks that seem to escape the grasp of children runningafter them. Socrates metaphor implies that the inquiry made by Cleinias and

him was not truly artful, but random, like children running after any bird theybelieve they can catch. In other words, they seem to have grasped at whatevercame up. This method has the same character as that used by the brothers,for which they will be criticized later, when Crito reports to Socrates a conver-sation he had with someone who had also been present at yesterdaysconversations.

Socrates does not offer to repeat the entire process of questioning. Whatneed is there to tell the story at length? By the time we reached our examina-tion of the Kingly Art . . . we were as though in a labyrinth. Since he fails torepeat for Crito why each of them was rejected, one can only infer what Socra-tes and Cleinias talked about.

What topics did Socrates take for granted that Crito recognized and under-

stood without being explicitly reminded? Socrates relates he and Cleiniastook up the subject of the Political Art and took the view that this art and theKingly (basilike) Art, or the Art of the King, implies the Art of Ruling by OneMan. (It is not evident whether they dismissed all other forms of rule out ofhand or whether they explored each and rejected all of them, exceptMonarchy.)

In the course of describing how he and Cleinias searched forthe Ruling Art,Socrates made use of three words that later became part of the philosophicvocabulary telos,archeand eudaimonia. Since Socrates is conversing onthis subject with a young man who is unfamiliar with philosophy, he cannothave meant these terms as abstract philosophic concepts, but instead, as theywould be familiar to anyone in daily speech.

Greater light is shed on the meaning of these words by considering thatCleiniascan be translated as famous, in contrast to his father, whose name



12/25

Axiochus, can be translated as sufficient or satisfactory. Cleinias namereveals the core of his character. He is ambitious, suggesting that the threewords should be understood as relating to that ambition. Crito, who is a suc-cessful entrepreneur, also likely interprets these words in light of his ownambition, even if he does not expressly reveal himself as politically

ambitious.Eudaimonia can mean happiness but ordinarily means prosperity.Telos

can mean complete or perfect, but ordinarily means accomplished orperfect in his kind.Arche, refers to first principles, but when used in speak-ing about politics, can mean realm or form of government, or present gov-ernment.13

Crito would have therefore understood that Socrates and Cleinias weresearching for the perfect form of government. What would that mean? As asuccessful entrepreneur, Crito would have understood Socrates to be sayingthat he and Cleinias were trying to determine which kind of Ruler would pro-duce the greatest prosperity.

Socrates tells Crito that he and Cleinias examined the political art as the

source of right conduct (orthos prattein), precisely as Aeschylus lineexpresses it, seated alone at the helm of the city, steering the whole, com-manding the whole, and making the whole useful.

Socrates neither mentions the name of the play, nor does he quote the lineprecisely. The proper quote is: Whoever is at the helm of the city keeps watchupon affairs, guiding the tiller without resting his eyelids in sleep. Neither

does Socrates indicate that it is the opening line ofSeven Against Thebes. Hefails to identify the fact that the statement was made by the King of Thebes,Eteocles. Socrates is also silent about the fact that the words were uttered atthe opening of a play that reveals the ravages of a fratricidal civil war, inwhich family justice opposes political justice.

Nor does Socrates reveal that Eteocles is the son of Oedipus, the parricide

and tyrant. Oedipus, who is both the father of his sonsandtheir brother, is themodel of equivocation. Perhaps Critos relationship with his son is equivocalin yet another sense. He is as much a brother to his son as he is a father. Inother words, his Paternal Authority may be compromised by Critos attemptto get close to his son as a buddy.

Eteocles is a general anda king who is defending his own territory from

attack, by his brother. The play therefore reveals a defect in Cleinias descrip-tion of the general. In some cases, generals, especially those who are alsokings, are not simply hunters; they can also becomethe hunted.

Eteocles might have avoided becoming the hunted if he had properlyjudged his brother Polyneices ambition. Rather than dealing with his brotherpolitically and sharing the monarchy as had been agreed to, he offered to give

46 M.J. PLAX

13 The word arche is also the root of the ancient Athenian post of archon. ThePlatonic dialogueEuthyphrotakes place on the porch of the Archon.



13/25


his brother an economic solution instead. In effect, he acted as though politi-cal ambition could be treated as a matter of doing business, that is, as simplya matter of money. His effort failed and intensified the civil conflict. Thedesire to rule politically cannot be satisfied by wealth. Wealth, in terms ofmoney, is not the goal of the politically ambitious and offers of money only

intensify the envy that the aspirant has towards the ruler.Why would Socrates introduce this issue in such an indirect way? Is Critos

household in a state of civil war? Is it possible that Critobolus has becomecontemptuous towards his father? Crito did later admit that he had been too

busy making money to educate his son. Crito may have erred by trying to dis-sipate his sons contempt with money. This philanthropy towards his son

might also help assuage whatever negative feelings he would have towardsCritobulus poor physical condition. Sensitive to both his own inferiority andhis fathers compensating action, Critobulus would predictably be contemptu-ous towards Crito. Socrates seems to be inviting Crito to further learn thatwealth cannot be a satisfactory ground of Paternal Authority.

VI

Crito as a Farmer and Lover of Money

In the middle discussion with Crito, Socrates also indicates that Crito is afarmer. But given that he has the leisure to come to the Lyceum, it is clear that

he does not work the land by himself. He is not a subsistence farmer, but

rather, is what one might today call a commercial farmer. Since he is identifiedlater as being excessively interested in making money, it is reasonable to inferthat Crito is what would today be called a businessman or entrepreneur.

This is significant for the discussion of the subject of Generalship or Strat-egy, along with the subject of happiness. Crito, as a commercial farmer, would

readily have inferred that the discussion of the wealth-producing city was onethat involved a discussion of the production of a policy of building anEmpire. Furthermore, since Socrates also told Crito that happiness requiresnot just production but also proper use, then it is also likely that he andCleinias discussed the goodness of the Athenian Empire. For Crito, the Econ-omists Art or the Art of Household Management, is what defines the Ruling

Art.The polity is the household writ large.Crito had uncharacteristically challenged Socrates account of his discus-

sion with Cleinias when the subject of Generalship or Strategy as the RulingArt was considered and rejected. What would have made Crito so sensitive?In addition to being envious of Cleinias physical attractiveness, Crito couldeasily have inferred that the discussion considered politicians like Pericles,

and generals like Alcibiades, Cleinias grandfather; that is, the PeloponnesianWar and its effects on Athens. As a commercial farmer, Crito may well havealso sold food to supply Athenian military and naval personnel. Just as profitfor the entrepreneur means expansion of business, Crito would have had good



14/25

economic reasons to support any political action that would have meantexpansion of the Athenian hegemony.

Having laid the groundwork for a discussion of this topic, Socrates contin-ued his narrative about the direction of his conversation with Cleinias. Laterwe considered whether the Ruling Art (the Kingly Art) that rules over all, pro-

duces any thing or not. He tells Crito they agreed it did and then asked Crito ifhe agreed. He did.

Crito is then asked by Socrates what the effect, that is, product, of the Rul-ing Art is. In order to help him answer, Socrates offers two examples of artsthat do have products: medicine and farming. If the physicians end is to pro-duce health and the farmers is to produce food, what does the Ruling Art pro-

duce? Socrates, again, forecloses on any answer Crito could provide bysuggesting that perhaps he is not ready to answer. Crito grabs the opportunitynot to answer. But he responds, again, with an oath: No, by Zeus, Socrates!This dramatic response is a signal that Crito is embarrassed.

When Socrates says . . . this much you know, that if this is really the one(art) we are searching for, it must be useful (ophelimon), Crito answers: Cer-

tainly. When Socrates asks: then it must provide some good? Critoresponds, Necessarily. The good follows necessarily from the useful or ben-eficial. Since ophelimon, which can mean useful or beneficial can alsomean profitable, Crito is likely to have understood the question of not just

producing food, but selling it and making money.What was unsaid, by either Socrates or Crito, and therefore remains unex-

amined, is whether the art of household management, that is, the art ofmoney-making, is an art that is the same as, or different from, the arts of medi-cine and farming. Whatever may be the case,14 Critos political judgment mayhave been flawed.

When Crito, in his first discussion with Socrates, learned that there weretwo men and they were Sophists, he asked where they were from. Socrates

responded with two answers. They were born, he believed, on Chios, but theymost recently came from Thurii, from where they had been exiled. Chios is thealleged birthplace of Homer. But the brothers did not remain there. But alsomentioned is Thurii. What is the significance of that location for Crito? Sincehe and Socrates discussed the political art in their second conversation, it isnot unreasonable to assume that Thurii is of political significance to Crito

personally.Socrates was familiar with the brothers. They had been in Athens beforegoing to Thurii. Socrates described them as Pancratists (all-around fighters),differentiated from the two brothers from Acarnania, who fight with their

bodies only (271c). There is nothing Socrates says anywhere else that givesthe reader a clue as to why he made the contrast. But because of that, it is evi-

dent that Socrates is speaking to Crito about something Crito understands,

48 M.J. PLAX

14 This issue will be examined in a forthcoming essay.



15/25


even if no one other than Crito understands what he is referring to. In otherwords, there are some parts of the discussion between the two men that areprivate but may not be unknown to Critos contemporaries. A contemporaryreader is therefore compelled to search for the significance of this commentoutside of the dialogues.

Crito offers no evidence that he is familiar with the brothers or that Thuriimeans anything to him. This does not mean that he had no interest in the refer-ences to Thurii and to the Acarnanians. Having revealed how cautious Crito isabout exposing his emotions about anything, one might not be surprised. Itwould be reasonable, therefore, to suspect that his reference to both is of sig-nificance to Crito.

Thurii was an Athenian colony in Italy and played a role in thePeloponnesian War. The word Thurii means New Town.15 It was an Athe-nian colony founded after an indigenous population, the Sybarites, invited theAthenians to help them rebuild after they had been defeated by a neighbour,Croton. The Sybarites asked the Athenians to supply settlers to increase their

population. Pericles was able to create a Pan-Hellenic colony, composed of

settlers from various parts of Greece, including people from Chios. He pro-vided also for the creation of a new constitution by enlisting the aid of theSophist Protagoras.

According to Aristotle (in thePolitics), the regime was unstable. Thurii iscited as an example of a regime that decayed into factional conflict due to dis-similarity of stock. This occurred twice in the history of the city, both times

over the question of which people should rule the city as a result of havingbeen among its founding members. Instead of assimilating into one commu-nity, the founding fathers remained identified by the cities of their birth(1303a29-31). Aristotle also reports on civil conflicts arising due to animproper balance of power between the economic classes and age groups. Thewealthy distributed public offices on the basis of the ability to pay taxes and

they bought all the available land of the city. Furthermore, when younger gen-erals were prevented, by law, from being elected, as generals, for more thanfive years, they rebelled. Successful in pressing for the overturning of thislaw, they pressed for changes in many other parts of the law (1307a5-30).

Aside from the error he admitted regarding his marriage, Crito also appearsto have made a political error, one that Socrates knows, but fails to press Crito

to openly admit.Ironically, Socrates seems purposefully trying to prevent him from doingso. Socrates achieves this by cutting Crito off before he ever has a chance torespond to any questions Socrates poses. It is as though confessions of pasterrors are not what Socrates is seeking. It was not the actual error in the poli-cies he supported that is at issue for Socrates, but the assumptions on which

15 The account of Thurii was found in Donald Kagan, The Outbreak of thePeloponnesian War(Ithaca, NY, 1969), Chapter 9.



16/25

the errors were made. To discern those assumptions, it will be necessary to

return to the start of the discussion between Socrates and Cleinias about the

Kingly Art.Socrates reports that he and Cleinias reached the Kingly Art and tried to

ascertain if this art provides and produces happiness (eudaimonia). But the

quest advanced nowhere; each time they returned to the beginning. In other

words, they came back to the assumption that the Political and the Kingly Art

are the same.Socrates and Cleinias arrived at this assumption by adopting the position of

the status of the various arts in a democracy that had been expressed by Socra-tes, in theProtagoras(319 c,d). In that dialogue, Socrates observed that, in a

democracy, the opinions of those skilled in such arts as medicine are given

deference when issuesarise for which the knowledge of medicine is necessary

to solve the problem. The same isnotthe case when political questions arise.

When questions of policy are debated, no one is recognized as having a supe-

rior level of knowledge. On the basis of this observation, he concluded that in

a democracy there is no recognition of the existence of a Political Art.

Yet Socrates indicates to Crito that he and Cleinias continued to search for

the political art. He cites two examples of arts that produce some effect: medi-

cine and farming. He gets Crito to agree that medicine produces health and

that farming produces food.

Having provided answers to his own questions regarding medicine and

farming, Socrates next turns to the political art itself.

Soc. And what of the Kings Art? In ruling over all that comes underits rule, what does it produce? Perhaps you are not quite readywith the answer.

Cri. I am not, by God (Dia), Socrates.

Again Crito responds with an oath. Is he embarrassed that he has no answer or

is he relieved that he doesnt have to provide one?

Soc. Nor were we, Crito. Yet you know that if this is really the onewe are seeking it must be beneficial.

But what could be embarrassing? Is it that Crito really does not have an

answer, or is the answer he had in mind embarrassing? Is it not likely that

Crito would have said that the product, or the end, of the political art is theLaws or Justice?

As a commercial farmer, Crito had to deal with his fellow farmers in the

course of commercial competition. Some of these farmers were Imperialists.

Some may have contested the boundaries of their neighbours properties in an

effort to acquire more land for themselves. Others may have grazed their cat-

tle on their neighbours property. Still others may have prevented a neighbour

from having access to water by diverting it. Some may have poisoned the

50 M.J. PLAX



17/25


water that they did allow to flow on their neighbours property (Laws 885). As

much as he might have wished that the laws of the city were to define Justice

as minding your own business, in reality Crito knew from experience that

Justice more closely approximated the idea of giving what is owed.This latter principle is the key to Critos philanthropy towards his

life-long friend Socrates. In the Critohe exhibits it by his willingness to take

the risk of coming to the jail, bribing the jail guard, and trying to convince

Socrates to escape. But does Crito reveal any similar inclination towards phi-

lanthropy in the Euthydemus?

VII

What is Ones Own?

Socrates final narrative of his encounter with the brothers is a report of how

they defeated him. That defeat had been initiated with a discussion of what is

ones own and with recognizing wisdom as ones own. This concluded the

subject, begun at the start of the dialogue, of what it means to know.

(Knowing and who is a Knower started the dialogue.) But it ended, not as it

started, but by considering who is an Owner and what can be owned.Socrates tells Crito that the issue closing the discussion with the brothers

was whether Socrates can sell or sacrifice his Zeus (who is, ironically, the pro-

tector of oaths). The topic is the Olympian gods. By exploiting the equivocal

meanings of zoa (living being or animal) and psyche (soul or life),

Dionysodorus got Socrates to agree that gods are like mere animals.Dionysodorus then asked Socrates:

Are these gods (Zeus, Apollo and Hera) living beings? You admitted thatwhat has psyche (life) is a living being (animal). Or do the gods have nopsyche?

If the opposite ofzoa is not-living, then it is possible to interpret not-living

as dead or not being. In effect, Socrates agreed that man is the master of the

gods and not the reverse (302d-303b). Thus, Socrates agreed,in public, that

the gods might not exist. Socrates, therefore, was forced to agree, in public,

with the Sophist Protagoras. Having done this, Socrates admitted defeat.

Socrates defeat was not simply a matter of having lost a meaningless

debate. What Socrates agreed to in public will prove to be the grounds of the

charges against him by his accusers. The defeat of Socrates in theEuthydemuspresages his being charged in court.

VIII

Critos Cautiousness Overcome

Only after Socrates has recalled his defeat does Crito truly reveal himself. He

does so, ironically, by mimicking Socrates. He does so by providing a recol-

lection of his own. He tells Socrates of an encounter he had with a third person



18/25

while I was taking a stroll before he approached Socrates with the questionthat opened the dialogue.

The man referred to by Crito had asked him whether he had learned any-thing from yesterdays demonstration by Euthydemus and Dionysodorus.16

Crito strongly denied it with, God No! Crito then reports to Socrates that he

told the man that it was impossible for him to hear anything, since the crowdaround the discussants was too large. Crito repeatsto Socrates now what hetold Socrates at the start of their conversation at the beginning of the dialogue.How trustworthy is this repetition? The strength of Critos rejection, with theoath, must raise the suspicion that either he took his cue from the mockingtone of the questioner, or he actually did hear what the brothers were saying

but did not want anyone to know.The man then, tongue-in-cheek, praised the brothers as the best among

those who were teaching at this time. But he then demeaned the brothers, saysCrito, for making inconsequential ado about matters of no consequence, . . .(or) . . . something like that (304e) (italics mine). Crito is demonstrating thehe, too, can give apoetic recollection. One can imagine Crito smiling behind

his poker face and thinking to himself, Two can play the game of havingfaulty memories!

Socrates seems less interested in Crito than he is with the namelessspeechmaker. He asks, what kind of speechmaker isthis man?Is hean oratoror a speechwriter? Crito answers that he is a speechwriter, but he responds asthough he were surprised by the question. He swears by god (Dia) that the

man is not an orator (rhetor). He does not speak in court, nor has he ever trieda case. But the man has a good reputation for knowing about things in general(pragmata), by god! for being clever at turning out speeches in the courts,involving public crimes (dikasteria). According to Crito, this nameless manconsiders himself wise. Crito further tells Socrates that the namelessspeechwriter has a reputation for exciting people by his work, by God!

What is all the swearing on Critos part about? It appears to be Critos wayof preventing Socrates from asking him to name the speechwriter. In fact,Crito stops swearing as soon as Socrates changes the subject, thereby indicat-ing that he will not ask Crito for the persons name.

Relieved of the concern of exposing his source, Crito tells Socrates that thespeechwriter told him that Euthydemus and Dionysodorus were careless in

the way they created their arguments. He also asserted to Crito that philoso-phy is useless. Crito reports to Socrates that he made a mild defence of thebrothers by saying, philosophy is something charming. His one-phrasedefence is met with an attack on himself by the speechwriter. Crito tells

52 M.J. PLAX

16 Would the man have asked about Crito becoming a student of the brothers had henot had some reason to believe that Crito did hear what was taking place? That he sawCritothereis evident.But wheredidhe seeCrito standing? It must not havebeenobvious,to him at least, that Crito could not have heard yesterdays conversations.



19/25


Socrates that the nameless man responded with, You foolish innocent

(makarie). In admitting to Socrates what the nameless speechwriter said of

him, Crito, in effect, exposed himself in a self-effacing manner that is yet

another reflection of Socratic irony his self-deprecating innocence.After having exposed himself as an innocent, Crito then reports to Socrates

that the man was also critical of Socrates for having held a discussion with the

brothers. The nameless man criticized Socrates for conversing with the both-

ers, since they do not care what they say, but fasten on to any phrase that turns

up. As practised by Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, eristic is a knackrather

than anart. The nameless speechwriter is far more critical of the brothers than

he is of Socrates.Crito then chastises Socrates himself, saying that Socrates should not have

spoken with the brothers in public. As Crito reports the conversation, the criti-

cism expressed by the speechwriter is equally critical of both the brothers and

Socrates. He is indifferent as to whether Socrates conversed in private or in

public. The political implication of Socrates conversation is not the crux of

his criticism. But it isthe crux of Critos criticism. Critos concerns are the

result of his sensitivity to matters political.While sounding as though it was merely a copy or image of that of the

speechwriter, Critos criticism is directed only to Socrates. It is, in reality, an

accusation against Socrates. Critos criticism is not of what Socrates said, but

what he said in public. It is a criticism of Socrates imprudence. Since Socra-

tes did not resist the conclusion that was drawn by the brothers, Crito right-fully assumed that Socrates was being ironic. Therefore he is critical of

Socrates forbeing ironic in a circumstance that will prove harmful politically.

IX

Critos Philanthropy

Critos accusation of Socrates imprudence is, in effect, a demonstration of

Critos philanthropy. He came to warn Socrates of hiserror and the vulnerabil-

ity he has opened himself to. This is the other reason he appealed to Socrates

to recollect what took place at the start of the dialogue. But, as all of Critos

actions, this one is also not expressed boldly. He neither exhorts Socrates to

refrain from further public displays of this nature, nor does he chastise Socra-

tes in public. He only chastises Socrates, in private, after he has heard, from

Socrates himself, what Socrates expressed in public.Crito was able to anticipate the problem for Socrates precisely because he

wassensitive to the opinion of the Many. Socrates failure, in Critos eyes, is

that he ignored the opinion of the Many in encouraging the young, by exhorta-

tion and by deed, to study eristics. In other words, Critos accusation against

Socrates is that Socrates was being apolitical and by being so, was putting

himself at risk. If the Apology provides any clue of this, Socrates admits to

being inattentive to the change that has taken place in the Athenian demos.



20/25

What was harmless slander against him, initiated by Aristophanes, is nolonger harmless. Socrates apolitical tendency is of concern to Crito.

Crito appears to sense that the Many is no longer constrained by shame andbelieves it is free to exercise its resentment against those whom it judges supe-rior men like Socratesandmen like himself, who are successful entrepre-

neurs and who are wealthy.17

But the envy of the Many of Socrates is not the same kind of envy of menlike Crito. A clue to his concerns may be found in another conversation thatSocrates had about moneymaking with yet another nameless interlocutor. IntheHipparchus, Socrates speaks with a nameless interlocutor about profiteer-ing. The interlocutor is not a disinterested party to the conversation. By his

remarks, he proves to be someone who believes someone interested in makinga profit has defrauded him. He is, in effect, an accuser of the wealthy and callsthem wicked, villainous and shameless. Crito, therefore, must adjust his pub-lic persona to contain the harmful possible effects of that envy.

How does Crito shape that persona? He speaks indirectly to any subject indispute. Sensitive to how negatively people respond to being refuted, he

avoids engaging in discussions that will require him to refute others and givethem reason to seek revenge. It is better to concede. It is better to be refutedthan to refute! This strategy partially accounts for the reason he rejects eristic.He tells Socrates that he would rather be refuted than refute this way. Hewishes to confirm that he is not shameless and that he is also not an unscrupu-lous lover of victory at any price.

Men like Crito, however, are not above using their money to achieve theirends. In theCrito he admits to using his money to bribe the jail guard in aneffort to free Socrates. Successful entrepreneurs may not be above bribery.Those who are unscrupulous in business may use bribery in public by per-forming public sacrifices and prayer. This is a kind of bribery of the gods. Butthey may make public bribes as a way of covering up private bribes, as when

some men use their money to bribe juries. They recognize that if they engagein sacrifices to the gods and are seen doing so, they can support their claims incourt by pointing to their piety.

Crito may not necessarily have been unscrupulous in business, but he wascertainly aware of the necessity of using his money for philanthropic displays,

both to the gods and to the City. One can infer that philanthropy is not an unal-

loyed act of altruism. It is an equivocal action, grounded in both good will andin the need to quiet the envy of the Many.

54 M.J. PLAX

17 See Critos reference to, and expression of concern about, the Sycophants in theCrito.IntheRepublic (575b), sycophants areassociates of thetyrant. In theLaws (745a)the Athenian Stranger notes that profits are expected to be given to the city and that ifsycophantsinform on those who have not shared their profits with thecity, theinformersget half of the money collected.



21/25


Critos philanthropy is of a different nature. He has come to alert Socratesof the error he has made and the risk he has taken, merely for having engagedEuthydemus and Dionysodorus in public.

Were Socrates all-knowing, the untouchable Icon that he has been madeinto by current scholarship, one might suspect that this act of philanthropy

was unnecessary because Critos judgment was incorrect. But Socrates hasalready indicated his own vulnerability to Crito. It is related to his age.

Prior to relating to Crito what the various conversations were, Socratesinformed him that, as he was about to leave the Lyceum, he received a signfrom his daimon not to go. So he stayed seated where he was. Soon after-wards, Cleinias entered the room in which he was seated and joined him.

Shortly after that Euthydemus and Dionysodorus engaged both of them andthe conversations began.

Traditionally, Socrates claimed that hisdaimonkept him from harm. Priorto meeting the brothers, there was no threat to his self-preservation. Nor wasSocrates about to engage in any unjust action, which thedaimonicsign wouldhave prevented him from doing. Since his speaking and praising eristic in

public was an error in judgement, and subsequently dangerous, Socratesdaimon, likely for the first time, failed to prevent harm from coming to him.Socrates also may have actually engaged in an unjust action, by revealing tothe young men who were listening his final admission regarding the abilityof men to control the gods.

Hisdaimonhaving failed him, he is vulnerable. Perhaps for the first time,

Socrates experienced the decay of his divinely inspired capacity forself-preservation. Socrates knew that his age was making him vulnerable. Itwas time to die.18

In the first discussion with Crito, Socrates reported that he had taken up thestudy of the harp. Crito wondered why, given that he is growing old and hiscapacities for learning are weakening. For one who is unmusical, whywould

Socrates have engaged in such an activity? AtPhaedo60a and 64a, Socratesmentions a recurrent dream advising him to make music and describes phi-losophers as preparing for death. So Socrates recognizes that he is about todie. In other words, he already knew what Crito criticized him for doing. Healready knew the risk he was taking by talking with the brothers in public.Sensitive to the problem, Socrates allowed Critos philanthropic desires to be

fulfilled. It was a sign of Socrates own philanthropy.

18 Inthe Crito, Socrates will argue that one ought not to be concerned with dying. Butthis argumentis inconsistent with theend or goal of his daimon. If deathis not somethingto avoid, why didthe daimon warn himin other instances? Furthermore,alsoin the Crito,Socrates tells Crito about a dream he was having about the timing of his death. It wouldseem that the dream is a substitute for Socratesdaimon. The dream actually permits thedialogue to take place.



22/25

X

Critos Understanding of Philosophy

What is it that attracted Crito to Socrates? Was it merely a personal relation-

ship, or did Crito have an interest in philosophy? As an entrepreneur, why

would he have an interest in philosophy? The answer is revealed in the narra-

tive that he relates to Socrates about his discussion with the nameless

speechwriter.In Critos narrative of his discussion with the nameless speechwriter, he

told Socrates that the man had criticized the brothers and then asserted that

philosophy was useless. What did he mean by philosophy? First, he was sug-

gesting that philosophy, if it had any merit, must be useful. Second, he

included the brothers as among philosophers. In other words, for the nameless

speechwriter, philosophy included eristic! In truth, his criticism of philosophy

is really the criticism of eristic, since he elided philosophy and eristic.Crito did the same thing. In coming to the defence of philosophy, he was

really coming to the defence of eristic. When Crito said of philosophy, it is

charming, what did he mean? The word charming had been used by

Cleinias to refer to orators or rhetoricians. These men charm or tame a variety

of beasts. This is what Crito understood as the goal of philosophy. It is the

same as the goal of rhetoric. In effect, Crito silently accepted the elision of

philosophy and eristic. He defended philosophy to the nameless speechwriter

because philosophy is useful.Philosophy is indistinguishable from eristic for Crito because he has

accepted the view of philosophy as articulated by the Sophist Protagoras. At

Protagoras318e319, the Sophist Protagoras reveals that he teaches 1) good

judgement (euboulia) about the household; 2) how best to order ones home;

3) how best to order the city, that is, influence political things in action and

speaking. Central is ordering ones household. Immediately afterwards, he

differentiated himself from the other Sophists by noting that the others turned

their students towards calculation, astronomy, geometry and music (the sci-

ences that Cleinias said were useless without a dialectician), whereas he,

Protagoras, taught prudence in private as well as public affairs (319e).In the conversation preceding Critos direct interruption, Socrates, through

Cleinias, reiterates Protagoras argument. Cleinias rejects geometry, astron-

omy and calculation as incomplete without dialectic. In this case, dialecticseems to refer to the method of translating theory into practice. As a

farmer, Crito would have found this view compatible with his own. He likely

understood geometry as useful for land measurement, astronomy useful for

weather forecasting and calculating useful for auditing profit and loss.Socrates silent support of Protagorean arguments may not be as farfetched

as it appears. Protagoras had claimed that reality is such that there are two

56 M.J. PLAX



23/25


opposing ways to describe, account for, or to explain any given experience.19

This claim not only serves as the ground of eristic, it also provides the groundfor irony, including Socratic irony.

Sensitive to Critos interests, Socrates got Critos attention by adding thephrase and makes them useful to his misquote of Aeschylus opening line of

Seven Against Thebes. He understood that for Crito, philosophy is attractivebecause it is instructive and provides information that has utility whether inbusiness or in raising a family. This is why Crito silently accepts the view,expressed by Cleinias, that happiness, or prosperity, requires both productionand proper use. Crito is sufficiently curious about the brothers, but wants toknow what they promise to teach. He does not have time to waste on a science

that will have no utility.Critos utilitarian view of philosophy can also explain, even further, why

he was a friend of philosophy. He keeps the philosopher linked to the world ofaction, which is the world of everyday life and speech. Crito reminds the phi-losopher of the dangers of giving in to the temptation to remove oneselfentirely from politics.

But Critos philanthropy is equivocal. One might reasonably argue thatCritos financial generosity with respect to Socrates is that he envies Socrates.The only cure for his envy is to give Socrates money and thereby be able tofreely associate with him. It is this envy that best characterizes the gentle-man from the non-gentleman among the wealthy. Furthermore, as one whowishes to acquire money, Crito also wishes to acquire knowledge. But his

wish to acquire knowledge is unique. For him, philosophy is something to bepossessed, like everything else, including his wife and sons. The Idea he lovesis the Idea of Possession.

But it is precisely Critos presence in the Euthydemusthat creates furtherquestions. Are the two kinds of acquisition the same or different? Thus, thequestions arise: Can one know when one is wise? Can one possess wisdom?

This leads to two further questions. If philosophy is the path to wisdom, canone know what philosophy is? Can one ever possess philosophy? Can oneever possess a philosopher?

These questions cannot help but open up new possibilities for students ofthe other three Platonic dialogues in which Crito appears. As an entrepreneur(chrematist) and family man, he strives to be honourable. This goal requires

him to be attentive to the opinions of the Many. He must be a judge (krites) ofits temper.Crito is also sensitive to the equivocal meaning ofprattein, which can

mean, to succeed and to act rightly. He knows that one can act rightly andnot necessarily succeed; that success is sometimes the result of good luck. Heunderstands fully why Socrates philanthropy has failed topersuade the Many

19 Translated by Edward Schiappa in his Protagoras and Logos(Columbia, SC, 1991),p. 92.



24/25

that it is, in deed, philanthropy. Crito is able to understand it because he standsin-between the philosopher and the Many. He is neither totally Same nortotally Other. Crito fits the description of the man described by Prodicus asone who straddles two worlds. In contrast to Socrates, who demeans the strad-dler for not being One or the Other, Crito is, in a metaphoric sense, the equiva-

lent of eristic, which expresses, by its acknowledging and using the manyforms of equivocation, the problem of Being.

Eristic is a branch of Rhetoric. As such itischarming, as Crito said it was.But does it charm those who are subjected to it in the same way that sorcererscharm snakes and other beasts? The answer is yesandno. Eristic operatesin the realm of human discourse that exists between the equivocal language of

everyday life and the precision that philosophers seek by means ofdiairesis,or division according to kinds. If one follows the development of the tech-nique used by the brothers, it becomes clear that eristic charms by evoking

powerful passions in its victims and then numbs them by way of ridicule,badgering and finally irrationality.20

In one of their most outrageous moments, the brothers had argued that

falsehood and contradiction do not exist, and that what one agrees to at onetime is not binding in the future. These claims constitute a challenge to anyargument about the obligation of contracts, whether they are business con-tracts or social contracts. Crito, as an entrepreneur, knows from experiencethat contracts are never fully free from the threat of being violated. He alsoknows, from experience, that contradictions are never sufficient grounds for

dissuading people who have come to some agreement from abandoning theirobligation to that agreement in the future.

XI

From the Euthydemusto the Crito

This essay has exposed two aspects of the character of Socrates companionand benefactor, Crito, as he appears in theEuthydemus, his love of his familyand his love of money. There are other dimensions of Crito that have yet to beexplored, such as his beliefs about the relationship of the money-maker andthe polity. But, as should be clear now, Crito does not always say what he

means, nor is he open to speaking his mind until he has learned what others,including Socrates, have to say. There remains the question as to why Plato

utilized Crito as Socrates interlocutor in a dialogue that explicitly exposes themethods of eristic refutation.

The exposure of Critos character also opens the door to a re-reading of theother three Platonic dialogues in which he appears, and in particular the

58 M.J. PLAX

20 Socrates recollection seems to have affected Crito for more than the moment.Believing that Socrates daimon was dead, Crito concluded that he woulddo, by bribery,what Socrates daimon would have done saved his life. In effect, he becameDaimonicCrito. That, it would appear, is the problem of the Crito.



25/25


dialogue named after him. A reconsideration of the Critowill consider whyCrito is the only person who tries to induce Socrates to escape, that is, why itwas Crito and neither Plato nor Apollodorus who made any effort to save Soc-rates from the death penalty. One is lead also to consider why a dialogue thatexplicitly treats matters of obligation and contracts was constructed such that

the discussion takes place between two old men, with no younger one (exceptperhaps the prison guard) within hearing range. Finally, one is led to considerwhy the dialogue is named after Crito and in what sense something is implied,

by Plato, about the Socratic life relative to politics and to money-making.

Martin J.Plax CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

crito in plato’s euthydemus

Documents