Introduction

Jowett states that the Crito exhibits Socrates primarily as the good citizen obedient to law, rather than as the philosopher pursuing a divine mission.

Crito visits the imprisoned Socrates before dawn to persuade him to escape, citing practical means (money, friends in Thessaly) and moral duties (to his children).

Socrates refuses to be swayed by the opinions of the many, holding instead to reason and the judgment of the wise, and insists that only a just and honorable life matters.

Socrates invokes previously agreed-upon principles that no one should do evil, return evil for evil, or betray the right, and asks whether these should change due to altered circumstances.

Jowett describes how the Laws of Athens would confront Socrates, reminding him of his implicit agreement to obey them, his seventy years of residence, and his failure to propose exile at trial.

Jowett elaborates the Laws' argument that escape would dishonor Socrates and endanger his friends, and that exile to Thessaly would not genuinely protect his children or allow him to maintain his philosophical integrity.

The Laws urge Socrates to prioritize justice over life and children, promising that he will depart in peace and innocence as a sufferer rather than a wrongdoer.

Jowett notes that Socrates was accused of being a bad citizen because of his students' crimes and his neutrality in Athens' political struggles, and that Plato defends him on this point.

Jowett suggests that the visit and escape proposal may be Platonic invention, and that Crito's selection as the proposer reflects artistic design.

Jowett concedes that reasonable thinkers might disagree about whether unjustly condemned persons should escape, citing Shelley's view as a counterexample.

Jowett argues that Plato does not intend to settle casuistic questions but rather to exhibit the ideal of patient virtue that refuses to do evil to avoid evil, and to show Socrates maintaining his principles unto death.

Jowett explains that Socrates' claim that the wicked can do neither good nor evil refers specifically to moral harm, not physical harm.

Jowett praises the Crito as a perfect dialectical argument in which accepting the common principle makes the conclusion inescapable.

Jowett notes that the dream and Homeric parody anticipate the conclusion, and he highlights the personification of the Laws as a noble rhetorical device.