ENGL 298 B: Intermediate Writing Social Sciences   Autumn 2011, University of Washington

“Your present situation makes clear that the majority can inflict not the least but pretty well the greatest of evils if one is slandered among them.” (44d)

As I was reading through Crito, I tried my hardest to not focus on this assignment and to simply read and understand what Plato wrote. But when I came across this passage I stopped and wondered exactly what Plato meant by using the word “slandered.” I have my own definitions for the word, but I think in this context Plato was trying to convey a sense of wrong-doing on the part of the accusers. I think he meant slander in the sense of defamation, of malicious intent. Though this is a common definition for slander, there must have been a reason for using this specific word. In my opinion, I think Plato was trying to show exactly how wronged Crito felt about the situation. Clearly from the Apology Socrates had no remorse, but by using the word slandered, Crito made it very obvious that he felt Socrates had done nothing wrong and that the whole thing was wrong on the part of his accusers, as they had malicious intent. It just goes to show how much Crito cares for Socrates, but also how different his sense of virtue is from Socrates.

“If that is so, do you think that we are on equal footing as regards the right, and that whatever we do to you it is right for you to do to us?” (50e)

I found this passage very interesting in regards to the fact that Plato used the word “right” twice in the sentence. In my opinion, however, “right” has two different meanings in this context. The second usage I think is used as the most common definition; in accordance with what is proper or just. Socrates is saying that in this part it would be appropriate for him to do what they did to him. I think the first usage has more meaning to it, though, being defined as a just claim, whether legal or moral. Socrates is making the argument that the people of Athens do not see themselves on an equal footing legally as him, but I think he sneaks in a little comment about them also not seeing themselves as equally moral. It is interesting to think that figures more “important” legally might possibly think of themselves as more “important” morally as well. I believe that this is an important distinction for Socrates; the difference between what is legal and what is moral, though for the sake of his virtue he lumps legal and moral together.