To clarify the situation, Socrates now begins an imaginary dialogue in which the Laws of Athens are interrogating Socrates and Crito, assuming the role of questioner in a Socratic examination. The Laws, like the chorus of a Greek play, will raise questions on behalf of the city government about Socrates’ right to escape from prison.
“Tell me, Socrates,” say the personified Laws, “what are you thinking? Are you aiming by this plot you are undertaking to do anything other than to overthrow us the Laws and the whole city to the best of your ability? Do you think that any city, whose verdicts have no force but are invalidated and trampled on willy-nilly by individuals, can stand without being overturned?” What could we say to such an accusation?, Socrates asks. Or should we say, “The city wronged us and made a false judgment against us”?
“That’s exactly what we should say, by Zeus, Socrates!” Crito answers. Crito has a short memory, it seems, because this proposed reply to the Laws embodies a retaliation against the state. The Laws respond, “Socrates, was this the agreement between you and us, or rather that you should abide by the judgments the city should decree?”
The Laws go on to specify their relationship to each citizen of the state. “Didn’t we beget you insofar as your father married your mother through us and sired you? Tell us, those of us who rule over marriage, do you have any complaint to make about our being inadequate?” Socrates has none. “Well, what about those dealing with the upbringing of offspring and the education which you enjoyed? Didn’t those of us appointed to this task do well in directing your father to have you instructed in athletics and music?” Socrates has to assent.
“Well, then. Since we are responsible for your birth, your nurture, and your education, can you deny, first, that you are our offspring and servant, both you and your progenitors? And if this is so, do you consider us to have an equal standing before the law with you?” The Laws point out that Socrates did not have an equal standing with his father, nor would he with a master if he were an apprentice. He didn’t have the right to strike back if he were beaten or to talk back if he were berated. (Is this point meant to answer Aristophanes’ portrayal in the Clouds, in which Pheidippides, after studying with Socrates, beats his father Strepsiades [see ch. 14.4*]?)
“As regards your country and her laws, do you have the right, if we take action to put you to death because we consider it right to do so, to take action to destroy us the laws and your country in return, as far as you are able? And in doing this will you claim that you’re doing what’s right, you who actually care so much about virtue? Or are you so wise as to be unaware that your country is more honorable, more reverend, more holy than mother, father, or all your ancestors …? And if you must be beaten or imprisoned, if your country sends you to war to suffer wounds or death, that’s what you have to do and that is justice … you must do whatever your city and country commands, or persuade it that you have justice on your side. It isn’t holy to use violence against mother or father, and still less against your country.”[23]
In return for the benefits his city has conferred upon him, including his very birth and upbringing, Socrates owes it loyalty and complete obedience. The state can legitimately command its citizens to serve it, to defend it against its enemies, and to receive correction and punishment. The relationship of a citizen to his country is like that between a son and his father: the father can exercise authority over the son, but not vice versa.
[23].Plato Crito 50a-51c.