There has been a great deal of controversy about the inconsistency of what Socrates says in the Apology and in the Crito. In the former, Socrates seems to set at defiance the laws of Athens by refusing to cooperate with the judgment of the court; in the latter, he seems to hold in esteem the laws of Athens to the point of submitting to them no matter what they command.[34] Is Socrates an anarchic individualist, or perhaps a protester practicing civil disobedience,[35] or a subservient conformist? According to the philosopher, does intellectual autonomy trump civic authority, or does civic authority supersede intellectual autonomy?
The situation is complicated from the outset. On the one hand, Athens is famous as a city that celebrates and promotes individual initiative; on the other hand, no city can allow unfettered autonomy to its citizens. Socrates is one of the most independent of thinkers; he is, however, a law-and-order man who believes that the authority of the state is sacred. Furthermore, the practice of government plays no small part in the debate. In fact, the laws of Athens amounted to a miscellaneous collection of regulations and decrees that leads one legal scholar to say, “in the late fifth century at least, legislation was in several respects a chaotic process.”[36] “What is clear,” he later observes, “is that before 403/2 [when an attempt was made to codify the laws] it will have been exceedingly difficulty for an Athenian litigant to say for certain what was ‘the law’ on a particular issue.”[37]
Furthermore, even now laws that aim to be highly precise in their directives are found to need further interpretations that are then supplied by judicial decisions and seen as precedents to be followed by future courts. In ancient Athens, by contrast, courtroom decisions were rendered by majority vote of non-experts and had no binding force on future trials.[38] What the law said, then, was open to a wide range of interpretations and applications.
In the end, the answer for Socrates was simple and straightforward: legal systems and political institutions are ultimately founded on moral principles and not vice versa. These principles allow for individual initiatives, and even individual political input, but presuppose collective obedience. Socrates would assert his rights as a citizen and a follower of moral and religious imperatives. But he would allow the community to pass its judgment on his efforts.
His jury trial was a plebiscite for his proposed moral reforms, because he chose to make it so. In the trial he defended not his civic actions but his mission for the god. Whatever the outcome, he would remain a loyal citizen and abide by the sentence of his city. His commitment to law and order made even his death a public statement.
[34].Grote 1865, 1: 302-305*; Vlastos 1974; Woozley 1979; Allen 1980; Kraut 1984; Brickhouse and Smith 1994: 141-55; Weiss 1998; Stokes 2005; Griswold 2011.
[35].On civil disobedience, see Woozley 1979: 30-38; criticized by Kraut 1984: 73-76.
[36].Todd 1993: 55.
[37].Todd 1993: 58.
[38].Todd 1993: 31-32, 53-54.