ξυνθήκας αὑτῶν
: ‘covenants between one another,’ ‘mutual covenants.’ Reading
αὐτῶν, Tucker suggests that the meaning is, ‘they established laws and covenants concerning them,’ i.e. concerning matters connected with
ἀδικεῖν and
ἀδικεῖσθαι—a very improbable view.
νόμιμόν τε καὶ δίκαιον
· φημὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ τὸ νόμιμον δίκαιον εἶναι, said Socrates (
Mem. IV 4. 12).
τοῦ μὲν ἀρίστου κτλ.
Cf. the reasoning of Philus (whose position in Cicero's work corresponds to that of Glauco here) in Cic.
de Rep. III 23 “nam cum de tribus unum esset optandum, aut facere iniuriam nec accipere, aut et facere et accipere, aut neutrum, optimum est facere, impune si possis, secundum nec facere nec pati, miserrimum digladiari semper tum faciendis tum accipiendis iniuriis.” Cicero is following Carneades (
ibid. 8), who may have been thinking of the present passage.
ἀγαπᾶσθαι below (as J. and C. observe) “implies acquiescence rather than decided preference.”
ἐπεὶ τὸν δυνάμενον κτλ.
is further elaborated with much vigour in
Gorg. 484 A
. With
ὡς ἀληθῶς ἄνδρα should be compared the emphatic
ἀνήρ in that passage (
ἐὰν δέ γε, οἶμαι, φύσιν ἱκανὴν γένηται ἔχων ἀνήρ), and
Eur.
Phoen. 509
ἀνανδρία γάρ, τὸ πλέον ὅστις ἀπολέσας |
τοὔλασσον ἔλαβε.
εἰ τοιόνδε ‐‐ δόντες
. δόντες κτλ. explains
τοιόνδε. εἰ need not be twice expressed: cf. I 351 C note
νόμῳ ‐‐ παράγεται
. The language is perhaps suggested by the lines of Pindar cited in
Gorg. 484 B
νόμος ὁ πάντων βασιλεὺς θνατῶν τε καὶ ἀθανάτων— ἄγει δικαιῶν τὸ βιαιότατον ὑπερτάτᾳ χειρί κτλ. (cf.
Prot. 337 D
). but the preposition in
παράγεται adds the further notion that equality is not Nature's highway. For
βίᾳ i.q.
βιαἴως in conjunction with another dative Schneider cites VIII 552 E
οὓς ἐπιμελείᾳ βίᾳ κατέχουσιν αἱ ἀρχαί. In the next line it is better to regard
τοιάδε as explained by
εἰ—γενέσθαι, than as balancing
οἴαν, in which case
εἰ αὐτοῖς γένοιτο would be superfluous. The opportunity (
ἐξουσία) of working their will comes from the possession (
εἰ αὐτοῖς γένοιτο) of a certain active faculty (
δύναμις) like that of Gyges.
τῷ Γύγου κτλ.
Cf. X 612 B
τὸν Γύγου δακτύλιον. In Appendix I I have given reasons for believing that the Gyges of the proverbial ‘Gyges' ring’ was not “Gyges the Lydian”—the hero of Herodotus' story (I 7), but a homonymous ancestor of his. If so, we must (on the hypothesis that the text is sound) suppose that Plato here omits the name of the original Gyges either because he wishes tacitly to contradict a prevalent misconception, or (more probably) because his readers might be presumed to know or to be capable of inferring that the ancestor of Gyges the Lydian was also called Gyges. The MS reading is supported by Proclus (
τῷ κατὰ τὸν Γύγου πρόγονον διηγήματι in Schöll
Procli Comm. in Remp. Pl. part. ined. p. 60. 30). For other views of this passage see App. I.
ὡς φαίνεσθαι
: with
νεκρόν, as Schneider saw: “utrum vere mortuus fuerit, an specie, fabula incertum reliquit.” Stallbaum wrongly interprets ‘nimirum
videbatur Gyges cernere’ etc.: this would be expressed by
δοκεῖν. Ast connects the phrase with
μείζω ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον: but this is very weak in point of sense. The words are omitted by Cicero (
De Off. III 38).
ἔχειν
. See cr. n. and (for the omission in A)
Introd. § 5.
ἔχειν in the sense of ‘have on’ ‘wear,’ i.q.
φορεῖν, is tolerably frequent in Homer, though rarer in Attic: see Stephanus-Hase
Thes. s.v. For the change of subject in
ἔχειν—ἐκβῆναι cf. III 414 D note Other views on the text and interpretation of this passage are discussed in App. II.
χειρί
. Herwerden's
δακτύλῳ is unnecessary, and even unpleasant with
δακτύλιον so near. Cf.
χρυσόχειρες in Luc.
Tim. 20. “Etiamnunc homines ita loquuntur” (Hartman).
ἵν’ ἐξαγγέλλοιεν κτλ.
: ‘to report, as was done every month.’ The present expresses the habit (J. and C.).
πλούτου
δὲ οὐδέν and Liebhold (
Fl. Jahrb. 1888, p. 107)
κόσμου
δὲ ἄλλο μὲν <ἔχοντ)> οὐδέν for
τοῦτον δὲ ἄλλο μὲν οὐδέν. Neither of these proposals has any plausibility, and it is best to regard this as one of the places where we owe the right reading to
Π .