The Tale of Gyges and the King of Lydia 9781463222093

Citation preview

T h e Tale of Gyges and the King of Lydia

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

376 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Tale of Gyges and the King of Lydia

Kirby Flower Smith

l gorgias press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-625-1

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The ^American Journal of Philology 23 (1902)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

II.—THE T A L E O F GYGES AND T H E KING O F LYDIA. I.

It is unusual that a people of such evident importance in its time as the Lydians has dropped so completely from the pages of history. Once a proverb oi luxury, wealth and power, Lydia, now, is hardly more than a land of dreams, peopled, in the main, by a long procession of shadowy potentates whose odd barbaric names suggest, in their very sound, another age and a vanished world. Two, it is true, will never be forgotten while men read the classics. Yet even these live more in story than in fact. They are throned in their great citadel of Sardis like Haroun al Raschid in his Bagdad or Charlemagne in his Paris. These two are Gyges, the Henri Quatre, and Kroisos, the Louis Quatorze, of the Lydian Mermnadai. Gyges, whose commanding yet curiously complex personality is still clearly felt in the tradition of him, was the first great " barbarian " with whom the Hellenic world had come in close contact. He was associated with the early traditions of art 1 as well as of other inventions much less creditable to himself.* In the time of Archilochos his wealth was a by-word. 3 His attacks 1 P l i n y , N . H . , V I I 205, " Pythus pilam lusoriam, G y g e s L y d u s picturam in Aegypto, etc." So the older editions, and cf. M ü l l e r , F H G , I I 182, 257. But, " a t h l e t i c a m Pythus, pilam lusoriam G y g e s L y d u s , picturam A e g y p t i i , etc." is adopted by Mayhoff after Urlichs' plausible suggestion in J J , L X X V I I 489. It is to be observed, however, that K a n d a u l e s is connected with the history of art. See note 4, p. 278. It is, also, to be observed that U r l i c h s ' e m e n d a tion g i v e s us the only passage c o n n e c t i n g G y g e s with the history of ball-play.

O n the invention of this g a m e see, especially, A t h e n . , 1 1 4 , d, f. was much discussed in antiquity. 2See 3

T h e subject

Müller, F H G , I 40: I I 1 7 1 , 47.

Ov fioL TO. Tii-yea

rov 7ToXvxpvvov

ei.

A r c h i l o c h . , frag. 25, B e r g k , P L G (cf. his note). O t t o , Sprichwörter der R ö m e r , L e i p z i g , 1890, p. 99, note, observes that G y g e s w a s a proverb for wealth among the G r e e k s and quotes A l p h e i o s of M i t y l e n e , A n t h . Pal., 9, n o ,

2Ó2

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

upon t h e cities of the c o a s t — f o r , l i k e the C z a r , he saw the v a l u e of h a r b o r s — h i s gallant and p r o l o n g e d s t r u g g l e with t h e T e r r o r of the N o r t h , still e c h o in the fragments of those g r e a t lyric poets of w h o m he was practically the c o n t e m p o r a r y . A b o v e all, his a p p e a l to D e l p h i , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a most substantial fee, to arbitrate his r i g h t to the throne insured, for all time, a lively a n d favorable tradition of this particular event in his career. We never hear the last of t h o s e gifts. F e w were better calculated to figure in the realm of folk-lore than this man, w h o went a b o u t his far-reaching plans with such skill and rapidity that no o n e c o u l d tell what was c o m i n g next, w h o s e versatile character, b y turns b o l d and subtle, cruel and k i n d , luxurious and stern, w a s ov (TTepyoi ßattv'/j/iavg äpovpac, ovk ohßov noXvxpvoov, o\a Tvyyg, and Anacreontea, 7, 1, Cr.,

ov ¡ioi jiOja rä Tvyea, TOV Sapdiuv avatcror • T o these may be a d d e d ; Aristot., Rhet., 3, 17 (1418, b 31), who quotes a portion of the Archilochian line and thus tends to insure it for the rhetorical tradition, Leonidas, Anthol. Pal., 7, 740, 3 (cf. 7, 709),

0 ttpiv Kai Tvyy Trani.aniLuvor o/.ßov, Bianor, Anthol. Pal., 9, 423, L u k i a n , Paras., 58, irAovmoq avijp, el Kai to

Tiiyov

xpvaiov exei, Philos., Vita Apollon., I 336, 31, K., 0 d' äanep to ¡if Tvyaf aai Km rove Kpoiaovg aKksiüTovg napex£iv Tat; tgjv drjcyavpüv dvpag, Greg. Naz. irepi aperiji (37, 683, M.),

Kav Goi to. Tvyov tov noTivxpvcov napy, and in another poem, to his soul (37,1485, M.),

8eaei(; Ta Tvyeu ooi tov Avdiov yxvEadat (in both of these references G y g e s is associated with Midas). Strabo, 14, 68o, 28 specifies the mines from which Gyges, Kroisos and others drew their wealth. Observe that all of these poetical examples show a kinship with the line from Archilochos. In fact, they are probably an echo of it. Gregory, practically, copies it in his first example; in his second, he gets at it through the echo of the Anacreontic, ov ¡101 /¿¿Au, etc. One, therefore, may fairly suspect that Gyges as a synonym of wealth was not strictly " sprichwörtlich bei den G r i e c h e n " in later times, but, more properly, an echo of Archilochos. A s a matter of fact " the wealth of G y g e s " is not found in any ancient collection of G r e e k proverbs, never occurs in the Roman authors, and, even in the Greek writers, soon faded out before the claims of Kroisos. O n Kroisos for wealth in L a t i n , see Otto, s. v. and Sutphen, A . J. Pi X X I I , p. 27.

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE

KING

OF LYDIA.

263

associated with a policy which made his reign of nearly forty years one long story of struggle and adventure. It is, therefore, by no means surprising that evidently as early as the period of Archilochos himself the lively and plastic fancy of the Ionians had begun to weave a web of tradition, partly of native and partly, it may be, of Lydian or Asiatic origin, about the name and person of one whom, in his time, they had had good reason to remember. T h e most notable of these traditions concerned themselves with the story of how Gyges rose to become king of Lydia and the founder of a new dynasty. Several versions have survived, and one or another of them may be traced by an occasional reference until within a short time of the fall of the Eastern Empire. T h e object of this paper is to reconstruct the old popular tale of Gyges which appears to have been current in the times of Herodotos and Plato. My investigation does not concern itself with the ultimate origin or meaning of this story, its possible associations with the Herakles-Omphale cycle of legends, etc., etc. 1 Still less does it concern itself with the credibility of the various accounts. It makes.no attempt to discover the genuine history of Gyges. 2 T h e first account to be considered was found in the sixth book of the Universal History of Nikolaos Damaskenos. 3 It reaches us only in an abstract made by Constantinus Porphyrogennetos 4 1

All the Greek and Latin authors available to me were examined, through indices, of course, wherever they were to be had, if not, by a rapid survey of the text. Indices are proverbially inaccurate. In the present investigation crossreferences have sometimes betrayed it. References are perhaps hidden away in the Greek Fathers. But Migne's publication is so huge that one must content himself with the indices, incomplete as they are. I trust, however, that all passages of any real importance in this investigation have been discovered. T h e rarity of reference in Latin authors is noteworthy. 2 See, especially, Geizer, Rhein. Mus., X X X , 230-68; X X X V , 514-28; Schubert, Könige von Lydien, Breslau, 1884; E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, Stuttgart, 1884; Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, Leipzig, 1875, H . 424 f.: G. Radet, La Lydie et le Monde Grec au Temps des Mermnades, Paris, 1893; Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, Gotha, 1895, II, 450 f., and references. 3 On Nikolaos Damaskenos (time of Augustus and Tiberius) see especially Susemihl, Gesch. d. Griech. Lit. in der Alexandriner Zeit, Leipzig, 1892, II, 309-21; W. Christ, Gesch. d. Griech. Lit. bis auf die Zeit Iustinians, Munich, 1 8 9 8 ^ . 6 4 4 . Fragments in Müller's F H G . I I I 343-64, and Dindorf's Historici Graeci Minores, Leipzig, 1870, vol. I, pp. 1-153. 4 See, especially, Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, 2 d edit., Munich, 1897, P- 2 5 2 -

2Ó4

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

in the tenth c e n t u r y . T h e substance o f this account, 1 so far as it relates to us, is as f o l l o w s : " I n the reign of Myrsos, D a s k y l o s , the son of that D a s k y l o s w h o had b e e n assassinated by the k i n g ' s father, fearing lest the H e r a k l e i d a i would compass his death also, fled to the Syrians above Sinope. T h e r e he married a woman of the country and had by her a son, G y g e s . T h e r e lived in Sardis an u n c l e of G y g e s ' father. H i s name was A r d y s . H a v i n g lost his children, A r d y s w e n t to the k i n g Sadyattes [son of Myrsos, and the K a n d a u l e s of H e r o d o t o s ] , asked for the recall of his nephew D a s k y l o s and for permission to adopt him. T h e request w a s granted. D a s k y l o s , however, preferred to remain w h e r e he was. B u t he sent in his place his son G y g e s , at that time a youth of eighteen, r e m a r k a b l e for his size and beauty, a good soldier, and surpassing his equals in all things, but especially, in the m a n a g e m e n t of arms and horses. T h e s e gifts and accomplishments soon recommended him to the k i n g w h o made him one of his body-guard. Shortly after, h o w e v e r , Sadyattes b e c a m e suspicious of him and exposed him to all sorts of perils and difficulties, b e i n g u n w i l l i n g to destroy him openly, as he had no reasonable excuse. But inasmuch as G y g e s performed all his tasks successfully the k i n g finally forgot his former suspicions and gave him great estates. " Some time later Sadyattes d e c i d e d to t a k e T u d o to wife, the daughter of Arnossos w h o was k i n g of M y s i a and founder of the city of A r d y n i o s in the plain of T h e b e . W h e n the time came for f e t c h i n g the bride, Sadyattes put G y g e s in a chariot and sent him after her. A t the time he was setting out it is said that her people saw two enormous eagles light above her b e d r o o m and that the soothsayers interpreted the prodigy to mean that in the first night the girl w o u l d be the w i f e of t w o k i n g s . " Soon after G y g e s arrived and took the girl away with him. But w h i l e riding with her in the chariot he b e c a m e enamoured of her and, not b e i n g able to restrain himself, undertook to seduce her. She, however, b e i n g disinclined to him, fell in a furious rage, made all manner of threats and when she came to the k i n g told him all. W h e r e a t , the k i n g w a s wroth and swore to k i l l G y g e s the next day. " N o w this w a s heard by a maid w h o w a s in the bed-chamber at the time and, as she was deeply in love with G y g e s , she immediately told him e v e r y t h i n g . G y g e s w e n t to all his friends during the night, confided the matter to them and, reminding t h e m all of the curses which A r d y s had called down upon the murderers of D a s k y l o s , asked them to help him in his plan to k i l l the k i n g . " T h e r e f o r e , thinking that, under the circumstances, it was better to slay Sadyattes than be slain by him and b e i n g assured of faithful friends to help him, G y g e s broke into the palace, sword in hand, and, entering the chamber, the door of w h i c h was opened for him by the maid, k i l l e d Sadyattes in his sleep. H i s reign had lasted for three years. 2 F H G , I I I , 383, f., Dindorf, p. 32, f. T h e abstract of Porphyrogennetos is clearly incomplete. A s the narrative of D a m a s k e n o s - X a n t h o s now stands the interpretation g i v e n by the soothsayers to the omen of the eagles is not justified. W e may be perfectly certain that 1

2

THE

TALE

OF G Y G ES

AND

THE

KING

OF LYDIA.

265

" T h e next morning Gyges, quite at his ease, summoned both his friends and his enemies in the king's name, slew his adversaries and conciliated the rest with gifts. T h e people, however, made objection and the right of Gyges to the throne was formally referred to Delphi. T h e oracle supported Gyges but added that the Herakleidai would be given vengeance on the Mermnadai in the fifth generation. " Thus Gyges Daskylos-son became king of Lydia and took to wife the Mysian woman, cherishing no malice for all she had said against him to Sadyattes." This

narrative

of

Damaskenos

undoubtedly

contains

some

t r a c e s o f t h e o l d f o l k - t a l e , b u t , in i t s m a i n f e a t u r e s , it h a s

been

a d o p t e d b y m o s t m o d e r n h i s t o r i a n s , first, b e c a u s e o f its a p p a r e n t probability, second, because, though

s o l a t e , it p u r p o r t s

drawn from the old L y d i a n logographer, Xanthos.1

i n f o u r b o o k s , w a s w r i t t e n b e t w e e n 4 6 5 a n d 4 2 5 B. C. is c r e d i t e d w i t h t h e u s e o f n a t i v e s o u r c e s . complicated

by

t h e fact

that s o m e

to

be

His Lydiaka, Xanthos

B u t t h e q u e s t i o n is

ancient critics d o u b t e d

the

g e n u i n e n e s s o f t h a t L y d i a k a w h i c h in l a t e r t i m e s p a s s e d u n d e r his name and would, therefore, be the w o r k used b y D i o g e n e s L a e r t i o s , V I 1 0 1 , tells u s t h a t it w a s certain M e n i p p o s . the

view

of

Damaskenos.

epitomized

by

a

A t h e n a i o s , X I I 5 1 5 d, reports, but criticizes,

Artemon

of

Dionysios Skytobrachion.2 of further discussion.

Kasandreia

t h a t it w a s t h e w o r k

S u c h a question

is a l w a y s

of

capable

B u t the statements of these ancient critics

it was justified or it would not have been mentioned. T h e missing passage falls in most naturally just after the king's death. In this passage—perhaps omitted vtrecundiae causa—we were told how Tudo became de facto the wife of Gyges and thus fulfilled the prediction of the Mysian soothsayers. An important variation between the account of Xanthos and Herodotos is thus shown to have been more apparent than real and the comment of Radet (1. c., p. 139) is rendered unnecessary. "Selon Xanthos," he says, "l'union de Gygès avec Tudo aurait suivi la réponse d'Apollon. D'après Hérodote, elle l'aurait précédée. Sur ce point les Muses doivent être crues de préférence aux Lydiaques." Certainly, the statement of Geizer (Rhein. Mus. X X X V 516) does not seem to be justified by the narrative of Damaskenos-Xanthos as it now stands. " In der Brautnacht," says Geizer, " w i r d der Heraklide von Gyges erschlagen, und unmittelbar darauf heirathet er die Königin. Das Adleraugurium geht so in Erfüllung." Geizer appears to refer to the statement which closes the passage which I quote from Xanthos. 1 See Christ, 1. c. p. 324 and notes. T h e fragments of the Lydiaka are collected by Müller, F H G , I, p. 36, f., and by Gutschmid, K l e i n e Schriften, I V , p. 307, f. 2 See, especially, Susemihl, 1. c. I, p. 511 : II, p. 48, and, for the literature, II, p. 46, note 66.

266

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

a r e far less formidable w h e n closely e x a m i n e d , and i lis p r o b a b l y safe to believe, with most m o d e r n historians, that the narrative o f D a m a s k e n o s , at least, in its essential details, reflects that of Xanthos.1 I find no further traces of this version in ancient literature. A s e c o n d account is partially reported b y Plutarch, A e t i a G r a e c a , X L V , p. 301, f. In r e p l y to the question w h y the statue of Z e u s L a b r a n d e u s in K a r i a was represented with an a x e (n-Aemir), not with a sceptre or a thunderbolt, Plutarch states: " H e r a k l e s , h a v i n g slain H i p p o l y t e and taken her axe with the rest of her arms, gave it to O m p h a l e . T h e k i n g s of L y d i a who succeeded her carried this as one of their sacred insignia of office, and passed it down from father to son until K a n d a u l e s . K a n d a u l e s , h o w e v e r , disdained it and g a v e it to one of his haipoi to carry. W h e n G y g e s rebelled and was m a k i n g war upon K a n daules, Arselis came with a force from M y l a s a to the assistance of G y g e s , slew K a n d a u l e s and the fraipos, and took the axe to K a r i a with the other spoils of war. A n d having set up a statue of Z e u s , he put the axe in his h a n d and called the god, L a b r a n d e u s , labrus b e i n g the L y d i a n word for the G r e e k

TTEMKVr." G e l z e r 2 d e f e n d s this story as the g e n u i n e account. Schubert3 u n d e r t a k e s to reconcile it with X a n t h o s and H e r o d o t o s . E . M e y e r 4 dismisses it as " h i s t o r i s c h w e r t h l o s , " and, in fact, it has e v e r y a p p e a r a n c e o f b e i n g a m e r e aetiological fable. A s such, this version, b e i n g d e v i s e d s i m p l y to e x p l a i n a local usage, p r o b a b l y n e v e r contained any further details than w e h a v e here. 6 I find no other trace of it in the literature. 6 T h i r d , c o m e s the famous version g i v e n b y Plato. In the R e p u b l i c , 359, d, f., the s p o k e s m a n , discussing the w e l l - k n o w n 1

See, especially, Busolt, 1. c., I I , p. 451, f., with references.

2

R h . M. X X X V

528.

R a d e t , 1. c. p. 224.

K ö n i g e von L y d i e n , p. 31, f. • G e s c h i c h t e des A l t e r t h u m s , 1884, I, p. 547, note. 3

6 So far as I have b e e n able to discover, no one ventures on a theory regarding Plutarch's source for this narrative. 6 U n l e s s the sodali suo of Iustinus (I, 7, 17) is a translation of ¿ralpog in the sense in w h i c h Plutarch uses it here, and a remote community of tradition was the cause. But the T h e s a u r u s Steph. and the lexicons, in general, are somewhat unsatisfactory. Plutarch's use of £ralpo; is, perhaps, a mere secondary reflection of the peculiar M a k e d o n i a n use found in P o l y b i o s ( A t h e n . 194 e). A t all events eralpog to describe the position of G y g e s in the feudal system of old L y d i a is an excellent prototype of comes as a designation of rank in the feudal system of m e d i a e v a l Europe. " L e m i g n o n du r o i " (discussed in the T h e s a u r u s , s. v. iralpog) is not to be considered.

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE KING

OF L YD I A.

267

doctrine that the only t h i n g w h i c h p r e v e n t s even the best of us from d o i n g w r o n g in the end is the fear of detection, asserts that his point w o u l d be p r o v e d if both a g o o d and a bad man could b e g i v e n s o m e p o w e r w h i c h w o u l d render detection impossible. " I m e a n , " he s a y s , " s u c h a p o w e r . . . as, t h e y s a y , was o n c e possessed b y the ancestor o f the L y d i a n : " 1 " [ G y g e s ] w a s a shepherd in the service of the one who, in those days, was the king of Lydia. O w i n g to a great storm and also to an earthquake, the ground split open and a gap made its appearance near the place where he was watching his flocks. A m a z e d at the sight, G y g e s went down into the cleft and, certainly according to the tale they tell, beheld marvels, among the rest a brazen horse, which was hollow and had doors. G y g e s peeped in through them and saw a corpse inside, larger, as it appeared, than human size. T h e r e was nothing else at all but that. On its hand, however, was a ring of gold. T h i s G y g e s took off and came out. W h e n the shepherds met as usual to make their monthly report to the king regarding his flocks, Gyges, who was wearing his ring, was one of the party. A s he was sitting among the others he happened to turn the collet of it towards him and into the inside of his hand. T h e moment this was done he became invisible to those who sat near him, and they began to talk about him as they would about one who was absent. Astonished, he ran his hand over the ring, turned the setting out, and, as he did so, became visible again. Upon observing the fact, he tested the ring to see whether it had this power and found that such was really the case. W h e n e v e r he turned the setting inward he disappeared; when he turned it outward he became visible. Being now assured of the fact, he took measures to become one of the messengers to the king. A f t e r his arrival he seduced the queen, with her help set upon the king, slew him and took possession of the throne."

1 T h e best tradition of the text here g i v e s ; el avToit; yevotro olav ttots aaiv ¿vva/uv Tf> Tvyov roii Avdov irpoydva yeveadai, i. e. not, " t h e ancestor of the L y d i a n " , but " t h e ancestor of Gyges the L y d i a n . " T h a t Proklos also had this text before him is shown by the fact that in his commentary on the Republic (60, 31, Schoell) he speaks of this story as, r u Kara tov Tvyov irp6yovov

diqyi/fmTi. T h e text of Plato is certainly corrupt and has been much discussed. See the various commentators on this passage, especially, Stallbaum. T h e account of Xanthos shows that Gyges had the same name as his great-grandfather. I n d e e d the name appears to have been by no means uncommon among the L y d i a n s . But the discussion of our text is much simplified by the fact that we are safe in rejecting all emendations and all explanations except that which identifies the hero of this story with the Gyges of Xanthos and Herodotos. T h i s is shown by Plato himself at 612, B, and is supported by the literary tradition of our passage. Moreover, as I hope to show, Plato is telling here the first half of the story which Herodotos had before him. T h e simplest remedy is merely to bracket Tvyov, evidently a gloss.

This

268

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Plato refers to this story again at 612, B, where he couples with t h e r i n g o f G y g e s t h e H o m e r i c "AVfiof k W i j .

N o one needs to be reminded that, whatever its earlier history or original source, this is the old folk-tale of G y g e s . Three favorite motifs of all popular stories are at once prominent h e r e — the miraculous rise of the weak or lowly to happiness, fame and fortune, 1 a magic ring, 2 the circumstances of its discovery. was proposed by Wiegand (Zeit. f. d. Alterth., 1834, p. 863) and is now generally adopted. In that case izpoyovy = Tvyi) and TOV Av6ov = /Ae Lydian, i. e., Kroisos, an interpretation fully justified by the fame of Kroisos, not only in the time of Plato but for centuries afterward. 1 A favorite motif in the popular stories of men who, like Gyges, have been the founders of great royal houses. Gelzer, Rhein. Mus. X X X V 515 notes this and quotes Sargon, Kyros, Arsakes, Artaxerxes, and David. One might add Romulus and many others. In a humbler sphere we have Dick Whittington and the large class of stories represented by such nursery-favorites as " J a c k and the Bean-stalk" and " J a c k the Giant-killer."

The motif is not infrequently combined with that of the " Lucky Impostor," See the interesting chapter in W . S. Clouston's Popular Tales and Fictions, Blackwood, London, 1887, vol. II, p. 413, f. An excellent example of this type is the story of " Ma'aruf the Cobbler and his wife Fatimah," Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, vol. X , p. I, f. (Burton). 2 Magic rings conferring various extraordinary powers, or worn as amulets or charms against disease, enchantment, the Evil Eye, etc., etc., played a very important part in the folk-lore of classical antiquity. Commentators refer to Kirchmann, de Annulis, X X I , which is not available to me. Lobeck, Aglaoph, I, p. 377, has a brief note; see also Blaydes on Aristoph., Plutus, 884 and the schol. The note of Casaubon on 'Athenaios, I I I 34' to which reference is made by several generations of commentators, is concerned with a fragment of Antiphanes (II 84, Kock) quoted by Athenaios at I I I 96 (123, b). Other references in the comic poets to magic rings are Eupolis 87 (I 278, K), perhaps Aristoph., frag. 250 (I 455, K) and Kratinos, 299 (I, 99-100, K). Cf. Theophrastos, Char. X V I I I ; Lukian, Philops., 17; Navig. 42; Pliny, X X X I I I 8, f.; Ammianus, X X I X 1, 3 1 ; Heliodoros, Aithiop., pp. 107, 1 7 ; 134, 24; 234, 15 (Bekker), etc. T h e power of any magic ring (ancient or modern) usually lies in the setting, which really connects the idea with that of talismans in general and would involve us in the consideration of Nikandros,— Pliny, Damigeron, Dioscorides, the Orphica, and all those authors or references dealing with the properties of precious stones, minerals and other substances.

The classical legend of a ring of invisibility comes to the surface only in connection with Gyges and, for the first time, in the passage from Plato under discussion. T h e earliest reappearance which I find of this idea in the Middle Ages is the ring of Lunet in Chrestien de Troyes' Yvain, 1034, f (repeated in the old English translation, Ywaine and Gawin, line 737, f., Ritson's ' Ancient Metrical Romances', Edinburgh, 1884, I, p. 137, and referred to, as a famous

THE

TALE

OF G Y G ES AND

THE KING

OF LYDIA.

269

I n d e e d , this story m i g h t well have b e l o n g e d to the r e p e r t o r y o f the genial S c h e h e r a z a d e herself. 1 T h e striking similarity of it to that oriental t y p e so well represented b y the " T h o u s a n d N i g h t s and a N i g h t " s u g g e s t s that, h o w e v e r modified by the G r e e k story-tellers, it h a d an Asiatic origin. 2 If such were the case, a larger k n o w l e d g e of old L y d i a n folk-lore in general than is now available w o u l d , doubtless, be of assistance in the reconstruction of it. F o r , in the version before us, the entire s e c o n d half of the original story is contained in the bare statement of the last sentence. It is also clear that, for several reasons, the first half of the passage, by H e i n r i c h von dem T i i r l i n in his C r ô n e , p. 17, S c h ö l l — p a s s a g e quoted by H o l l a n d on Y v a i n 1. c.). In his introduction to Chrestien's Y v a i n , H a l l e , 1891, Foerster suggests that this passage is a reminiscence of G y g e s (?). In the R o m a n de T r o i e , J o l y , Paris, 1870, line 1663, f., M e d e a gives Jason a ring of invisibility. But the most famous is the ring of A n g e l i c a , Boiardo, I I, 39; 14, 4 2 ; I I 5, 33 (Panizzi's edit. L o n d o n , 1834); S e e , also, G r i m m , D . M., I I , p. 1 1 7 1 .

Ariosto, X I 6, f.

Famous, too, was the ring of youth w h i c h the F a t a Morgana gave to O g i e r the D a n e in A v a l o n . I n fact, rings conferring various powers are a favorite device of the R o m a n s d ' A v e n t u r e . C f . Chrestien de T r o y e s , Y v a i n , 2600, f., 2770, f.; C h e v a l i e r de la Charrette, p. 66 (Reims 1849); R o m a n d ' A s p r e m o n t , 1313, f . ; Floire et Blanceflor, 1005, f. (cf. p. clxii, f. of du Méril's edit.); R o m a n de F l o r i m o n t (passage quoted by du Méril, 1. c. p. clxiv). Rings of forgetfulness : Rotrou's L a b a g u e de l'oubli, and L ' i n n o c e n t e infidélité. R i n g s of love : Gesta Romanorum, ch. 46 (quoted by Clouston, Popular T a l e s and F i c t i o n s , L o n d o n , 1887, I , p. 108), L e g r a n d , L e roi de C o c a g n e . A vast amount of variant literature, etc., is c o n n e c t e d with the old fabliau by Haisiau, R e c u e i l général et complet des F a b l i a u x des X I I I e et X I V e siècles, etc., Montaiglon et R a y n a u d , Paris, 1878, vol. I l l , p. 51, f. R e f e r e n c e s gathered by J. Bedier, L e s F a b l i a u x , E t u d e s de littérature populaire, etc., du m o y e n age, Paris, 1895, p. 442, B . T h e ring w h i c h summons a spirit ready and able to fulfil any wish is, for the modern world, chiefly associated with A l a d d i n , and other tales of the " T h o u s a n d N i g h t s and a N i g h t . " F a m o u s in Northern M y t h o l o g y is the ring of the dwarf A n d v a r i , V ö l s u n g a . saga, X I V , f. 1 Compare, e. g., ' A l a d d i n and his W o n d e r f u l L a m p ' , with Clouston's comments and discussion, 1. c., I 314, f., 470, f. and Burton, 1. c „ X 564, f.; the story of Ma'aruf, Burton, 1. c . , X I , f. 2 O n the other hand, that this rich oriental type is really due to G r e e k influence is a thesis ably supported by R o h d e , D e r Griechische R o m a n und seine Vorläufer, L e i p z i g , Igoo, p. 578, f. (or V e r h a n d l u n g e n der X X X . P h i l o l o g e n - V e r s a m m l u n g zu R o s t o c k , 1875, p. 55-70).

2JO

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

story was curtailed and simplified to a considerable degree. A s Plato tells it, this tale is not independent and separate. It is a digression introduced solely for the purpose of illustrating a point in a serious philosophical discussion. A s such, it should not be too long,too circumstantial or too dramatic; otherwise its purpose and raison d'être would have been defeated. Its subordinate, episodical character is emphasized by the use of oratio obliqua and the omission of proper names. In any attempt to reconstruct the popular legend it should also be remembered that, whereas, the object of the folk-tale was to describe the adventures of Gyges on his way to the throne, the object of Plato was simply to describe the powers which the ring conferred upon its possessor. In other words, it was a jewel which Plato cut to fit the setting in which he has placed it. How much he cut it cannot be discovered. Nevertheless, these considerations are of some value to one who attempts a reconstruction of the original. It is also fair to suppose that this story, in the time of Herodotos and Plato if not in the first place, possessed a good deal in the way of circumstantial details. This is suggested by the oriental coloring of it and the rich fancy of the nation by which it was transmitted. W e are, therefore, justified in suspecting that Plato's introductory sentence is, perhaps, only a brief or partial report of the original at this point. It probably had at least some account of the parentage of Gyges, his birth and early years, how and why he came to occupy the menial position which Plato mentions and Xenophon, K y r u p . 7, 2, 24, appears to have had in mind. It is even possible that some prodigy attending his birth was recorded here, some omen or experience showing that he was the favorite of a god and destined for higher things. T o have emphasized the lowly extraction of Gyges in this introduction, to have made his rise to power hinge entirely on the wonderful ring and his own sharp wits, would be eminently characteristic of the popular tale. T o have said or implied that he was really something better than his fellows or even he himsell supposed was also a favorite motif long before the time of the " Ugly Duckling," and, so far as Plato's abstract is concerned, is equally compatible with the story. But this point is incapable of proof and cannot be urged. In his next sentence, Plato says, that in consequence of a storm

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE KING

OF LYDIA.

271

and an e a r t h q u a k e 1 the g r o u n d o p e n e d near the place w h e r e G y g e s w a s k e e p i n g his s h e e p , and that, a m a z e d at the sight, he went d o w n into the cleft. T h i s s e e m s to be a fairly c o m p l e t e r e p o r t of the original account. A n d the w o r d s naturally s u g g e s t that G y g e s w a s alone at the time. T h e next sentence in P l a t o ' s narrative m i g h t also s u g g e s t it. Nevertheless, it is worth n o t i n g that Philostratos ( I I 137, 29, K . ) , w h o tells a portion o f this s t o r y while d i s c o u r s i n g on the men of the H e r o i c A g e , s a y s that " T h i s thing was b e h e l d b y the s h e p h e r d s round a b o u t L y d i a w i t h w h o m G y g e s w a s serving at the time and was a m a r v e l , f o r , " etc. T h e difference m a y , o f course, be d u e to the fact that Philostratos w a s s i m p l y q u o t i n g P l a t o from m e m o r y . 2 A s I shall point out in a later article, the p a s s a g e was committed to m e m o r y b y the s c h o o l b o y s of the second c e n t u r y . A t the s a m e time, w e k n o w from another reference that Philostratos was familiar with a version which was not d e r i v e d from Plato, but, directly or indirectly, from the s o u r c e o f Plato. It is possible, therefore, that w e h a v e in this d i s c r e p a n c y a trace o f the original story. N o t G y g e s alone, but a n u m b e r o f his fellows, w e r e present at the time the chasm m a d e its a p p e a r a n c e . If so, t h e y m a y h a v e been pictured as letting him d o w n into a place w h i c h he alone h a d the n e r v e — o r the s i m p l i c i t y — t o e x p l o r e . T h e m o t i f is familiar e n o u g h . Aladdin w a s sent d o w n b y the m a g i c i a n in a similar fashion. In fact, the tale of A l a d d i n and the tale of G y g e s resemble each other in m o r e than one respect. Plato tells us in so m a n y w o r d s that the folk-tale d e s c r i b e d m a n y other m a r v e l s seen b y G y g e s in the chasm besides the brazen horse. 3 N o hint of w h a t these m a r v e l s were has 1 1 see no special significance in the presence of storm and earthquake here beyond the obvious fact that at this point it was desirable to get the ground open, and the story has adopted a means more or less natural to the land of its birth. T h i s , however, is the chief support of E . Mliller's theory (Pliilol. V I I 246, f.) that Plato's story of G y g e s goes back to an old volcanic myth. O n the other hand, Curtius, A r c h . Zeit., X I 150, f., finds that G y g e s (of this story) originated, not in fire but in water, and that he is, in some way, connected with the hlfiw] Yvyaia (Iliad, 20, 391, etc.). Doubtless, the incidents of the ring, its discovery, etc., are far older than G y g e s Daskylos-son, but with this phase of the discussion I am not concerned.

* O n e must not make too much of such differences. Cicero's version, for example (de Officiis, I I I 38), does not agree throughout with Plato. Nevertheless, it is clear that Cicero was actually translating Plato's words. 3/caraQjjvai Kai ideiv aXAa re ¿Y a fivdo2.O~yovffcv Oavuatjra Kai ITTTTOV xa'/KOVI>.

272

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

r e a c h e d us. W h a t e v e r they were, t h e y , v e r y p o s s i b l y , h e l p e d to explain the significance of the brazen horse and, perhaps, the identity of the p e r s o n within it. S u c h descriptions are eminently characteristic of the oriental t y p e . T h e y are frequently associated, as here, with the subterranean motif, and g e n e r a l l y l e a d up to the object of real i m p o r t a n c e — a chest, a tomb, a pillar, a statue, or w h a t not. It is often c o v e r e d with inscriptions in u n k n o w n l a n g u a g e s , m a y be opened o n l y b y s o m e prescribed formula, is g u a r d e d b y various m a g i c d e v i c e s in the w a y of scimitars, etc., etc. 1 Plato's description of the object of real i m p o r t a n c e here, the h o r s e and its contents, is, doubtless, a t o l e r a b l y c o m p l e t e report of the original. T h a t the material s h o u l d be b r o n z e was to be e x p e c t e d . B r o n z e has been associated with m a g i c and magicians for ages. 2 T h e contents are e q u a l l y s u g g e s t i v e of m a g i c . T h e y seem to h a v e been a surprise to G y g e s . 3 T h e y are not a surprise to us. T h e a n a l o g y of numberless stories had a l r e a d y p r e p a r e d us to 1

On

the

subterranean

motif, its

association

with

treasures,

talismans,

magicians, etc., etc., compare the stories mentioned in note I , p. 269; R o h d e Schoell, Griechischer R o m a n , 394 and note 2.

In the " T h o u s a n d N i g h t s and

a N i g h t " the motif is too frequent to deserve specific mention here. 2

T h i s was observed by the a n c i e n t s themselves.

S e e , especially the com-

m e n t of Macrobius (V, X I X 8, f.) on V e r g i l , A e n . I V 513 (the cutting of magic plants by moonlight with brazen shears).

Macrobius quotes a passage from

the 'Pi^orofioi of S o p h o k l e s (491, N ) in which M e d e a is described as doing the same t h i n g ; cf. O v i d , M e t . V I I

227; H e r . V I

84; V a l . Flaccus, V I I

364, f . ;

[ S e n e c a , M e d e a , 722, f.]. I n the same passage Macrobius quotes C a r m i n i u s (see R i b b e c k , Proleg. to V e r g . p. 186) to the effect that among the Sabines the hair of priests was cut only with brazen shears; cf. L a u r e n t . L y d . , de Mens., I 3 1 ; Serv. A e n . I 448, and R . Peter, Quaest. Pontif. Spec., Argentorati, 1886. Macrobius, 1. c., also quotes Carminius for the Etruscan use of a brazen plough in m a r k i n g out a new t o w n ; cf. Plutarch, R o m . X I , and Preller-Jordan, Rfim. Mythol., I, p. 131, note 1, with references. D o u b t l e s s , the w e l l - k n o w n practice of b e a t i n g upon brazen instruments during an eclipse belongs in the same category. E x a m p l e s are numerous; cf. T i b u l l u s , I 8, 2 1 ; O v i d , M e t . I V 333; V I I 207 (cf. F . , V 4 4 1 ) ; L i v y , X X V I 5 ; T a c i t u s , A n n . , I 28; J u v e n a l , V I 442; Martial, X I I 5 7 , 1 4 ; A n t h o l . Lat., 483, R ; D u c a n g e , s. v . ' V i n c e , L u n a ' ; G r i m m , D . M., I I , p. 668, etc., etc. S p e a k i n g in general, bronze, doubtless, did not acquire any sacred or m a g i c a l qualities until after the age of iron was an accomplished fact. It was then retained in certain specified uses by religious conservatism and thus gradually acquired m a g i c a l associations. See, also, P. H u v e l i n , L e s T a b l e t t e s M a g i q u e s et le D r o i t R o m a i n , M a c o n , 1901, p. 21, n. 5, etc. 3

Eytcvi[>avTa Idelv evovra

veizpov . . . TOVTOV 6k u'/.'/.o ui:v

ovdev.

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE

KING

OF LYDIA.

273

discover here the last resting-place of some important person, a king, a magician, or both in one, seeing that he was fuifav ij Kaf avdpamov and, therefore, belonged to the days of old, when men were larger than they are now and magic was an ordinary possession. His ring would possess some supernatural quality as a matter of course. In many cases the identification of the corpse with some famous character adds point to the story. 1 There is no hint in Plato that such was the case here. But it is at least worth while to note in this connection a curious passage from Pliny, N. H., X X X I I I 8, in which he mentions the Midae quidem anulum, quo circumacto, habentem nemo cerneret. I fail to find any other reference which makes Midas the possessor of a ring exactly like that of Gyges. In the absence of all other testimony, how shall we explain this single passage? Shall we suppose that Pliny has simply confused Gyges with Midas? Midas, like Gyges, was also a proverb of wealth. He was also another hero of legend and from the same locality.2 But the evidence of extant literature all goes to show that the story of Gyges was familiar. For that reason Pliny's reference is less likely to be merely a mistake. It is not usual to confuse the better known with the less known. Moreover, Pliny is not habitually inaccurate and there are no signs of textual corruption here. W e might also suppose that Pliny is referring to a story of Midas which was quite independent of the story of Gyges,® current in antiquity but, as it happens, not otherwise known to us. But if this had been the case, it would have been far more natural for Pliny to mention Gyges instead of Midas, or, else, both. The passage is one which deals with rings, their uses and properties. Or, lastly, shall we suspect that Pliny alone has preserved for us a trace of either the old folk-tale of Gyges, or else some variant of it in one of those Alexandrian paradoxographi, for example, whom we know him to have read and excerpted with such 1 Often, in stories of the oriental type, in the mediaeval poems and romances, etc. 8 Commentators on this passage unite in quoting the references to Gyges ring in Plato and Cicero, but do not commit themselves to any view. 3 So, apparently, E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterthums, I p. 547- But his reference is too brief to be very definite. 19

274

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

e a g e r n e s s ? In short, w a s Pliny thinking of a version in w h i c h the corpse seen b y G y g e s in the brazen horse or, at all events, the ring, w a s that of M i d a s h i m s e l f ? 1 A t first sight, this s u g g e s t i o n m i g h t a p p e a r argutior q u a m verior. N e v e r t h e l e s s , it s e e m s to m e the best e x p l a n a t i o n of P l i n y ' s reference. It also introduces an element into the tale o f G y g e s w h i c h w e constantly find in others of the same t y p e . M o r e o v e r , in the p o p u l a r mind, G y g e s a n d M i d a s were, to a certain extent, associated. W e find it in G r e g o r y of N a z i a n z u s , a n d the tradition of it is p r o b a b l y far older than his source, the rhetorical schools. 2 W h e t h e r this characteristic l i n k of association, if w e g r a n t its existence, was actually in the source of P l a t o would, o f course, be another question. But it is w o r t h o b s e r v i n g that the old folk-tale of G y g e s — a n extra-Platonian v e r s i o n — r e a p p e a r s , for the first time, in the period of P l i n y . I shall g i v e a detailed consideration to this reference in another connection. It is therefore the m o r e l i k e l y that P l i n y was a c q u a i n t e d with such a version and that his reference p r e s e r v e s a detail of it not e l s e w h e r e found. T h a t t h e hero a n d m a g i c i a n of old, w h o e v e r he was, should h a v e been b u r i e d in a horse rather than in an object of s o m e other s h a p e is p r o b a b l y a detail of s o m e importance, a n d it is possible that if w e h a d a better k n o w l e d g e of L y d i a n folk-lore, w e m i g h t find the brazen h o r s e valuable in the reconstruction of our story. 3 1

T h e h i s t o r i c a l a n d l e g e n d a r y M i d a s e s are so c o n f u s e d a n d c o m m i n g l e d

t h a t w e n e e d n o t t r o u b l e o u r s e l v e s a b o u t c h r o n o l o g y , e s p e c i a l l y , in a p o p u l a r legend. 5

B o t h b e l o n g e d to t h e s a m e l o c a l i t y , b o t h w e r e p r o v e r b s o f w e a l t h , b o t h

w e r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h the g r e a t i n v a s i o n of the K i m m e r i o i . 5

B u t I f a i l to d i s c o v e r a n y t h i n g w h i c h h a s a b e a r i n g on this p o i n t .

When

I s t a r offers h e r l o v e to I z d u b a r h e r e f u s e s the g i f t as q u i t e too d a n g e r o u s . ' W h a t , ' h e a s k s , ' h a s b e c o m e of a l l h e r p r e v i o u s l o v e r s ? '

Izdubar then proceeds

to n a m e a f e w .

A m o n g the rest h e m e n t i o n s a h o r s e w h o w a s son of

goddess 'Silili.'

" D u h a s t a u c h g e l i e b t ein R o s s , e r h a b e n i m S t r e i t , . . . m i t

S p o r n u n d P e i t s c h e hast du es g e n ö t i g t ; o b g l e i c h es s i e b e n M e i l e n

the

Galopp

g e l a u f e n w a r , h a s t du es g e n ö t i g t , w e n n es e r m a t t e t w a r u n d t r i n k e n w o l l t e , h a s t du es g e n ö t i g t , s e i n e r M u t t e r , d e r G ö t t i n S i l i l i hast du W e i n e n a u f g e n ö t i g t " ( A . J e r e m i a s , in R o s c h e r ' s L e x i k o n , I I , p. 790, 4 1 , f.). T h i s r e f e r e n c e , w h i c h I o w e to D r . J o h n s t o n , s h o w s t h a t t h e r e w a s a p o p u l a r l e g e n d w e l l k n o w n to t h e r e a d e r s of t h e N i m r o d - e p i c a s s o c i a t i n g a horse w i t h the

Babylonian

Aphrodite.

B u t , of course,

it is q u i t e

impossible

to

say

w h e t h e r t h e r e w e r e any a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h the story i n L y d i a n f o l k - l o r e t h a t w o u l d a c c o u n t for the b r a z e n horse w h i c h G y g e s f o u n d . s h o w n t h a t our story r e a l l y c o n t a i n s a n y t h i n g A s i a t i c .

I n d e e d , it c a n n o t b e

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE KING

OF LYDIA.

2?$

In a l e g e n d o f this t y p e it is characteristic that, innocently or otherwise, G y g e s , the favorite of fortune, s h o u l d h a v e passed b y those " o t h e r m a r v e l s " w h i c h w o u l d h a v e c a u g h t the o r d i n a r y e y e 1 t o select the one thing which, t h o u g h a p p a r e n t l y o f small value, was r e a l l y w o r t h m o r e than all the rest. T h e next p a s s a g e tells us h o w and w h e r e G y g e s d i s c o v e r e d the properties o f his r i n g a n d h o w h e then went to the city to s e e k his fortune. T h i s is p r o b a b l y a c o m p l e t e record of the original s t o r y . T h e s e w e r e the details b e a r i n g d i r e c t l y on t h e point which Plato desired to illustrate. W h e n this w a s d o n e he dismissed his narrative with the m e r e p a s s i n g c o m m e n t that after G y g e s reached S a r d is h e " s e d u c e d the queen, with h e r h e l p slew the k i n g , a n d r e i g n e d in his s t e a d . " It is clear that all P l a t o has told us with a n y a p p r o a c h to c o m p l e t e n e s s is m e r e l y the introduction. T h e real story was, after all, the a d v e n t u r e s with the ring. T h e s e practically b e g a n w h e r e Plato left off. In other words, the p o p u l a r s t o r y bore a relation to Plato's a c c o u n t of it not unlike that w h i c h the tale of A l a d d i n would bear to an a b r i d g m e n t in w h i c h , after d e s c r i b i n g h o w he d i s c o v e r e d his l a m p a n d its properties, w e s h o u l d c l o s e with the b a r e statement that A l a d d i n then " married the beautiful princess and, in g o o d time, r e i g n e d in h e r father's s t e a d . " This is r e a l l y the substance of A l a d d i n ' s career. But, in itself it w o u l d g i v e us a v e r y slight idea of that l o n g story of a d v e n t u r e with w h i c h most o f us are familiar. T h e fourth account of G y g e s ' rise to the throne o f L y d i a is related b y H e r o d o t o s , I, 8 - 1 5 . H e s a y s that K a n d a u l e s , w h o m the G r e e k s call M y r s i l o s , w a s the last of t h e H e r a k l e i d a i to r e i g n in S a r d i s . A f t e r a brief d i g r e s s i o n o n the early history o f L y d i a , H e r o d o t o s tells the f o l l o w i n g s t o r y o f his d o w n f a l l : " W e l l , then, this K a n d a u l e s f e l l in love with his own wife, and, b e i n g in love with her, maintained the opinion that his w i f e was much the fairest of a l l women. O n e of his body-guard was G y g e s D a s k y l o s - s o n and the especial favorite. H e n c e , w i t h the feelings he had, it came to pass that Kandaules,. w h o was also in the habit of entrusting G y g e s with his more important affairs,, g r e w to praising o v e r m u c h the b e a u t y of his w i f e . A f t e r a short time h a d e l a p s e d — f o r it was decreed that K a n d a u l e s should come to r u i n — h e spoke toG y g e s in this w i s e ; ' G y g e s , w h e n I tell thee of my w i f e ' s loveliness, methinks. ] C o m p a r e the passage from Philostratos I I 137, 31, f. (K.). So M a ' a r u f , in the story referred to in note I , p. 269, w h e n he discovers the hoard of treasures, at once selects the w o n d e r f u l ring.

276

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

thou dost not b e l i e v e me (in fact men's ears are naturally less trustworthy than their eyes). T h e r e f o r e , do thou contrive to b e h o l d her naked.' B u t G y g e s with a great cry made a n s w e r ; ' Master, what word unwise is this that thou dost utter, bidding me look upon my mistress when she is n a k e d ? W o m a n , i n putting off her raiment, also putteth off her respect. O f old, men discovered those things which are proper, and these should be our guide. Among them this is o n e ; a man should look upon his own. Verily I do believe thee that she is the fairest of all women and I beseech thee not to ask of me that which is unlawful.' Saying such words as these Gyges tried to put off the matter, being sore afraid that some disaster befall him from it. B u t K a n d a u l e s replied in these words; ' T a k e courage, Gyges, and have no fear either of me, lest I say this to test t h e e , or, yet, of my wife lest any hurt through her come to thee. F o r , first of all, I will so contrive it that she shall not discover that she hath been seen b y thee. I will p l a c e thee b e h i n d the open door of the room wherein we sleep. X enter first, then my wife comes to bed. T h e r e is a chair near the e n t r a n c e ; on this she lays her garments, one by one, as she takes them off and thou wilt have the opportunity of gazing upon her quite at thy leisure. B u t so soon as she walks away from the chair to the bed and her b a c k is toward t h e e , the rest must b e thy care that she see thee not as thou goest through the door.' • W e l l , then, perceiving that he could not escape it, Gyges held himself in readiness. " So, when bed-time came, K a n d a u l e s led Gyges to the c h a m b e r and afterwards straightway the woman c a m e also. S h e entered, laid her garments on the chair, and Gyges gazed upon her. W h e n she went toward the b e d a n d her back was turned, Gyges stealthily slipped away. T h e woman, however, saw him as he was passing out. B u t divining that h e r husband was t h e cause of what had happened she made no outcry because of the shame put upon her nor gave one sign that she had noticed aught, being minded to t a k e vengeance upon K a n d a u l e s . F o r among the L y d i a n s , often, too, among the other barbarians, even for a man to b e seen naked is reckoned a deep disgrace. A t the time then, as I have said, she gave no sign at all a ad held h e r peace. T h e instant, however, that it was day she made ready such of the house-slaves as she saw were especially faithful to herself and then sent for Gyges. He had b e e n in the h a b i t before this of going to t h e queen at her c a l l . I t was, therefore, without a suspicion that she k n e w aught of what had occurred that he obeyed her summons now. " W h e n Gyges arrived the woman said these w o r d s ; ' N o w there are two possible courses open to thee, Gyges. I give thee the choice of whichsoever thou art minded to follow. E i t h e r slay K a n d a u l e s and take for thine own m e and the kingdom of L y d i a or else, here and now, thou shalt die thyself, so that thou mayest not in the future obey K a n d a u U s in all things and see that which thou shouldst not. V e r i l y , he that did devise this shall die, or else thou t h a t sawest me naked and didst that which is not fitting and lawful. As for Gyges, he was for a time stunned by her w o r d s ; then he began to entreat her not to force him into making such a choice. B u t truly in no way at all could he move her, on the contrary, he saw that the necessity was really before him of either slaying his master or of being slain h i m s e l f by others. H e chose to survive. A n d so he enquired of her, speaking t h u s : ' S i n c e thou forcest m e to slay my master, against my will, come then, let me hear how we are to set

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE KING

OF LYDIA.

1J7

upon him.' A n d r e p l y i n g she said: ' T h e attack shall b e in the place w h e r e i n he s h o w e d me n a k e d unto thee and the assault shall be w h e n he is asleep.' " So they contrived the p l o t : w h e n night came on, G y g e s (for he could not free himself, he had not one c h a n c e of escape, but either he or K a n d a u l e s h a d to die) f o l l o w e d the woman to the chamber. him b e h i n d the self-same door.

A n d g i v i n g him a dagger she hid

A n d after this, w h e n K a n d a u l e s had fallen

asleep, G y g e s stole up, slew him, and took possession of both his w i f e and his kingdom.

[ A r c h i l o c h o s of Paros, w h o l i v e d about the same time,

makes

mention of him in iambic trimeter.] " G y g e s held the throne and was confirmed in it by an answer of the D e l p h i a n oracle, e t c . "

T h e sources of this s t o r y h a v e also been t h e subject o f m u c h discussion. E p h o r o s ( A t h e n . X I I 5 1 5 , d) e x p r e s s l y stated that H e r o d o t o s d e p e n d e d o n X a n t h o s for t h o s e portions of his narrative w h i c h h a v e to d o with L y d i a n affairs. B u t the nature o f the d e p e n d e n c e is s o m e w h a t v a g u e l y defined and its p r o b a b i l i t y is c o n s i d e r a b l y impaired b y D i o n y s i o s of H a l i k a r n a s o s , A r c h . R o m . I 28. A t all events, so far as this particular s t o r y is c o n cerned, d e p e n d e n c e on X a n t h o s is a n y t h i n g but l i k e l y , and e v e r y attempt to p r o v e a n y direct connection has failed. 1 T h e points of contact are a m p l y e x p l a i n e d b y s u p p o s i n g that w e h a v e here two versions of the s a m e s t o r y , distinct, but, to a certain extent, d e a l i n g with a similar tradition of the facts. T h i s s e e m s to b e the v i e w of S c h u b e r t , M e y e r , R a d e t , B u s o l t and the majority o f m o d e r n investigators. It is the o n l y t h e o r y w h i c h will account for the situation. W h a t , then, were the p r o b a b l e sources of this narrative ? T h e old lyric p o e t s 2 and t h e D e l p h i a n t e m p l e tradition, 3 especially 1 The most important attempt in recent years was that of P o m t o w , D e X a n t h o et H e r o d o t o rerum L y d i a r u m scriptoribus, H a l l e , 1886. But see the criticisms of this dissertation b y Sitzler and K a e r s t , Burs. Jahresbericht etc., 1889, p. 261 and p. 323. F o r the chief m o d e r n literature on this subject see Busolt, 1. c., I I , p. 451, notes 2 and 3.

* I h a v e b r a c k e t e d the sentence referring to A r c h i l o c h o s in deference to most of the modern editors. But whether the sentence is genuine or not, the ' t r i m e t e r ' referred to is apparently nothing more than the one quoted in note 3, p. 2 6 1 ; i. e „ TOV (TOV MI APX'AOXOS, etc.) = G y g e s . T h e statement of Iuba (Rufinus, V I 5 6 3 , 1 6 , K . ) , " [ A r c h i l o c h u s ] qui G y g a e fabulam optime com plexus e s t " " must not," says B e r g k ( P L G , 11,4 p. 390, n . ) , ' be pushed too far by those w h o claim that A r c h i l o c h o s dealt at large with the career of G y g e s . ' I f I u b a had our text of Herodotos before him, as he seems to have had, he probably took TOV as = not G y g e s , b u t the p r e c e d i n g statements. H e n c e his remark quoted b y Rufinus. 3

See R . Schubert, 1. c. p. 30, f.

A n e l e m e n t in the G r e e k tradition is the

2;8

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

the latter, should doubtless be considered, though neither can be proved. But I agree heartily with the view expressed by Stein, 1 and after him by E. Meyer, 2 that what Herodotos probably had before him was the folk-tale of Gyges. In other words, it is here that we must look for that second part of the story which Plato told. Let us see, first, whether any support for this theory may be found in the narrative itself as it stands. On the face of it at least, there is nothing per se incredible in the story of Herodotos. Indeed, several of the main facts are essentially the same as in Xanthos. Gyges was the son of D a s k y l o s ; he was one of the king's guard and especially favored ; he became involved in trouble through a complication with the queen brought about by the king himself; through her he was forced to slay the king in order to save his own life ; he made her his queen; 3 his right to the throne was finally settled by an appeal to Delphi. In itself, too, the act of Kandaules is not only credible * but highly characteristic of a certain type of man ; and connection of the old L y d i a n dynasty with H e r a k l e s . T h i s w a s , p r o b a b l y , w o r k e d out by those G r e e k poets, epic and otherwise, w h o sung the praises of K r o i s o s . It is, also, possible that H e k a t a i o s or some author d e p e n d e n t upon him should be r e c k o n e d a m o n g the sources of H e r o d o t o s . C f . the authorities cited b y Busolt, 1. c., I I , 452, notes 2 and 3. O n the relation to H e r a k l e s , see also E . M e y e r , Forsch., I 1 6 7 ; C a u e r , R h e i n . M u s . , X L V I 244; T i i m p e l , Philol., N . F . , I V 607, and O . G r u p p e , Griechische M y t h o l o g i e und R e l i g i o n s g e s c h i c h t e , Munich, 1902, p. 495, f. 1

N o t e on H e r o d . I , 12, 8, according to Busolt, I. c., I I 457, note I .

But

I failed to find it in Stein. 3

G e s c h . des A l t e r t h u m s , I I , p. 458, note.

1 have already pointed out that the difference b e t w e e n Herodotos a n p X a n t h o s regarding the time of G y g e s ' marriage (whether before or after the appeal to D e l p h i ) is more apparent than real. See note 2, p. 264. 3

4 C o m p a r e R a d e t , I. c., p. 131 ; " Il n'y a rien d'anormal à ce qu'un souverain d'orient se soit enorgueilli de son harem. T o u t au contraire. E n s u i t e , dans cette frénésie d ' e n c h a n t e m e n t qu'inspire à C a n d a u l e une forme admirable, il se pourrait qu'à la vanité amoureuse se mêlât quelque sentiment esthétique. Hérodote n'est pas seul à présenter le S a n d o n i d e c o m m e un amateur du beau, passionément épris du charme des lignes et des contours. C ' e s t b i e n une physionomie d'artiste que P l i n e lui attribue " [ X X X V 34, 2 ; V I I 3 9 , 1 ; cf. V I I 57, 14]. " C a n d a u l e eut, à n'en pas douter, le goût des arts, et ce fut très probablement ce dilettantisme qui donna lieu à la tradition populaire dont Hérodote s'est fait l'écho."

It is this type of a man which Gautier has drawn with great care in his w e l l k n o w n story, ' L e R o i C a n d a u l e '.

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE

KING

OF LYDIA.

279

as for the queen's revenge, it was long ago observed that it has a striking resemblance to the one which the famous but less scrupulous Rosamund 1 wreaked upon her husband, Alboin, first king of the Lombards. On the other hand, setting aside the element of marvel, the narrative of Herodotos contains very little to prevent it from harmonizing with the popular legend as it appears in the last sentence of Plato's abridgment. A s a matter of fact only one important difference is visible. G y g e s did not seduce the queen. Indeed, the wife of Kandaules is something more than beautiful. She moves in a different world from that of the rather colorless Tudo of Xanthos. Xanthos, says Busolt, shows an especial sympathy with her. This is true in so far as he does not make her an accomplice of Gyges. But Herodotos has made a woman and a queen of her. He also shows a greater sympathy with Gyges than is found in Xanthos. This is clearly in line with the popular legend. But, no doubt, his view was also supported by the Delphian tradition and, perhaps, by references in the lyric poets. It will be seen, therefore, that the folk element in the story of Herodotos cannot be detected by the test of incredibility per se. Not even the variations from the assumed standard account of Xanthos can be attributed to the popular story without some 1 S e e Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. X L V (vol. V, p. 12, f., Bury). Baehr, on Herod. I, 9, refers to F. C. Schlosser, Weltgeschichte, II i, p. 82, for the mediaeval authorities for the story of Rosamund. See also Felix Dahn, Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen Völker, Berlin, 1889, p. 201, f. (in W. Oncken's Allgemeine Geschichte, etc., vol. IV). Among old chroniclers, the story of Rosamund is best told by Paulus Diaconus, De Gestis Langobardorum II, X X V I I I ( M i g n e ' s Patrolog. Lat., X C V , p. 498, f.) and Godfrey of Viterbo, Pantheon (Migne, Pat. Lat. C X C V I I I , p. 936, f. or, Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, V I I 4x3, f.). The text of Macchiavelli's fine version in his Istorie Florentine, I, V I I I , suggests that he had anticipated Gibbon in perceiving the resemblance to the tale of Herodotos. The version by Gower, Confessio Amantis, I, 2458, f., appears to have been taken from Godfrey of Viterbo. See the English works of John Gower, ed. G. C. Macaulay, Oxford, 1901, vol. I, p. 476, f. This story, also appears among the Italian novellieri; cf. Bandello, parte I I I , nov. X V I I I (vol. V I I , p. 200 of Silvestri's Novellieri Italiani, Milan, 1814). Finally, I note four plays on this subject: Sir William D'Avenant's Albovine, King of the Lombards, ' Dramatists of the Restoration,' London, 1872, vol. I, p. 1, f.; A. C. Swinburne, Rosamund, Queen of the Lombards, New York, 1899; Giovanni Ruscellai, Rosmunda, Venice, Zoppino, 1528; Alfieri, Rosamunda, Milan, 1806.

280

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

further proof. D e l p h i , for e x a m p l e , or the poets, or even s o m e other tradition, m a y h a v e had an influence here. Indeed, as w e h a v e j u s t seen, X a n t h o s , H e r o d o t o s , and, b y implication, t h e p o p u l a r s t o r y , clearly s h o w a certain c o m m u n i t y of tradition which, perhaps, g o e s b a c k ultimately to the facts of the case, or, at all events, to s o m e t h i n g like a c o m m o n source. It is, for that reason, all the m o r e difficult to trace the elements o f each. L e t us now a p p l y another test. G r a n t i n g that H e r o d o t o s h a d the popular l e g e n d before him, no one, of course, w o u l d i m a g i n e that he w o u l d g i v e it to us without c h a n g e . F o r the p u r p o s e s of sober a n d d i g n i f i e d history he w o u l d rationalize it if n o t h i n g else. T h i s was an o r d i n a r y t h i n g a m o n g the ancient historians. W e k n o w that H e r o d o t o s himself was m o r e or less in t h e habit o f rationalizing a l e g e n d w h i c h , after a c o m p a r i s o n of o t h e r sources, if available, he b e l i e v e d to b e true in its essential details. In rationalizing this s t o r y from the p o p u l a r tale, t h e first step, of course, w o u l d b e to e x p u n g e the ring and all the m a r v e l s connected with it. T h e r e f o r e , to replace the r i n g m o t i f in H e r o d o t o s o u g h t to be o n e fair criterion of the t h e o r y , and also should g i v e s o m e i d e a h o w m u c h his version m a y h a v e been c h a n g e d in o t h e r respects. Irrespective, too, of a n y further c h a n g e s , the ring o u g h t to fit best in the scars m a d e b y its r e m o v a l . T h e a p p l i c a tion o f this test here is not v e r y e n c o u r a g i n g at first s i g h t . The ring fits the m u r d e r s c e n e b e y o n d a d o u b t . B u t it d o e s not seem t o fit the parallel e p i s o d e o f the d o o r , the w h o l e point of w h i c h w a s the fact that t h e q u e e n saw G y g e s . T h i s also a p p e a r s to throw out the folly o f K a n d a u l e s a n d the q u e e n ' s r e v e n g e , the t w o main points o f our s t o r y . In fact, w e are left with not so m u c h as the last sentence of Plato, since one important detail o f i t — t h e l o v e affair of G y g e s and the q u e e n — i s not a c c o u n t e d for. B e f o r e g i v i n g this up, h o w e v e r , let us c o n s i d e r the story from a n o t h e r point of view. T h e narrative of X a n t h o s contains an erotic motif. Indeed, l o v e is r e a l l y the essential element of it. W e already know t h r o u g h P l a t o that in the folk-tale the erotic element was still further e m p h a s i z e d . N o antique reference is n e e d e d to inform us that the strength, the b e a u t y , the skill w h i c h X a n t h o s g a v e to G y g e s r e a p p e a r e d in the popular tale. A n d a l t h o u g h , as T i b u l l u s v e r y t r u t h f u l l y observes, F o r m a nihil magicis utitur auxiliis,

THE TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE KING

OF LYDIA.

281

we know that in this case the natural advantages of Gyges were ably seconded by a ring which gave this favorite of Hermes and Aphrodite something more than the mere ability to disappear at will. Now, at first sight, the story of Herodotos might not seem to contain an erotic element. But its absence is only apparent. F u r t h e r consideration not only betrays traces of it, but suggests that he must have suppressed it as not befitting historical narrative in general, and two such famous characters in particular. 1 F o r example, no modern reader will have failed to observe that the royal lady of Lydia, though implying—as was quite natural and proper—that his choice was a matter of absolute indifference to herself, at the same time offered Gyges, on the one hand, an alternative which a man might be forgiven for finding it hard to refuse, and, on the other, one which, by leaving him his self-respect in so far as it could be done, softened, as much as possible, the odiousness of the task imposed. Herodotos takes the trouble to state twice over that Gyges was obliged to slay or be slain. There was no escape." But with all due deference to the queen whom Herodotos has pictured for us, her punctual payment in full of the promised reward is hardly consistent with mere gratified revenge. Even by the method which she herself proposed she might have put both men out of the way as easily as one. She would not have scrupled to do so if she had felt inclined. In other words, we have reason to suspect, even from the story itself, that Plato's statement regarding Gyges' relations to the queen represented some incident in the version which Herodotos had before him. His reasons for omitting it have already been stated. But this is not all. It will be remembered that the reason why Gyges went to his memorable interview without suspicion was because, according to Herodotos, " h e had previously been in the habit of going to the queen whenever she sent for him." Certainly this detail, at least as Herodotos states it, is inconsistent with the strictly guarded seclusion of an oriental palace. The Lydians can hardly have differed much in this respect from their 1 It is possible that we have here a trace of the Delphian tradition which, for the best of reasons, was favorable to Gyges and his queen. ' Also stated by Xanthos, as we have seen, and, quite possibly, a historical fact.

282

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

modern representatives. Of course, this inconsistency, such as it is, may not be due to rationalization. But, in any case, it disappears as soon as we return to Gyges his magic ring. Equipped with this, he could indeed " go to the queen whenever she sent for him." Not only that, but the passing comment of Herodotos now assumes quite another meaning. In fact, it can only be associated with the statement of Plato regarding Gyges' relations to the queen before the death of Kandaules. T h e importance of this point is easy to see. T h e restoration of the ring of darkness to what seemed to be a scar in the Herodotean narrative has in fact served a double purpose. It has removed what seemed to be a slight inconsistency due to rationalization, and at the same time revealed and explained the one point in which it may be positively affirmed that Herodotos differs from Plato, and, therefore, from the folk-tale. It also goes far to justify our assumption that Herodotos did have the original of Plato's narrative before him, and that rationalization was at least one of the processes which he applied. W e can now see why Herodotos omitted the first half of the story. It dealt almost entirely with the marvellous. F o r the same reason, as well as for those already given, the queen's love affair was also omitted. As soon as the element of marvel was removed—the manifestly incredible element—this episode appeared to have no reason for existence. Thus the author was, in so far, convinced that the favorable opinion of Gyges and the queen, which was doubtless maintained by the Delphian tradition, was justified by the essential residuum of fact in the popular legend. KIRBY F L O W E R

SMITH.

AMERICAN

J O U R N A L OF V O L . X X I I I , 4.

PHILOLOGY W H O L E N O . 92.

I.—THE T A L E OF GYGES AND THE KING OF LYDIA. II. W e have now to consider the two great motifs of the Herodotean narrative—the folly of Kandaules and the queen's revenge. Did these belong to the popular tale, or did Herodotos find them elsewhere and insert them in the place of other incidents now lost? On this point the testimony of Plato is only negative. Nor does the replacement of the ring help us at all in itself. Undoubtedly the ring belonged to the murder scene. But this does not imply that the queen's revenge was the cause of the murder. No one, it is true, can disabuse himself of the feeling that the ring had something to do with the door episode. W e may be sure that, in some form or other, the door episode goes back to the popular story. But this, too, does not presuppose the folly of Kandaules and, with it, the motive for the queen's revenge as elements in the popular legend. In short, we are again driven back to the brief summary of Plato. Nevertheless, before seeking possible testimony in other sources, it is worth noting that certain general considerations tend to suggest that something like the folly of Kandaules and the queen's revenge did exist in the popular story. 1. If Herodotos used the popular story at all—and this seems to be beyond a doubt—it would hardly be worth considering unless it had contained some such incidents as these. 2. Other versions of the story agree that Gyges was obliged to slay or be slain and that it was the queen who put him in this position. 26

362

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

3. T h e summary given by Plato does not preclude the presence of both elements. In such a brief statement as this, it is, in fact, just these two incidents that were most likely to be omitted. A n abstract concerns itself with the result, not the details. But we shall get more light on this point from the later references to G y g e s . W e should remind ourselves, however, that now our investigation is attended by growing complication and uncertainty. W e m a y have to reckon with the faint echo of still other versions long since lost, or of antique attempts to reconcile Herodotos and Plato on no better testimony than ours. T h e s e two versions were now famous in the literature. Their secondary and reflex influence upon the old popular version itself is, by no means, impossible. A n inaccurate and defective memory, also, is not the exclusive possession of our own day. Finally, we m a y have to deal with mere rhetoricians. This tribe cannot be trusted to preserve a paltry fact at the expense of a moral sentiment or a brilliant antithesis. T h e first important passage to be considered is still a fifth version of G y g e s ' rise to power. This is found in Iustinus, I 7, 14 f., and reads as follows: Fuere Lydis multi ante Croesum reges variis casibus memorabiles, nullus tarnen fortunae Candauli conparandus. Hie uxorem, quam propter formae pulchritudinem deperiebat, praedicare omnibus solebat, non contentus voluptatum suarum tacita conscientia, nisi etiam matrimonii reticenda publicaret, prorsus quasi silentium damnum pulchritudinis esset. A d postremum, ut adfirmationi suae fidem faceret, nudam sodali suo Gygi ostendit. Quo pacto et amicum in adulterium uxoris sollicitatum hostem sibi fecit et uxorem, veluti tradito alii amore, a se alienavit. Namque brevi tempore caedes Candauli nuptiarum pretium fuit et uxor mariti sanguine dotata regnum viri et se pariter adultero tradidit.

T h e work of Iustinus, which S c h a n z 1 is inclined to place in the third century A. D., is a collection of edifying extracts of the most pronounced rhetorical type from the Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus. T h i s was written in the age of Augustus. It is now generally acknowledged that the principal authority of T r o g u s was Timagenes, a Greek historian of the same period, but slightly earlier. T h e credit of this discovery belongs to A . von Gutschmid, 1 but his rather sweeping conclusions are Geschichte der Röm. Literatur, 2 te Aufl., München, 1899, par. 330. ' Kleine Schriften, V 352; V 218.

1

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

THE KING

OF LYDIA.

363

now more clearly limited and defined. 1 Whether Trogus took this story of Kandaules directly from Timagenes is uncertain.2 But, at all events, either directly or through Timagenes, it goes back to some Alexandrian source not far from the time of Plato. 3 This is the important point for us and may be considered as fairly proved. Now, this version of Iustinus + Trogus + X might be merely a development of Herodotos for a special rhetorical purpose, though, when we consider the period of X, his entire dependence on Herodotos may fairly be doubted. Or, as this version comes to us through a line of historians, X, or his ultimate literary source, must be the result of rationalization. If so, the date of X goes to show that the legend used was none other than that which Herodotos and Plato had before them. Or, thirdly, the version of Iustinus may represent a rationalization colored by the reflex influence of Herodotos. Let us examine the passage itself. The account of Iustinus comes nearer to Herodotos, as Gutschmid * observes, than any other version. But, of course, this observation has no definite value for us until we are able to say wherein Herodotos differed from the popular story. Gutschmid also noted that Iustinus' closing words, regnum viri, etc., seem to echo the last sentence of Herodotos, to-^c ml tijk yvvaiKa xai Ttjv ficurtXrjtriv Tvyrjs. But who will fail tO perceive that this phrase forms an equally fitting and characteristic ending to the popular story? On the other hand, though this version of Iustinus is not only shrouded in rhetoric, but, to a certain extent, has actually disappeared in it, no one will fail to perceive that it contains elements not found in Herodotos. The differences, as Gutschmid himself observes, are noteworthy. Kandaules talks of his wife to everyone, not to Gyges alone, as in Herodotos. This, to be sure, might be due to carelessness. The story is several degrees removed from its literary source and rhetoric is not concerned with accuracy in details. But a far more important difference 1 Mommsen, Hermes, X V I 6 1 9 ; Wachsmuth, Rhein. Mus., X L V I 4 7 7 ; E i n l e i t . in das Stud, der alten Gesch., L e i p z i g , 1 8 9 5 , p. 1 1 5 , f., etc. 8 S e e Schanz, 1. c., par. 329, and authorities quoted. 8 M a n y attempts to identify the ultimate authority of T r o g u s more definitely h a v e been made (cf. Schanz, 1. c., par. 329) but with no great success. B u t the purposes of this investigation do not require any further examination of this question. F o r us it is sufficient to call him X . 4

K l e i n e S c h r i f t e n , V 53, f.

364

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

between Iustinus and Herodotos is suggested by the sentence, quo pacto—alienavit and the expression, brevi post tempore. Upon considering these with the remainder of the passage, the version which emerges from Iustinus' rhetoric is about as follows: Kandaules talked of his wife to everybody. This emphasizes more than in Herodotos the folly and bad taste of the king. Finally, to prove his statements, he puts Gyges,his trusted friend, behind the door, as in Herodotos (nudam—ostendit). As in Herodotos again, the queen saw Gyges, but made no sign, as she understood the situation. Her love for Kandaules is therefore turned to hatred, and she dreams of revenge (uxorem—alienavit). Hence she yields to Gyges, who had fallen in love with her, and had therefore become the king's enemy (quo pacto—fecit). Not long after, having gained Gyges, she offered him the throne and herself if he would kill the king. T h e deed is accomplished and the price paid in full.

It has already been observed that the door episode here is undoubtedly that of Herodotos. It is equally clear, on the other hand, that the love affair is that of the popular story, and that it also occurs in the chronological sequence implied by Plato's summary. It is not found in Herodotos, but we have already discovered that its absence is due to rationalization. We have even followed one trace, perhaps, of the process in his passing comment regarding Gyges' visits to the queen. The replacement of the ring motif brought to light that these visits in the popular story must have referred to the love affair. The version of Iustinus shows that, setting aside the ring motif, which, in this connection, is not yet accounted for, the love affair was, or could be, quite in harmony with the door episode. In Iustinus the love affair was, in fact, the immediate result of it. The visits are, naturally, after the door episode, not before it, as in Herodotos. The interview with Gyges is brevi post tempore, i. e., after the love affair was a fait accompli, not, as in Herodotos,' the very next morning. These two changes in Herodotos would evidently be due to rationalization, with the view of placing the queen, and, especially, Gyges, in a more favorable light, but, at the same time, without disturbing the great dramatic events of the story. For it will be observed that, while Iustinus' version shows that the love affair of the old legend is perfectly compatible with the door episode, it also shows that the love affair is in perfect ' o f Ai {¡¡iipri -axiVTa syeydvEe, etc. The reader will observe with what a trifling alteration Herodotos changed the whole atmosphere of the story.

THE TALE

OF GYGES AND

THE KING

OF LYDIA.

365

harmony with the queen's revenge. The motive of her revenge is the same as in Herodotos, it is only her method of executing it that has changed. The love affair, in short, has become a chapter of it. How much the personal appearance of Gyges may have been supposed to influence the queen in her resolve to write this chapter cannot be said. At all events, it helped to square accounts with Kandaules by a method which some of the Italian novelle, among other literary authorities, would have us believe is peculiarly feminine. It also committed Gyges to herself and thus paved the way for further designs. It will be observed that the plot so far developed bears an even closer resemblance to the story of Rosamund than the version of Herodotos itself. The last sentence of Iustinus is a rolling period so full of rhetoric and moral sentiment that the details of the murder have entirely disappeared and the substance of the interview has all but reached the vanishing point. It might appear, at first sight, that when she thought the proper time had come the queen simply appealed to Gyges through the motives of lust and ambition, without any reference to the door episode. The statement of Plato does not help us here. For a moment, therefore, let us consider Iustinus from another point of view. The version of Iustinus is a highly rhetorical passage, the object of which is not so much to tell the story of Kandaules as to point a moral to be derived from that story. It is also an abridgment. Further, it is the abridgment of a rationalized version which was also clearly influenced by a strong rhetorical bias and, after the well-known methods of ancient rhetoric, presented from that side, a different side from the one presented by Herodotos. The centre of gravity, so to speak, in Iustinus is the folly of Kandaules, for the dire but natural consequences of which, he can blame no one but himself. The best way to bring out this sentiment and point the moral was to aggravate the guilt of Gyges and his accomplice as much as possible, having first emphasized the close and tender relations which had previously existed between them and Kandaules. It is clear that the story of Iustinus has been influenced by this consideration, and that it is due to this cause if his last sentence was meant to imply that the queen simply appealed to baser motives alone. But as a matter of fact Iustinus' words do not necessarily imply this. They are also a rhetorical abridgment. The story

366

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

of Herodotos, evidently very close to Iustinus' original as well as to the popular tale, agrees with Xanthos that Gyges was forced by the queen to slay or be slain. This motif is not precluded by the abridgment of Iustinus any more than it was by the abridgment of Plato. It is perfectly compatible with the plot of Iustinus so far developed. T h e queen, having first posted her slaves as in Herodotos, may summon Gyges to the interview and tell him—as a last resort—that he must slay or be slain. She may also impart the information, hitherto kept to herself—certainly, in the popular story, Gyges never betrayed the fact—that she saw him ¿¿ioVa hi a tSjv Bvpaw, that she knew who placed him there, that, if he now refuses to comply with her wishes, she shall, let us say, copy Phaidra's method of revenge upon Hippolytos. There can be little doubt that the murder scene in the model of Iustinus was the same that we find in Herodotos. T h e special point too that the queen makes of repeating the door scene betrays her state of mind and is a highly dramatic touch that can hardly have been absent from a popular tale which seems to have contained all the preliminary conditions leading up to it. In fact, Plato records that Gyges had the help of the queen in this episode and his statement has every appearance of referring to the account of it given by Herodotos. W e have seen that X, the ultimate literary source of Iustinus could not have been far from the time of Plato. This was the period of all others when we know that the old legend of Gyges was still current, when, in fact, the summary of Plato may have aroused new interest in it. Under such conditions it is not likely that X would have merely attempted to reconstruct Herodotos on the basis of Plato. It is easier and more reasonable to suppose that X was an independent rationalization of the old popular legend, affected, perhaps, by the phraseology of Herodotos. T h e high probability of this conclusion is further enhanced by the general considerations already mentioned. If this is true—and I think that it can hardly bedoubted— our question is answered, and we can be certain of that which, otherwise, is only highly probable. T h e old folk-tale used by Plato and Herodotos contained not only the erotic episode which Herodotos suppressed but it also contained the two great motifs of his version; the folly of Kandaules and the queen's revenge. W e now have to consider how the element of marvel was

THE

TALE

OF GYGES

AND

h a r m o n i z e d w i t h .such a p l o t .

THE

KING

OF LYDIA.

T h e w a y in w h i c h t h e r i n g

u s e d in t h e l o v e a f f a i r h a s a l r e a d y b e e n d e r i v e d f r o m and Iustinus,

367 was

Herodotos

T h e u t i l i t y o f it, a l s o , f o r t h e s l a u g h t e r o f K a n -

d a u l e s is, o f c o u r s e , o b v i o u s .

It m a y also be easily h a r m o n i z e d

with the details of that scene preserved b y H e r o d o t o s and referred to b y

Plato.

W h a t we

still

m a n a g e d in t h e d o o r s c e n e .

have

to

discover

is h o w

it w a s

If G y g e s possessed a ring of dark-

n e s s , h o w w a s it t h a t t h e q u e e n s a w h i m ?

That she did

h i m is t h e e s s e n t i a l p o i n t o f t h i s e p i s o d e in a n y v e r s i o n . n o t i m p o s s i b l e , o f c o u r s e , t o s u g g e s t a d e t a i l w h i c h will the situation. folk-tales

of a

see It is

explain

P l e n t y o f h i n t s f o r it m i g h t b e d r a w n f r o m o t h e r similar nature.

Fortunately,

however,

we

are

not d r i v e n to this solution of the difficulty. Ptolemaios C h e n n o s 1 who, according to Suidas, belonged

to

t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e first c e n t u r y A. D., is k n o w n c h i e f l y as t h e a u t h o r o f a Kaiwj 'Iaropla in s e v e n 3 b o o k s .

T h e a b s t r a c t o f it b y

P h o t i o s 3 shows that he was a m y t h o g r a p h e r of the

semi-novel-

listic t y p e . I n this w o r k , 4 a s r e p o r t e d b y P h o t i o s , C h e n n o s s t a t e d : " The wife of Kandaules, whose name Herodotos does not mention, was called Nysia. 5 According to report, she was Sinopo(,e and extremely sharp ' S e e Christ, Griechische Litteraturgeschichte, 3d edit., Munich, 1898, p. 762. See, also, Müller's Geog. Graeci Min., II, p. L V I I . I regret that the article of Hercher, JJ., Suppl. I 269-293, is not available to me. 3 ' Sechs Bücher' (Christ, 1. c.) is an oversight. 3 Cod. 190. 4 Mythographi Graeci, Westermann, p. 192; Müller F H G , I I I , 383, note; I V 278. s On these names (Tudo, Nysia, Habro) for the queen of Kandaules, see, especially, Müller, F H G , I I I 384, note 54, and I V 278. Tudo (Damaskenos-Xanthos) is the only name deserving any serious consideration. She was a Mysian princess according to Xanthos, and Müller, I. c., therefore, suggests that Nysia is a mistake for Mysia. It is just as likely to be a name manufactured by the authority of Chennos on the basis of Mysia. Elsewhere, Nysia is not vouched for except in a passage which was probably derived directly or indirectly from Chennos himself. This is a poetical note which J. Tzetzes wrote on his own version of the Gyges story^ Chiliades, I 144. It is found in Cramer's Anecdota Oxon., I l l 351 (also quoted in Müller's F H G , IV 278); 'H TOV Mupri/loi; roirov £ ypaxos itrriv rj

rvy^aveiv'

ßaatXtia,

Nai fitjv Kai r a avatcropa tifiepos, yvvrj Kav8avXov, T5>v avaKT&pav änpaKTos (v8odev KaOti/itvrj. TOP SaKTvXtov Xaßav v7vao7TL(TTV dvpäv—as he went out of the chamber. 2. Moreover, if it was the queen herself who gave G y g e s the ring of darkness, the story of Plato, undeniably a portion of the 1

L . c. V , p. 53.

2

T h e italics are mine.

374

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

old popular tale, must drop out altogether. This is not to be believed. In that case, too, the SpaKovrirris is identified with the ring of G y g e s , and, therefore, has the power of making its possessor invisible. But the &paKovriTi]s does not make its possessor invisible. On the contrary, as we have already seen, it makes visible to its possessor that which is invisible to less favored mortals. This idea runs through the folk-lore of all nations. 3. But Gutschmid's reconstruction is also quite upset by the passage from Philostratos which he does not mention and appears to have missed. This reference, as we have already seen, makes it clear that in the story to which Chennos referred the queen used her dragon-stone as a counter-charm to the ring of G y g e s , and was thus enabled to see him ¿£IOVRA Sia TS>V dvpav. T h e note of Tzetzes shows that he may have had some distant knowledge of the story told by Chennos. But his ¿Wrjyopia, upon which Gutschmid founds so much of his reconstruction, so far from containing any hint of a popular story of Gyges, is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize and explain the versions of Plato and Herodotos. It is accomplished by a peculiar species of rationalization eminently characteristic of Tzetzes and his period. This type of dXXiyyopla seems to have given the utmost comfort to those who used it, and was much admired by our forefathers. Here, however, Tzetzes has seasoned his ¿Wrjyopla of Plato and Herodotos with a touch of that Euhemerism which makes Palaiphatos, de Incredibilibus, one of the dreariest books ever written. W e may, therefore, dismiss the ¿Wrjyopia of Tzetzes and, with it, the reconstruction of Gutschmid, as of no value in this investigation. G y g e s was put behind the door by Kandaules. H e depended upon his ring to escape unobserved, but was detected by Nysia's counter-charm, the SpaKomnjr. This was a detail of the old story, and is vouched for by the combined testimony of Chennos and Philostratos. One last item of somewhat doubtful testimony remains to be considered before closing our case. This is the (popular?) p r o v e r b , Tvyov SaKTvXws-

Several articles or notices in various old lexicographers and collectors of proverbs 1 explain this phrase. I select the one 1 Diogenianos, I I I 99 (I, p. 232, Leutsch); Gregory of Kypros, I I 5 (id., I, 358); I I 58 (II 106); Makarios, I I I 9 (II 154); Apostolios, V 71 (II, p, 353); X V 85 (II, p. 6 4 9 ) D i o g e n i a n o s I I 20 (II, p. 20); Suidas, s. v. Tvyov Sa/crvXtoc (also in Schott's Proverbia Graecorum, Plantin, 1612, p. 395); Eudokia,

THE TALE OF GYGES AND THE KING OF LYDIA.

S7S

who, if not the source of all the rest, appears to represent the oldest and best tradition, riryov SaiervXios, says Diogenianos, 1 is used fVi rav irokvfirixava>v xal navovpyav, of cunning and resourceful people: " W h e n G y g e s w a s a s h e p h e r d , t h e earth split o p e n a n d h e f o u n d a c o r p s e w e a r i n g a ring. the

H e p u t the r i n g on, a n d w h e n h e d i s c o v e r e d

that b y t u r n i n g

s e t t i n g h e c o u l d b e v i s i b l e or n o t , as h e p l e a s e d , h e s l e w the k i n g

by

m e a n s of it a n d r e i g n e d in his s t e a d . "

This explanation is repeated with some minor variations and differing degrees of completeness by the other authorities whom I have mentioned in note i , p. 374. It appears to have been drawn from Plato, and some state the inference, if not the fact, in so many words. It will be seen, at once, that for the purposes of our investigation the value of this proverb depends entirely upon its age and pedigree—in this case extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine with certainty. Diogenianos, himself, belonged to the second century, and portions of the Paroemiographi go back to the collections of the Alexandrian A g e . But our existing corpus has been very much affected by various editions and additions. In this instance, the difficulty is increased by the fact that riyov daKTvXws, as a proverb, is not once found in the elder literature. Indeed, for my own part, I cannot find it anywhere except in the lexical sources already mentioned. Commentators on the Paroemiographi (cf. Leutsch, e. g., on Diogenianos, 1. c.) state that this proverb is often quoted by the late writers, but the assertion is not borne out by any of the examples which they cite. T h e earliest, are from Libanios and Gregory of Nazianzus. In none of them may a knowledge or use of the proverb be assumed. T h e y appear to be no more than the usual literary reference to the story of Plato characteristic of the second and fourth centuries A. D., and principally due to the use of this passage in the schools for various Violarium,

99 (p.

169, F l a c h ) ; on

this

work

once

attributed

to

Eudokia

M a k r e m b o l i t i s s a b u t n o w k n o w n to b e a c o m p i l a t i o n of t h e 1 6 t h c e n t u r y , see K r u m b a c h e r , 1. c . , par. 240 (p. 578). S c h o t t , 1. c., p. 395, refers to the e p i s t l e s of T z e t z e s , a n d L e u t s c h , to a p a s s a g e f r o m T h e o d o r o s P r o d r o m o s in B o i s s o n a d e ' s A n e c d o t a G r a e c a , I I , p. 458.

I

regret that n e i t h e r of t h e s e w o r k s is a v a i l a b l e to m e : a n o t h e r case occurs in Z o n a r a s , 456. 1

I I I 99, v o l . I , p . 232, L e u t s c h .

376

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

educational purposes. None of them is based on a proverb riyou 8aKTv\ios. If there was ever any connection at all, the process must be reversed. In other words, the proverb riyou