The Tale of Gyges and The King of Lydia

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 Âmerican 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 his-
tory 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. T h e subject
was much discussed in antiquity.
2See Müller, F H G , I 40: I I 1 7 1 , 47.
3
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 <j>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, practi-
cally, 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 cross-
references 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 Alter-
thums, 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
1 F H G , I I I , 383, f., Dindorf, p. 32, f.

2 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
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 to be
drawn from the old L y d i a n logographer, Xanthos.1 His Lydiaka,
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. Xanthos
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 . B u t t h e q u e s t i o n is
complicated by t h e fact that s o m e 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 Damaskenos.
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 epitomized by a
certain M e n i p p o s . A t h e n a i o s , X I I 5 1 5 d, reports, but criticizes,
the view of Artemon of Kasandreia t h a t it w a s t h e w o r k of
Dionysios Skytobrachion.2 S u c h a question is a l w a y s capable
of further discussion. 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.
3 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.
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 pos-
session of the throne."
1 T h e best tradition of the text here g i v e s ; el avToit; yevotro olav ttots <j>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
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 Whitting-
ton 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 refer-
ences 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 recon-
struction 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); Ariosto, X I 6, f.
S e e , also, G r i m m , D . M., I I , p. 1 1 7 1 .
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 com-
ments 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 color-
ing of it and the rich fancy of the nation by which it was
transmitted.
W e are, therefore, justified in suspecting that Plato's intro-
ductory 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
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>.
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, per-
haps, 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 'Piôrofioi 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.
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 pos-
session. 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 ro-
mances, 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 refer-
ence is too brief to be very definite.
19
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 the
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 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 . I n d e e d , it c a n n o t b e
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 .
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 to-
G 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.
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 after-
wards 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. A n d g i v i n g him a dagger she hid
him b e h i n d the self-same door. 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 nar-
rative 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.
3 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.
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 '.
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, Weltge-

schichte, 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.
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 con-
nected 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,

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 nar-
rative 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.
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 PHILOLOGY
V O L . X X I I I , 4. 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
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 senti-
ment 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 volup-
tatum 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
1 Geschichte der Röm. Literatur, 2 te Aufl., München, 1899, par. 330.

' Kleine Schriften, V 352; V 218.
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. Gut-
schmid 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 dis-
appeared 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.
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 replace-
ment 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, natur-
ally, 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.
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 ac-
counts 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 abridg-
ment. 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 Kan-
daules, for the dire but natural consequences of which, he can
blame no one but himself. The best way to bring out this senti-
ment 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
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 pre-
cluded 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 her-
self—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 Herodo-
tos. 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
h a r m o n i z e d w i t h .such a p l o t . T h e w a y in w h i c h t h e r i n g was
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 Herodotos
and Iustinus, 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 have to discover is h o w it w a s
m a n a g e d in t h e d o o r s c e n e . 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 see
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 . It is
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 explain
the situation. 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
folk-tales of a 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 con-
sideration. 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 <5e ywi) roil nai KavdavXov,
Jlapä Aiveip tysperat Xafuanolg kv /.oyoif;
Nvcaia KKTIGLV ex0VGa ^pbs TspTvKkav ¿>£ ypa<pei
Tif Tlrole/ialos äfm rs nal 'JhpaioTiuv Kkr/aiv.
of sight, being in possession of the stone dpaaavTiTric,1 and on this account

perceived Gyges when he was passing out of the door. Others call her Tudo,
On ' Aineias ' and his Zafuanol Aoyoi see Miiller, F H G , IV 278 (not mentioned
in Pauly-Wissowa). This one reference of Tzetzes is all that we know of him.
He may be real, but under the circumstances, the reputation of Tzetzes is such
(cf., e. g. Krumbacher, Byzant. Litt. 2d edit., p. 527) that we need not take
Aineias and his book too seriously. Neither Tzetzes nor Chennos himself
(Hercher, 1. c.) is above suspicion when supportin a statement by some
remote authority. Bogus references are, in fact, a noticeable characteristic
of Ancient Learning in her senility. W e find it in the Origo Gentis
Romanae, in the astonishing work of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus, etc.
The Abas, however, cited by Chennos in this passage is mentioned else-
where. See F H G , I V 278 and Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, I, p. 19, no. 11.
The names of Klytia and Habro rest on the authority of Chennos alone.
The tale of Plexiroos is clearly an explanation manufactured ad hoc, though
it is not at all unlikely that Chennos had an earlier authority for it. The
intrusion of the mignon into all departments of literature is highly character-
istic of the later Alexandrian Age.
As a matter of fact, Herodotos' failure to name the queen of Kandaules,
in itself, tends to show that he had the popular story before him. The chances
are that she had no name in the popular story. 'The queen/ 'q yvvi] TOV fiaoMaç,
is usually quite enough for a fairy-tale.
6 That is, she had a ' double pupil.' On the origin and meaning of this word
and its connection with the superstition of the Evil Eye and supernatural keen-
ness of vision see my article 1 Pupula Duplex, a comment on Ovid, Amores, I 8,
15,' Studies in honor of Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Baltimore, 1902, pp. 287-
300. On p. 291, f., of that article I mentioned Cuvier (Pliny, I I I , p. 24, Lemaire)
and E. Millier (Philol. V I I , p. 254, n. 40) as the only two persons who, to my
knowledge, had ever expressed any opinion on a pupula duplex. I might have
added from the sphere of literature, Théophile Gautier, 1 Le Roi Candaule,'
Nouvelles, Paris, Fasquelle, 1893, p. 376, and Robert Lytton, 'Gyges and
Candaules,' Chronicles and Characters, London, 1868, vol. I, p. 66. The
passage from Gautier is well worth reading as a piece of fine writing on a
phenomenon which he did not understand. Lytton says :
She mused a little ; and her intricate eyes,

Orb within orb, grew dark with cruel light.
These lines were evidently suggested by the passage from Chennos. They do
not explain ÔÎKO/JOÇ.
A t the time my investigation of the double pupil was published (cf. p. 290,
n. 1) the 4th volume of Mélusine, containing one of Tuchmann's valuable
articles on the Evil Eye was not available to me. Since then, a copy has come
into my hands, and, for the benefit of any who may be interested in the
subject, I add here a notable reference (1. c., p. 33) to the superstition in
modern times which had entirely escaped me.
Ami-Boué, La Turquie d' Europe, Paris, 1840, vol. II, p. 123, gives the con-
tents of two Servian folk-songs in which the leading part is played by the
double pupil as a sign of the Evil Eye.
THE TALE OF GYGES AND THE KING OF L YD I A. 369
some Klytia, but A b a s calls her Habro. T h e y say that Herodotos suppressed
her name because his favorite Plexiroos, a native of Halikarnasos, fell in love
Tuchmann also notes (1. c., p. 33) Vair, Trois Livres des Charmes, Paris,
1583, p. 106 and (1. c., p. 79), Boguet, Discours des Sorciers, Paris, 1607, pp.
313-318 ; Six Advis en faict de Sorcelerie, pp. 28-30 and 60. These, however,
belong to a class which I had purposely omitted from my investigation because
they are nothing but the more or less inaccurate reference to Pliny, V I I , 17
not infrequently found in the numberless pseudo-scientific treatises on
witchcraft which appeared in the 16th and 17th centuries. Vair, for example,
says, (passage quoted by Tuchmann, 1. c.) ; Finablement (ainsi que dit Didy-
mus) ceux-là charment facilement . . . . qui ont deux prunelles en chaque
oeil, ou bien l'effigie d'un cheval en l'un d'eux . . . . T h e passage is practi-
cally a translation of Pliny, V I I , 17. ' Ainsi que dit D i d y m u s ' — t h e mention
of Didymos in this connection is also found in later authorities—is an interest-
ing case of hereditary citation by name only.
T h e ultimate authority for ' ainsi que dit Didymus ' is a fragment of
Didymos Chalkenteros, Symposiaka, I I , regarding Pliny's Thibii (preserved
by Steph. Byzant., 314, 6, M. ; cf. M. Schmidt, Fragmenta Didymi Chai.,
L e i p z i g , 1 8 5 4 , p . 370) w h i c h r e a d s ; davarol éè TO irvev/jia avrôv, oiç àv irTiriGiáî),
nal rà cùfiara avroiv slç OaAaoGav ptQévra ov KaraôvovGiv.
It is perfectly obvious that Didymos and Pliny had a common source for
this statement. This, as we learn from Pliny himself (1. c.) was Phylarchos.
It was, therefore, proper that Didymos should be mentioned as a Pliny-com-
mentary at this point, and as a matter of fact, his name was found there
earlier than Dalecamp's edition of 1587. T h e exact source, however, is not
given and the fragment itself is not quoted.
Now, it will be observed that the reference to the double pupil which Vair
ascribed to Didymos is not found in Didymos at all but in Pliny, of whom
Vair says nothing. I t would, therefore, appear that some previous authority on
the point taken up by Vair had found the name of Didymos in a Pliny-com-
mentary ( V I I , 17) and without taking the trouble to trace the reference had,
innocently or otherwise, concealed the real source of his information by
referring it to Didymos. In fact he may have looked upon Didymos as the
original source of the passage and therefore referred to him directly as the
author of it, without mentioning Pliny. T h i s is a well-known mediaeval
habit of citation and not always designed to awe the reader with a show of
superior and recondite learning. A t all events, it is evident that Vair and
several of his successors in the same line of discussion quoted the name of
Didymos without looking up the passage in question.
1 So Westermann. T h e word is not found in L . and S. (8th ed.). " Dra-
conitis sive Dracontias " according to Pliny X X X V I I 158. Compare Solinus,
X X X 1 6 , 1 7 ; Isidoras, X I V 14, 7 ; X I V , 5, 15; Tzetzes, Chiliades, 7, 656, f.
(Philostratos, Apoll. Tyan., I l l 6). T h e superstition of dragon-stones,
toad-stones, adder-stones, etc., etc., is world-wide and quite too extensive to
allow of further mention here.
37° AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
w i t h an hetaira by the n a m e o f N y s i a , and f a i l i n g to w i n her, h a n g e d h i m s e l f

in despair. F o r this reason Herodotos avoided m e n t i o n i n g the name of N y s i a
because it w a s h a t e f u l to h i m . "
T h e important point for us in this curious p a s s a g e is the reason

w h y N y s i a , as C h e n n o s n a m e s her, saw G y g e s w h e n he went out
o f the d o o r . S h e possessed a " d o u b l e - p u p i l " and also a " d r a g o n -
s t o n e . " T h e s e , C h e n n o s o b s e r v e s , g a v e h e r supernatural p o w e r s
o f vision. In m y article on the d o u b l e pupil I pointed out that,
in his desire to e m p h a s i z e this gift of N y s i a , C h e n n o s has, after
the m a n n e r of his k i n d , u n n e c e s s a r i l y d o u b l e d p o w e r s a m o u n t i n g
to the s a m e thing. O n e or the other w o u l d h a v e been sufficient.
It is v e r y l i k e l y , therefore, that one of these gifts is a later
addition either b y C h e n n o s himself or s o m e predecessor.
It will be noted that no r i n g of G y g e s is mentioned here. 1
E i t h e r the d o u b l e pupil or the d r a g o n - s t o n e , h o w e v e r , g i v e s its
possessor a k e e n n e s s o f vision s u p e r i o r not o n l y to objects m e r e l y
o p a q u e to o r d i n a r y m o r t a l s but also, be it o b s e r v e d , to a n y sort
o f e n c h a n t m e n t . T h i s , in itself, s u g g e s t s that G y g e s d i d h a v e
his ring a l t h o u g h C h e n n o s d o e s not mention it. B u t here, a g a i n ,
w e are so fortunate as to h a v e the s u p p o r t o f a r e f e r e n c e — t h e
o n l y one w h i c h has s u r v i v e d from antiquity.
A b o u t a c e n t u r y after C h e n n o s , Philostratos, w h i l e e x p a t i a t i n g
at length, in his life o f A p o l l o n i o s o f T y a n a , 2 on the s u b j e c t o f
Indian d r a g o n s , the m e t h o d of c a p t u r i n g them, etc., o b s e r v e s that
the w o n d e r f u l stone in their h e a d s (i. e., the Spanovrirris o f C h e n n o s )
is " i n v i n c i b l e even against t h e ring w h i c h , t h e y s a y , was possessed
by Gyges." T h i s is clearly a reference to the version w h i c h
C h e n n o s or s o m e one in the line o f his authority had in m i n d .
In this version G y g e s h a d the ring w h i c h he found in the b r a z e n
horse. H e was p l a c e d behind the d o o r b y K a n d a u l e s ( w h o ,
d o u b t l e s s , had no suspicion that he p o s s e s s e d such a r i n g ' ) .
1 T h a t , for that reason, G y g e s did not possess a ring in this version w a s the
conclusion which e v i d e n t l y prompted the aXXriyopia of T z e t z e s and a recon-

struction of Gutschmid's, both of w h i c h w i l l be considered in another
connection.
8 I I I 6 (vol. I , p. 88, K . ) . T h i s reference w a s o v e r l o o k e d by G u t s c h m i d .
3 T h i s , of course, may be taken for granted. O n page 290 of my article,
on the double pupil, I suggested that in the version to w h i c h C h e n n o s refers,
G y g e s was not put b e h i n d the door but, without the connivance of K a n d a u l e s ,
was simply r e l y i n g upon his ring. A further examination of the old tale of
G y g e s and his ring shows that the statement should be revised. G y g e s d i d
rely upon his ring to escape, but he was put b e h i n d the door by K a n d a u l e s .
W h e n G y g e s left the room he naturally supposed that his ring

had made it possible for him to escape without detection. But
Nysia possessed supernatural powers which enabled her to see
him in spite of it.
Here then, at last, we have the famous door-scene in its entirety.
Nysia's discovery of G y g e s is accomplished by one of the most
popular and characteristic devices of folk-lore, even the most
primitive. This is the use of the counter-charm.
I think that we may hardly doubt that this detail which we owe
to the joint testimony of Chennos and Philostratos goes back to
the old story. In fact, one fails to see how the old story, if it
contained the door episode at all could get along without this
motif. A s we have good reason to believe that it did have
the door episode the source of Chennos- Philostratos becomes
a matter of less importance. A brief statement however will not
be out of place as it leads us to other conclusions of some value.
T h e entire passage of Chennos appears to be nothing more than
a series of comments on the version of Herodotos and suggested
by other literary sources. W e have already seen 1 that some
of them m a y still be identified. This, however, proves no more
than the fact that Chennos himself was perhaps, unacquainted
with the old story as a whole and therefore attached some
reference to it which he found, no one knows where, to the version
of Herodotos which was familiar to all. In other words, we should
here find a proof that by the end of the first century the old
popular legend as such had wholly or partially disappeared. It
may very well be that this was actually the case.
That Chennos himself invented his statement regarding the
door episode is far from impossible per se. Hercher's brilliant
investigation 2 showed that Chennos was not averse to this method
of citation. But it has since been abundantly shown 8 that
Hercher's conclusions were altogether too sweeping. Moreover,
in this particular instance, the theory of manufactured information
is rendered improbable by, at least, three things:
1. W h e n Chennos gives bogus information he usually supports
it, after the manner of his kind, by definite, but purely imaginary,
authorities. H e gives no authority here.
2. Philostratos, evidently referring to the same story, adds a
detail not found in Chennos.
» Compare note 5, p. 367. 2 JJ., Suppl. I, p, 269-293.
3See, for example, Müller, Geog. Graeci Min. II, p. L V I I .

3. The testimony of both Philostratos and Chennos is to the

effect that in the first and second century, at least, the superstition
of the bpaKovTLTTjs was closely associated with this particular story.
Such being the case a passage from Pliny also tends not only to
show that the statement of Chennos-Philostratos goes back to an
earlier source, but, also, in a general way, what that source may
have been.
In X X X V I I 158, a passage on jewels which begins by quoting
Zoroaster, 1 Pliny mentions various names for the dragon-stone.
This implies that he may have looked up the subject in more
than one authority. H e then adds a brief description of how
dragon-stones are procured, which shows something very like a
community of source with Philostratos, 1. c. All this suggests that,
although he does not happen to mention it, Pliny, who is somewhat
earlier than Chennos, must have been acquainted with that version
of the Gyges story in which the dragon-stone played such an
important part.
If Pliny is to be reckoned with here, the source of Chennos-
Philostratos is even more likely to have been some of the Alexan-
drian paradoxographi who preserved the reference to Gyges
among those passages on the magic and curative qualities of
precious stones so characteristic of the age. If so, the ultimate
source can hardly be other than the old story of G y g e s itself.
T o a similar source and in a passage on rings might be traced that
reference of Pliny to Midas's ring of invisibility which I have
already mentioned.
It will be seen that the chief importance of investigating the
sources of Chennos here was simply to show how his statement
regarding the door scene may have gone back to the old story.
That it actually did go back to the old story or that the old story
contained practically the same thing was already acknowledged.
If, however, as seems likely, Pliny did know the story to which
Chennos refers, his testimony also has some negative value for
another purpose. Chennos gave Nysia both a double pupil and
a dragon-stone. Either confers upon its possessor exactly the
same powers as the other. This habit of doubling marvels, as I
have already said, is characteristic of his class. One of the two
is a later addition to the story. Now, Pliny is our principal
authority for the double pupil. He appears to have collected
all the references to it which he could find. But he does not
1 See the article on Damigeron in Pauly-Wissowa.

mention Nysia's double pupil. T h e omission suggests that he

did not know the book of Chennos because it was not yet in
existence, and that Nysia's double pupil was not mentioned
except by Chennos. In other words, Nysia's double pupil is
likely to have been the invention of Chennos himself. If so, the
charm which she used in the old story was the dragon-stone.
Before finally leaving this passage of Chennos it will be neces-
sary to consider, briefly, a quotation from Joannes Tzetzes,
Chiliades, I 3. This passage consists of twenty-nine political
verses, nep\ TOV Tvyov. Tzetzes tells the story of Plato, then the
story of Herodotos, and closes as follows :
•AXX' FJ&RJ a€ (T(FIAFIA£OVTA KU\ K^^RJVORA /SXeVto,
Trjv Tvyov xprjôvra fiaöttv natrav dXXrjyopiap.'
Tloiprjv 0 Tvyrjs Xeyerat ra> arparrjyos rvyâveiv'
"l7T7ror xaXicovr aycpa>xos itrriv rj ßaatXtia,
Nai fitjv Kai r a avatcropa tifiepos, yvvrj Kav8avXov,
T5>v avaKT&pav änpaKTos (v8odev KaOti/itvrj.
TOP SaKTvXtov Xaßav v7vao7TL(TT<us dfiKi/i'ei,
K a i (rvv al'To'is ARREKTEIVE Xadpaias TOV KavdavXrj.
"STpeyj/as DF TOP DAKTVXIOV TtaXiv Trpbs TTJV yvpaiKa
Tivfrai irätriv epffiavTjs, Xaßav TTJV ßao'tXeiav.
A . von Gutschmid 1 combines this with the version of Iustinus

and the reference in Chennos, and concludes that all go back
to a popular story of G y g e s , which he reconstructs as follows:
K a n d a u l e s zeigt dem G y g e s sein nacktes W e i b , sie aber sieht ihn durch

die T h ü r mit H i l f e eines Zauberringes den sie ans F i n g e r trägt, ruft ihn zu
sich und übergiebt ihm ihren R i n g der nach innen gidreht unsichtbar macht,
mit der Aufforderung den K a n d a u l e s zu tödten. U n g e s e h e n führt er Mörder
in K a n d a u l e s ' Gemach, zeigt sich nach dessen Ermordung, indem er den R i n g
nach aussen dreht, wieder dem V o l k e und wird K ö n i g . s
Granting for the moment that Tzetzes reflects any version of

the popular story, Gutschmid's reconstruction is, in itself, open to
objection.
1. Chennos does not say that the queen saw G y g e s " d u r c h
die Thür," but that she saw him c£«Wa Sia TS>V 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.

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 in-
visible. 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 in-
vestigation. 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 resource-
ful 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. 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
the 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 investiga-
tion 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 Par-
oemiographi (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 .
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 <W™Xios
may be a late addition to the corpus, drawn from just such
examples as those in Gregory and Libanios and supported or
suggested as a proverbial phrase by the familiar use in the
schools of Plato's version of the old story. Strictly speaking, there-
fore, it would never have been a proverb at all, and we thus have
an explanation of its absence from earlier literature. I f this was
the origin of the phrase, it has no value for us in this investigation.
On the other hand, a much earlier pedigree for the proverb
and a different history of it are by no means impossible. Strictly
speaking, the abstract from Plato which Diogenianos gives to
explain his proverb really does not explain it very clearly. T h e
reason may be because this was not the story from which the
proverb was derived. If so, the situation could be explained by
supposing that the proverb first appeared in one of the early
Alexandrian collections. A t that time the old story was still
generally known. T h e definition, eVl tSiv noXv/uixdvav nai navavpyav,
which we still find in all the lexical articles, was therefore quite
sufficient. In that case, the abstract of Plato's version—often
omitted from our lexical articles—should appear only after the
real source of the proverb, that is to say, the old story of Gyges,
had been forgotten. If, then, the abstract of Plato's version which
I have quoted was added by Diogenianos himself we should thus
have a further confirmation of our suspicion that, by the time of
Chennos and Philostratos, the memory of our story had practically
faded out. T h e phrase itself, however, may have still survived
in common use. Many a proverbial expression goes back to a
story long since forgotten. 1 It is true that it never appears in the
literature, but this may be merely a matter of chance.
But, at all events, whether the proverb is a survival of our old

story or not, it is certainly more in harmony with it than with any
other version which we have considered. Every incident of the
that story as it has unfolded before us has made this more and
more evident. T h e proverb, in short, reflects the traditional
character of Gyges himself and the popular conception of his
character in the days of Herodotos and Plato was derived from his
1 See, in particular, the interesting and suggestive article by Crusius,

Marchenreminiscenzen im antiken Sprichwort, Verhandlungen der X L . Philo-
logenversammlung, 1 8 9 0 , p. 31-47.
THE TALE OF GYGES AND THE KING OF LYD1A. 377
adventures in the popular story. The adventures of Gyges with

his ring were, naturally, the main interest of it. W e have already
discovered the most important ones. That there were others is
beyond any reasonable doubt. The gap, so to speak, between
the version of Plato and that of Herodotos is not yet accounted
for. The ring was probably connected with some adventure in
Sardis which first commended Gyges to the king's notice.
But, above all, a statement of Xanthos is of especial significance
here. Xanthos, it will be remembered, says that Gyges, to begin
with, was in high favor, but that, afterwards, the king became
suspicious, and, with a view to getting rid of him, set him at
various difficult tasks. Gyges, however, performed them all suc-
cessfully and was finally reinstated in the king's favor. Is any
reader of fairy tales inclined to doubt that, in this passage, Xanthos
is probably drawing from the old popular legend of Gyges?
The motif not only has n peculiar fitness here, but is common to
the folk-lore of all nations. The hero finds his life contingent on
the successful performance of certain extremely difficult and
perilous tasks. They are usually three in number, and as a rule,
the time in which they must be completed is absurdly inadequate.
In character, too, they have a strong resemblance to those actually
mentioned by Xanthos. 1 They are always performed success-
fully, usually with the aid of supernatural means, in this case, of
course, by the ring of darkness. In most cases, the story then
proceeds, to the fame and fortune of the herd as inevitably as to
the ruin of the taskmaster.
So much for the details of our old legend so far as they may be
discovered or guessed. But, before closing, we shall find it profit-
able to consider briefly the type of it as a whole.
The character of all the incidents as well as of all the actors as
they have gradually been revealed, points to one conclusion. So
far as type is concerned, the legend of how Gyges became king
of Lydia is the story of the Adventurer, the Giant, and the
Princess, or in more general terms, of Wit, its contrasted Oppo-
nent and Dupe, and its Reward. This lets in a flood of light
upon a point which constituted one of the main differences
between the various rationalizations which we have been consider-
ing. In fact, each rationalization represents and embodies the
1
wivovwpooraTTuv x^î re ml fieyalovc 'cm re nimpov; 'ml aXka dypia
oteXXUV.
26
a u t h o r ' s interpretation of that point. T h i s point is the ethics of t h e

situation as p o r t r a y e d in t h e old story.
In this favorite combination of the fairy tale, the A d v e n t u r e r ,
G i a n t a n d Princess, no one was e v e r k n o w n to s y m p a t h i z e with
the Giant, t h o u g h , certainly, he is born for trouble as t h e s p a r k s
fly u p w a r d . It is quite useless for him to appeal to the courts o f
F a i r y L a n d . L i k e the corporate giants of t o - d a y he cannot r e c o v e r
d a m a g e s and cannot e x p e c t any s y m p a t h y from the j u r y .
H e is stupid a n d brutal a n d full of folly. T h e h e r o outwits him,
the princess b e t r a y s him a n d both live h a p p i l y e v e r after, on the
fruits of their c o m b i n e d labors. 1 A l l o w i n g for a t o u c h or t w o o f
that alteration in H e r o d o t o s a n d Iustinus w h i c h w e h a v e a l r e a d y
t r a c e d to d i v e r g i n g processes of rationalization, a n d will it be
d e n i e d that K a n d a u l e s o f the old s t o r y m i g h t well sit for the por-
trait of the Giant ?
N o t only t h e character of K a n d a u l e s but his situation is the
same. T h e possession o f the P r i n c e s s — u s u a l l y a sorceress, as in
this s t o r y — i s the o n e real c o n d i t i o n of his life and p o w e r . The
k i n g d o m is within her gift as a matter of course. T h i s is an
unwritten law of F a i r y L a n d w h i c h n o o n e w o u l d d r e a m of ques-
t i o n i n g . T h e difficulty w i t h this condition d o e s not b e g i n until
w e transfer it to h i s t o r y , as H e r o d o t o s a p p e a r s to h a v e d o n e ,
w h e n he m a d e the q u e e n offer herself and the k i n g d o m to G y g e s
in their m e m o r a b l e interview. A p a s s a g e in the P r o g y m n a s m a t a
of N i k o l a o s the S o p h i s t ( I , p. 288, W ) s h o w s that the difficulty
in this statement w a s r e c o g n i z e d b y the ancient critics and m u c h
d i s c u s s e d b y them. M o d e r n c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e usually seen in
this detail of the H e r o d o t e a n n a r r a t i v e the actual r e m a i n s of a
matriarchate in L y d i a or, at all events of a t h e o r y to that effect
h e l d b y the G r e e k s , a n d reflected, for e x a m p l e , in the l e g e n d o f
H e r a k l e s a n d O m p h a l e . 2 B u t it w o u l d be m o r e than d a n g e r o u s
1 A most excellent parallel, not only to the story of G y g e s itself in a g e n e r a l
w a y , but also to the ethics of the situation in the popular version, is found in
Straparola's Piacevoli N o t t i , B o l o g n a , 1899, p. 237, f. (V, I V ) . T h e C o r n u t o
in this tale is a s t r i k i n g example of the G i a n t - t y p e . L i k e K a n d a u l e s himself,
l i k e A n t o n i o in F l e t c h e r ' s ' C o x c o m b ' , or in its original, the Curioso Imperti-
n e n t e of C e r v a n t e s , he is true to a rule w h i c h , so far as any popular story is
concerned, holds good for every other Cornuto. H e never gets any sympathy.
» See the examples c o l l e c t e d by G e l z e r , R h e i n . Mus. X X X V 516, f. and R a d e t ,
1. c. p. 121. R a d e t , in common with m a n y others, suggests that the L y d i a n s
actually did attach importance to the transmission of royal authority in the
f e m a l e line and that the fact points to the existence of a primitive matriarchate.
for the theory of a Lydian matriarchate to lean too heavily on

the statement of Herodotos that the queen gave the kingdom to
Gyges. The ease and naturalness of this statement in the old
story on the one hand, and the difficulty of it in Herodotos
on the other, are sufficiently indicative of its probable source and
character.
The Adventurer in this combination may be a mere filius
terrae and thus illustrate the favorite motif of lowliness raised to
power, or, he may be one who slays the Giant as an act of vengeance
for wrongs committed by him and thus comes into his own again.
In the case of Gyges the former is suggested by Plato's abstract,
the latter, by the actual history of his family as related by Xanthos,
a popular tradition of which is by no means incompatible with
Plato's abstract.
T h e Adventurer, like all successful adventurers, is usually
remarkable for his address, versatility and quickness of wit. His
career is based upon the not over scrupulous use of these quali-
ties and constitutes the real savor and lasting popularity of the
story. That, in these respects, the legendary Gyges was a dig-
nified prototype of Jack the Giant-killer and something very like
a replica of Odysseus has become more and more evident as each
detail of the popular story has come to light. True to the old
proverb he is n-oXu/^xavos km iravovpyos, a Fortunatus, as befits the
favorite of Hermes, 1 born to strength and beauty and the love of
women, as befits the favorite of Aphrodite. 2
But recent investigation of the Herakles-Omphale legend, its sources and

character, shows the danger of assuming that there really was any L y d i a n
law of succession pointing to the existence of an ancient matriarchate. See
E . Meyer, Forschungen, I 1 6 7 ; Cauer, Rhein. Mus., X L V I 2 4 4 ; K . Tümpel,
Philol. L 6 0 7 ; O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte,
Munich, 1902, p. 495, f.
1
Compare Iliad, 20, 395 ; Autolykos, in the Odyssey, 19, 395, f., etc., etc.
See, also, Roscher, Hermes der Windgott, Leipzig, Teubner, 1894.
T h e favorite of Hermes, of course, reflects the character and temperament
of Hermes. But the story itself shows that Gyges must have been conceived
up as the favorite of Hermes. Hermes is the god of blind luck. T h e highest
cast of the dice, 'Ep/iov K?j/pnr) was named for him. Unexpected fortune,
treasure-trove (Grimm, D . M., p. 926, f., etc.) and the like are directly due to
him. Compare the part played by him in the old fairy tale told by Phaedrus,
Append. I I I (Riese). On the whole subject see Roscher, 1. c., p. 82, f. and
Lexikon, I 2379, f. Magic rings are distinctly mentioned as the gift of Hermes
by Lukian, Navig. 42, f.
38O AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
G y g e s may win the confidence of Kandaules and become his

trusted adviser but there is no friendship with the Giant-type.
Kandaules lays bare the secret of his life and fortune. F r o m
that moment he is merely a pawn in the game. G y g e s , the O d y s -
seus, and Nysia, the K i r k e , of this story are now the principal
characters. T h e scenes which follow—again suggestive, some-
how, of the encounter of Odysseus and K i r k e — r e a l l y constitute
a duel of wits between these Arcades ambo. G y g e s had already
done much to justify the favor of H e r m e s — i f not of Aphrodite.
But in the door episode he tried his disappearing trick once too
often. Without knowing it he now has to deal with a rival
magician. His charm is met and detected by the counter-charm
of Nysia. In the love scenes which follow G y g e s is far from
telling all he k n o w s — a n d so is Nysia. H e says nothing of his
ring or of the door incident—neither does she, until the time is
ripe. T h e n she sends for him, plays the trump she has been
keeping in reserve and takes the trick. Indeed, Nysia has scored
every point which she undertook to make in this game. But in
this realm of Oberon, G y g e s the child of Fortune, is defeated
only when defeat is the condition of his ultimate success.
M y reconstruction of this old story is now as complete as I can
In fact, the whole story of Gyges, his character, the discovery of his ring,
the power of disappearing at will which it conferred upon him, his wealth, his
unvarying good l u c k ; all point to the favor of Hermes. Indeed, Kandaules,
the name of Gyges' mortal patron in Herodotos and Iustinus, and, presumably,
in the popular story (Sadyattes in Xanthos) was, also a Lydian name of
Hermes (as well as of Herakles). Cf. Höper in Roscher's Lexikon, s. v.
Kandaulas. T h e parallel is suggestive to one attempting to trace the origin
and genetic development of the old popular story before it reached the stage
with which my investigation is exclusively concerned.
2 T h e favor of Aphrodite is not as clearly suggested. Beauty and charm,
however, are the gifts of Aphrodite. Compare the legends of Paris, Kinyras,
Aineias, Phaon, etc. These qualities are expressly given to Gyges by Damas-
kenos-Xanthos and that the same was true of the popular tradition appears to
be suggested by the fact that Horace, for example, gives the name of Gyges to
the hero of Odes I I I 7 (cf. I I 5, 20), in both cases, a person evidently dis-
tinguished for those qualities. T h e prominence of the erotic motif in the
old story of Gyges also points in the same direction and is, to some extent,
supported by certain scraps of legend regarding him which have reached
us from other quarters, perhaps originally due to the same association of
ideas. Compare Müller, F H G . I V 171, 47 ; I I 314, 34.
make it. The task involves many complications and difficulties.

Moreover, while some points will perhaps be acknowledged at
first sight others rest on a chain of probabilities incapable of final
and irrefragable proof. I have aimed, however, in every case, to
state the point in such a way that the reader may easily form an
opinion of its value.
The article has been long and the course of it has been fre-
quently interrupted by the discussion of many minor, but neces-
sary details. It will, therefore, not be out of place to close it with
a brief survey of results.
Gyges first of the Lydian Mermnadai rose to the throne in
the seventh century B. C. His complex character, his command-
ing personality, his long and adventurous career, all united to
make him a popular hero. He was also the first great barbarian
with whom the Greeks had come in contact. It is evident that at
an early date a mass of tradition had gathered about him. Some
of it was no doubt of Lydian origin, though the Lydian element
can no longer be traced. The most of it, however, was due to
the rich fancy of the Ionian Greeks. It is probable that much
with regard to him might have been gleaned from the old lyric
poets, especially Archilochos and Mimnermos.
How far the tradition of Gyges which has reached us was
affected by Kroisos it is impossible to determine. Perhaps to a
considerable extent. Kroisos, last of the Mermnadai, was the
Grand Monarque of his house. Hellenic court poets must have
vied with each other in running back his pedigree and glorifying
the achievements of his ancestors. Much of the Lydian legend
of Herakles and Omphale has been ascribed to the efforts of these
poets.1 At such a time the old traditions of Gyges must have
revived. For was he not, as Plato himself calls him, 'ancestor
of the Lydian' ? 2 No doubt, also, these traditions were not only
revived, but also revised and enlarged. The temple tradition of
Delphi should also be mentioned. It was lively and favorable,
for the best of reasons. One or more unknown logographers may
perhaps be assumed among pre-Herodotean authorities. Xanthos
is credited with the use of native Lydian sources.
But of all the traditions regarding Gyges the most notable and
1
See note 2, end, p. 378.
2
It is not impossible that in this very phrase w e have a trace of the fact
that the popular story which Plato and Herodotos knew actually did assume
final form in the time of Kroisos. See p. 387, note.
dramatic was that which told how he became the king of Lydia.
No less than five different versions of this event have reached us.
The first is from Herodotos. The second goes back to the
Lydiaka of Xanthos, though it is known to us only in an excerpt
from Nikolaos Damaskenos which was made by Constantinus
Porphyrogennetos in the tenth century. The third is from Plato.
The fourth is partially (?) reported by Plutarch; his source is
unknown. The fifth comes to us from Pompeius Trogus through
a rhetorical abstract by Iustinus; the ultimate source appears to
have been some historian of the Alexandrian Age.
There was, however, still another and far older version than
any of these, though its age and ultimate source cannot be deter-
mined precisely. This was a genuine popular legend, a fairy-tale,
describing the career of Gyges on his way to the throne. It
probably originated among the Ionians and Lydians not far
from the period of its hero. It was doubtless comparatively
simple at the beginning and grew as time went on. At all events,
in the days of Herodotos and Plato it was a fully developed tale of
the Graeco-Oriental type with a dramatic plot and a number of
adventures. The actual persistence of it in the popular tradition
after Plato's time cannot be proved. The latest reference to it
comes from Philostratos at the beginning of the third century,
A. D. At that time, apparently, it had long been dead. I find no
certain trace of it in the legends of modern Greece or Asia Minor.
The whole of it as a popular story was probably never committed
to writing, and can only be recovered from the consideration of a
few scattered references and the various literary versions.
An abstract of the first half is given by Plato to illustrate a
point in a philosophical discussion. The omissions and abbrevia-
tions are such as were dictated by the purpose for which it was
intended. A single sentence at the end, brief, but very valuable,
gives a general outline of the remainder. The second half lies
behind the rationalization of Herodotos and emerges as soon as
we study Herodotos in connection with the last sentence of Plato,
the version of Iustinus and the references of Chennos and Philos-
tratos. As each detail comes to light it becomes clear that the
version of Herodotos was drawn directly from the popular story,
and, apparently, from nothing else. Not only that, but Herodo-
tos handled the old tale with the utmost conservatism. He
removed the element of marvel as a matter of course. This is why
•we hear nothing of the half which Plato related. The removal
of charm and counter-charm in the door scene was easy. The

equation, so to speak, was still undisturbed. The removal of the
ring from the murder was still easier, moreover, it was now
demanded, in order to preserve that parallelism between the
murder scene and the door scene which was characteristic of the
old story.
For various reasons, among them his own good taste and the
Delphian tradition of Gyges, Herodotos deleted the love affair.
His method was simple and conservative. The removal of the
ring still left some visits to the queen after the door episode.
Herodotos put them before it and changed the motive for them.
The resulting gap was then filled by moving up the interview to
the next morning after the door scene. Thus, the great event of
the story, the queen's revenge, could remain undisturbed. The
queen's offer of herself and the kingdom is a feature of the old
fairy-tale. This, and not a primitive Lydian matriarchate, is the
explanation of an action inconsistent with the ordinary laws of
royal succession.
The gap between Plato and Herodotos should also be con-
sidered. There was an adventure here with the ring which intro-
duced Gyges to Kandaules, though this is not vouched for by
any antique authority. His confidence was finally gained by
Gyges through the performance of several difficult tasks with the
aid of the ring. For this detail Xanthos gives us the clue.
Gyges was conceived of as the favorite of Hermes and Aphro-
dite. The tradition of his beauty, strength and address, his
versatility, cunning and energy, in short, of his likeness to
Odysseus, goes back to the old popular story. The queen in that
story had much in common with Kirke. For the sake of'greater
clearness I append here a brief outline of my attempted recon-
struction. The type is that of the Adventurer, Giant and Princess.
Gyges [the son of Daskylos and] the ancestor of Kroisos was a shepherd
when he was young, in the service of [Kandaules] king of Lydia. Once upon
a time there was a storm and an earthquake so violent that the ground split
open near the place where Gyges was watching his flocks. Gyges was amazed
at the sight and finally went down into the cleft. The story tells of many
wonderful things which he saw there (these details are lost).
[They were also seen by the other shepherds of Lydia? (Philos.)]
Among these wonderful things was a brazen horse which was hollow and had
doors. In it was nothing but a corpse, of heroic size, and on one of its fingers
a gold ring.
[The corpse—or the ring—was that of Midas? (Pliny)].
Gyges took the ring and came out again.

Sometime later he attended the monthly assembly of the shepherds and
while there accidentally discovered the qualities of his ring, as described by
Plato. H e then procured his appointment as one of the messengers to the king
and went up to Sardis to seek his fortune.
After reaching Sardis an adventure with the ring brought him to the notice
of Kandaules (?). At first, he was highly favored but later the king, who was
cruel and whimsical, became suspicious of Gyges and set him at several tasks
certain, as he supposed, to compass his destruction. Gyges, however, performed
them all successfully with the aid of his ring, was reinstated in favor and
given great estates (Xanthos, who, himself, gives an idea of these tasks).
[Further adventures (amatory and otherwise) with his ring?].
Gyges was now not only rich and powerful but also admired and feared for
his beauty, strength and address, and for his versatility and superhuman
knowledge of what was going on. T h e king who, like everyone else, knew
nothing of his ring (?), found Gyges invaluable, gave him the post of chief
adviser and consulted him on all occasions.
There was one thing, however, which Kandaules had always kept jealously
guarded, because it was the principal source, the real secret, of his power.
This was his wife. She was [a Mysian princess and] exceedingly beautiful.
But what made her indispensable to Kandaules was the fact that she was also
very wise and powerful, being a mighty sorceress.
T h e one vulnerable spot in Kandaules was his passion for his wife. Like
all who had ever seen her he was utterly bewitched by her beauty and as his
confidence in Gyges increased he began to talk of it more and more freely. At
last he insisted upon showing her. [Gyges refused, foreseeing mortal peril to
himself from either, or both. But at last he was forced to comply and] the
programme devised by Kandaules was carried out as related by Herodotos.
Gyges gazed upon her. She was more lovely even than Kandaules had
described her,and Gyges fell in love with her then and there. Finally, having
turned his ring around to make himself invisible, Gyges left the room.
T h e queen, however, [possessed a dragon-stone. Either when she first
came into the room or] as he was going out [of it she] had seen Gyges [in spite
of his magic ring]. But she made no sign. She knew that the situation was
due to Kandaules and swore to be avenged. When, therefore, Gyges, perhaps
at her own instigation, came to her and declared his passion, revenge and,
possibly, other considerations, prompted her to yield. Gyges was able to visit
her unobserved on account of his magic ring and the intrigue went on for some
time, [nothing being said on either side regarding the door episode.]
At last, when the queen saw that Gyges was entirely in her power, and
being also in love with him herself, she laid her plans and sent for him.
When he arrived, she told him [for the first time—as in Herodotos—that she
had seen him passing out of the chamber, and why,] that now Gyges must slay
Kandaules or else die himself. Whatever the feelings of Gyges may have
been, his situation, despite his magic ring, was even more desperate than in
Herodotos. He had a sorceress to deal with and was committed to her by ties
which he could not break, even if he had so desired.
Gyges acceded, the destruction of Kandaules was planned and carried out
by the two as described by Herodotos, and with the aid of the magic ring as
hinted by Plato.
When the deed was accomplished she gave Gyges the kingdom, as she had
promised. He made her his queen [and they lived happily ever after.]
Such is the tale of Gyges, ancestor of Kroisos the Lydian and the founder of
the house of the Mermnadai.
It will be seen that the most of this story comes from Plato and
Herodotos. Other versions and references have contributed
something, but their principal use has been to show how and why
this is the case. They have also shed important light upon the
ethics of the old story.
As containing a record of the genuine history of Gyges, Plu-
tarch and Herodotos have each had their day. Just at present
Xanthos is in the ascendant. My investigation was not concerned
with this point and yet, indirectly, it has borne upon it to a cer-
tain extent. Plutarch's account may be safely dropped as only
partial and a mere aetiological myth at that. Plato, Herodotos
and Iustinus reduce to one source, the old popular tale. All we
have to consider, then, is the popular tale and Xanthos. Now
even those who make the most of Xanthos as an historical
authority, of course, recognize that he contains folk elements.
I am inclined to believe that he contains little else. If this is the
case, practically all the Greeks knew of Gyges, at all events, of
this portion of his career, rested on folk-tradition. But for that
reason to reject the truth of it in toto, would be more than unsafe.
It must not be forgotten that Gyges, though a hero of the popular
fancy, is also the Gu-gu of the Assyrian inscription and unmis-
takably a great historical personage; further, that, with due
allowance for certain characteristic developments and additions,
the traditions of such a man are by no means untrue simply
because they are popular. Indeed, the general similarity between
Xanthos and the popular story is suggestive of something
approaching a common source. It is for the biographer of
Gyges to decide how far this community of traditions regarding
him is due to the fact that the ultimate source of them is the actual
historical truth.
The different rationalizations of our story were largely influ-
enced by the conception each author had or wished to convey of
the ethics of the situation. It is interesting to see how entirely
different are the characters of the three personages in the old tale,
in Herodotos and in Iustinus, and yet how slight, withal, are the
changes which made them so.
T h e most powerful reagent was the fact that Gyges, Kandaules,

and the queen were taken out of the free air of Fairy Land and
subjected to the laws of ordinary humanity. They were all lifted
and ennobled by the surpassing genius of Herodotos. T h e y
were all debased by the rhetorical bias of Iustinus.
In the old tale, the hero and heroine slew the brutal and foolish
king between them and lived happily ever after. T h e touch of
unreality about them and their deeds is due to the atmospheric
effects of Fairy Land and exonerates them from mere human
responsibility. Perhaps this is why, in considering the best
illustrations for this version, one reverts so readily to the old
vase-paintings. T h e people in these paintings are not subject to
the common law or the moral code. Be it a funeral or a feast,
an action deserving a vote of thanks or a gibbet, they go about it
with the same archaic smile.
Iustinus gives us the sermon of a popular phrase-maker based
on the details of a sensational scandal in high life as reported by
one of our " great dailies," near enough to the original to
escape a suit for libel, vulgar enough to please the average
morning reader. T h e archives of several well-known journals
contain appropriate illustrations.
W i t h Herodotos the old tale of Gyges emerges as a great
tragedy of Destiny, a parallel, in prose, to the Agamemnon and
the Qidipus Tyrannos. All the characters are worthy of the
situation. No one can blame Kandaules for a madness which the
gods have sent upon him and which drives him to his doom—
xpqv yap KavSavXa yeuiadai kukws—as i n e x o r a b l y a s it r a i s e s Gyges
to his high estate, each in his own despite. So, too, the irrespon-
sible sorceress of the old fairy tale, the vulgar assassin in Iustinus,
becomes the evil genius of Kandaules. She vindicates her out-
raged womanhood and, law or no law, who shall deny the justice
of her claim to remain the queen of Lydia with whatsoever mate
she shall choose ? But despite the simplicity and directness of
the antique emotions it is a question whether this couple could
" live happily ever after." Gyges undertakes his long task of
royal power a sadder man and with no illusions. Nevertheless,
there is room in his life for only one woman and he cannot doubt
her.
If the results of this article are justified by the testimony
presented, they are worth consideration merely for the light
which they throw upon the methods of Herodotos himself.
One hardly knows which to esteem the more remarkable, his

genius or his conservatism. T h e old tale of Gyges the Lydian
was all but unchanged by him, yet under the spell of his
surpassing art it rose once and for all to the beauty and
dignity of a masterpiece. It is quite likely that its historical
truth may be questioned. But for the most of us its historical
truth is a matter of no serious concern. It is quite enough that
the truth of it as a human document is immortal. 1
KIRBY FLOWER SMITH.

1 1 have already stated my belief (p. 381 and n. 2) that the popular story
as Herodotos and Plato knew it must have assumed final form in the time of
Kroisos or as a result of contact with the Delphian tradition. It would be
obviously then, if ever, that the folly of Kandaules, if not originally a part
of the story, would be combined with the more ancient and simple tale of the
ring. Moreover, the period as well as the source are against the supposition
that the combination would have been effected by deleting the element of
marvel. The point is, of course, important.
I ought to add that 'behind the open door' (p. 276,1. 14) is really not a
correct translation of the Herodotean Inricde 7-7C avoryofievr/c dvp^. The door
must be supposed to open into the room. The present participle adds a
detail to the plot. It implies that Gyges must previously take such a position
that the door, as it opens, shall swing back and conceal him.

The Tale of Gyges and The King of Lydia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tale of Gyges and The King of Lydia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T h e Tale of Gyges and the King

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short

Kirby Flower Smith

Printed in the LTnited States of America

It is unusual that a people of such evident importance in its

Aegypto, etc." So the older editions, and cf. M ü l l e r , F H G , I I 182, 257.

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

ov (TTepyoi ßattv'/j/iavg äpovpac,

associated with a policy which made his reign of nearly forty

in the tenth c e n t u r y . T h e substance o f this account, 1 so far as it

" 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

" Some time later Sadyattes d e c i d e d to t a k e T u d o to wife, the daughter

1 F H G , I I I , 383, f., Dindorf, p. 32, f.

This narrative of Damaskenos undoubtedly contains some

it was justified or it would not have been mentioned. T h e missing passage

II, p. 46, note 66.

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

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

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

the sense in w h i c h Plutarch uses it here, and a remote community of tradition

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

Plato refers to this story again at 612, B, where he couples with

was proposed by Wiegand (Zeit. f. d. Alterth., 1834, p. 863) and is now

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

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

story was curtailed and simplified to a considerable degree. A s

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

1 1 see no special significance in the presence of storm and earthquake here

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

1 On the subterranean motif, its association with treasures, talismans,

discover here the last resting-place of some important person, a

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

In a l e g e n d o f this t y p e it is characteristic that, innocently or

" 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

] C o m p a r e the passage from Philostratos I I 137, 31, f. (K.). So M a ' a r u f ,

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

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

1 The most important attempt in recent years was that of P o m t o w , D e

the latter, should doubtless be considered, though neither can

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 ,

d'orient se soit enorgueilli de son harem. T o u t au contraire. E n s u i t e , dans

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, Weltge-

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

F o r m a nihil magicis utitur auxiliis,

we know that in this case the natural advantages of Gyges were

modern representatives. Of course, this inconsistency, such as

I.—THE T A L E OF GYGES AND THE KING OF

3. T h e summary given by Plato does not preclude the presence

T h e work of Iustinus, which S c h a n z 1 is inclined to place in

1 Geschichte der Röm. Literatur, 2 te Aufl., München, 1899, par. 330.

now more clearly limited and defined. 1 Whether Trogus took

between Iustinus and Herodotos is suggested by the sentence,

It has already been observed that the door episode here is

harmony with the queen's revenge. The motive of her revenge

of Herodotos, evidently very close to Iustinus' original as

' S e e Christ, Griechische Litteraturgeschichte, 3d edit., Munich, 1898, p.

4 Mythographi Graeci, Westermann, p. 192; Müller F H G , I I I , 383, note;

especially, Müller, F H G , I I I 384, note 54, and I V 278.

of sight, being in possession of the stone dpaaavTiTric,1 and on this account

She mused a little ; and her intricate eyes,

w i t h an hetaira by the n a m e o f N y s i a , and f a i l i n g to w i n her, h a n g e d h i m s e l f

T h e important point for us in this curious p a s s a g e is the reason