Early in Book 2 of Plato’s “Republic,” the discussion turns into the story of a man named Gyges who finds a ring that makes him invisible. Using the powers of the ring, he reports to the court of his king, seduces the queen “and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom.” What would happen if there were two rings, one worn by an unjust man and the other by a just man? The story attempts to make the case that a just man will act unjustly if given the opportunity to think he is doing right, if only by himself. But what if he doesn’t?
What if there was no ring, and what if there was a perfectly unjust man and a perfectly just man and both had everything they needed in life? The unjust man must cover his steps in order to be distinguished and succeed. In the eyes of others, he appears to be just. But what about the just man, who appears to be unjust? “They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound-will have his eyes burned out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled.”
One wonders if Tolkien was as influenced by this Platonic discussion as he was by the Germanic myths and “Der Ring des Nibelungen.” It’s easy to find possible similarities with the character and nature of Sméagol (the unjust) and Sam (the just) and The One Ring, but the conclusion of a story told 400 years before Jesus seems to be as prophetic as the prophecies of Scripture itself.
It is said that the best part of a good story lies in what is not said. There was another character in The Ring of Gyges that is nearly as invisible as the ring-bearer himself: the rest of the world. It is implied that Gyges’ fellow shepherds benefited from his unjust actions as do those who do business with an unjust man. The perfectly just man “would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot,” be dragged outside the city and killed because mankind is wicked, unjust.
