James Adam, The Republic of Plato

δικαίως is ejected by Cobet and Herwerden, but δίκαιον just below supports it. There cannot justly be any lawsuits for outrages on the person, if we declare it just and honourable for a man to take the law into his own hands. This explanation is perhaps better than to translate ‘we may fairly suppose that there will not be’ etc.

ἥλιξι κτλ. Cf. (with J. and C.) Laws 879 E ἧλιξ δὲ ἥλικα—ἀμυνέσθω κατὰ φύσιν ἄνευ βέλους ψιλαῖς ταῖς χερσίν. It should be remembered that in cases of αἰκεία the guilty party was the one ὃς ἂν ἄρξῃ χει<*>ῶν ἀδίκων πρότερος (Meier u. Schömann Att. Process p. 648).

ἀνάγκην -- τιθέντες=‘curae corporum necessitatem imponentes,’ ‘compelling them to keep themselves in condition.’ Cf. Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 6 ἀνάγκη δ᾽ αὐτοῖς εὐ εξίας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι: καὶ γὰρ πυκτεύουσι διὰ τὴν ἔριν, ὅπου ἂν ξυμβάλωσι. It is probably of Sparta that Plato is thinking. I have now reverted to the best supported reading, although the use of τιθέντες as virtually equivalent to ἐπιτιθέντες is not free from difficulty. There is considerable MS authority (including II) for ἀνάγκῃ, and as ἐπιμέλειαν was read by A^{1} (see cr. n.) and several other MSS, I once conjectured <ἐν> ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων ἐπιμέλειαν τιθέντες, taking ἐν ἀνάγκῃ as meaning ἀναγκαίαν; but this idiom is very rare except with ἐστί, ἦν and the like. Stobaeus (Flor. 43. 102) and Stallbaum read ἀνάγκην σωμάτων ἐπιμελείας. In q and two other MSS the text runs ἀνάγκῃ (or ἀνάγκη) σωμάτων ἐπιμελείας τιθέντες. Does this mean ‘requiring them to guard against violence to the person’ (ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων)? If Plato meant to convey this meaning, it would be preferable to read ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων ἐπιμέλειαν τιθέντες (for which there is also better MS authority), or possibly ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων <*>πιμέλειαν <ἀντι> τιθέντες, but ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων would be a fantastic expression, though perhaps intelligible after βιαίων and αἰκείας. On the whole, I think the reading printed above has most in its favour.