Plato, Crito 49a4

Hi all,
In the below passage,

οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ φαμὲν ἑκόντας ἀδικητέον εἶναι, ἢ τινὶ μὲν ἀδικητέον τρόπῳ τινὶ δὲ οὔ;

I’m trying to understand why ἑκόντας (i.e. accusative plural) rather than εκουσιν (i.e. dative plural) was used alongside the gerundive ἀδικητέον. If the dative had been used would the meaning have changed at all? I guess I was expecting the adjective εκων should be agreeing with a (missing) dative agent (ημιν). Steadman says that the accusative agrees with a missing accusative subject (we), but like I say, I don’t understand the role of the accusative subject used alongside the gerundive here, why couldn’t/shouldn’t we expect to see (an adjective agreeing with) a dative agent?

You’re right to raise the question. It’s just a slight anacoluthon. It doesn‘t follow the rules in the grammar books, but that’s what Plato wrote. The meaning is clear, though.

I think this came up recently before.

http://discourse.textkit.com/t/crito-49a/16171/1