James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

αὐτῷ is ejected by Herwerden “quod omni vi caret.” Bywater (J. Ph. X p. 73) proposes αὖ. The translators for the most part ignore the word, except Schneider, who translates ‘him, the master of the ship.’ Perhaps αὐτῷ is ‘by himself,’ ipsi in the sense of soli, as in αὐτοὶ γάρ ἐσμεν, and we should translate ‘while they themselves constantly swarm around the solitary master of the ship.’ Failing this explanation we must follow Schneider; unless we venture to take αὐτῷ in the sense of ‘the Master’ (cf. I 327 B note) and regard τῷ ναυκλήρῳ as an explanatory gloss. On the whole I am inclined to think that Schneider is right.

περικεχύσθαι: an anacoluthon, like ἄρχειν and πλεῖν below: we should expect περικεχυμένους. For a parallel see Laws 686 A. Here, doubtless, the change of construction is in order to avoid too many participles.

ἀποκτεινύντας. On the orthography of this word see Introd. § 5. ἀποκτεινῦντας (sic) in v and Vind. F may also be a trace of the spelling with ει. The reference in ἀποκτεινύντας ἢ ἐκβάλλοντας is of course to the slaying or banishment of rival candidates for office: cf. Gorg. 466 B.

μανδραγόρᾳ κτλ. False rulers dull the senses of the Demos by the opiate of Pleasure, and so escape detection. With μανδραγόρᾳ cf. [Dem.] Phil. 4. 6 ἀλλὰ μάνδραγόραν πεπωκόσιν ἤ τι φάρμακον ἄλλο τοιοῦτον ἐοίκαμεν ἀνθρώποις.

πίνοντάς τε κτλ. They are the ἑστιάτορας εὐδαίμονας of IV 421 B, where see note. For ὡς τὸ εἰκός Cobet writes ὡς εἰκός, and so also Herwerden, who suggests as an alternative that we should bracket τοὺς τοιούτους. The expression ὡς εἰκός would refer to πίνοντάς τε καὶ εὐωχουμένους (“and pass their time at sea in drinking and feasting, as you might expect with such a crew” D. and V.); but with ὡς τὸ εἰκός (sc. πλεῖν） the meaning is “make just such a voyage as might be expected of men like them” (J. and C. with Schneider, comparing Pol. 302 A and Laws 906 D), i.e. make shipwreck.

ἐπαινοῦντας is omitted by Cobet, but (as Richards points out) ψέγοντας supports it. Richards would transpose and read μὲν ναυτικόν. But ναυτικὸν μὲν καλοῦντας etc. is only an explanatory reduplication of ἐπαινοῦντας: hence μέν is placed where it would have been if ἐπαινοῦντας had been omitted. In any other position it would have failed to mark the antithesis between ναυτικόν (with its companion epithets) and ἄχρηστον. For the rhetorical asyndeton cf. II 362 B note An alternative (less good) is to take ἐπαινοῦντας as logically subordinate to καλοῦντας (‘in awarding praise they call’ etc.).

ὃς ἂν ξυλλαμβάνειν κτλ. Jackson suggests that Isocrates is intended (Proceedings of the Camb. Phil. Soc. XI 1882, p. 13). Possibly: but for my own part I do not think the description is sufficiently apposite to justify the identification.