James Adam, The Republic of Plato

λέγοντάς τε κτλ. We should expect the future indicative, and on this ground the insertion of διατελεῖν has been proposed by Richards (Stephanus had previously desiderated διατελέσειν). So serious an alteration lacks every element of probability. Ast must be wrong in making λέγοντας etc. depend on οἰόμεθα. If the text is sound, we should supply πάντα δράσειν or the like after οὐ, and regard the participles as agreeing with the subject of δράσειν. (Schneider and J. and C. take nearly the same view). δράσειν is of course easy to understand, but it is less easy to dispense with πάντα. Could Plato have written οὐ <πᾶν>, πᾶν μὲν ἔργον κτλ.? Cf. IX 575 E and πᾶν ποιεῖν in Ap. 39 A and Gorg. 479 C. I prefer the anacoluthon.

τὸν πείθοντα. Such was Socrates, and he was brought to trial. Plato may well have thought of his master when he wrote δημοσίᾳ εἰς ἀγῶνας καθιστάντας. The most fatal count in the charge against Socrates was that he corrupted the youth (Ap. 24 B), and Alcibiades was held to be a case in point (Xen. Mem. I 2. 12). Plato now turns the tables on the Athenian people. He says in effect ‘It was you who corrupted Alcibiades: and you impeached Socrates for trying to save him.’