James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

ὥσπερ πρὸς ἕρματι κτλ. In some other examples of this idiom (III 414 E, VII 520 E, supra 545 E, IX 573 E et al.) only the first preposition is expressed; but in Euthyph. 2 C, Phaedr. 255 D and Phaed. 67 D (according to Ven. T) we find as here both prepositions. Cobet is not justified in excising the second preposition either here or elsewhere (V. L.^{2} pp. 54, 164 ff., 532); for while ὥσπερ πρὸς ἕρματι πρὸς τῇ πόλει (for example) is only a similitude, in ὥσπερ πρὸς ἕρματι τῇ πόλει the connexion is much closer, amounting almost to identification: see my note on Euthyph. l. c. and cf. Braun de Hyperb. Plat. II p. 9.

ἢ στρατηγήσαντα κτλ. The words ἢ στρατηγήσαντα—ἀποβαλόντα interpret the figure in ἐξαίφνης πταίσαντα—ἑαυτόν: ‘having either been a Strategus or held some other high office, and then, when brought to trial, been either put to death, or banished, or disfranchised and deprived of all his property, by the damaging evidence of lying informers.’ βλαπτόμενον ὑπὸ συκοφαντῶν might be taken as subordinate to ἐμπεσόντα, but πρὸς πόλει πταίσαντα seems rather to imply that the prosecution is not wholly vexatious, although the evidence turns out to be so. Some misfortune, such as happened for example at the battle of Arginusae (Xen. Hell. 16. 33 ff., 7. 4 ff., with Grote VII pp. 411 ff.), arouses a great wave of popular feeling, in consequence of which the general is put upon his trial, and συκοφάνται manage to secure his condemnation (cf. Xen. l.c. I 7. 11). Badham and Cobet ignominiously expel βλαπτόμενον, apparently for no better reason than that ἐμπεσόντα can be followed by ὑπό of the agent (Cobet N. L. p. 752, V. L.^{2} p. 54). If the passage is taken as I take it, βλαπτόμενον cannot be cancelled without grave inconvenience; and even if βλαπτόμενον ὑπὸ συκοφαντῶν be construed with ἐμπεσόντα, its excision is unnecessary. On the mischief wrought by συκοφάνται in Athens see Hermann-Thumser Gr. Staatsalt. p. 686 notes 2—4.