οὐκ ἔχω ὅ τι χρήσωμαι. Since Alcib. is here generalizing, the (dubitative) subj. seems preferable to the more definite fut., as Hommel argues against Stallb.
Alcib. is in the position of a “Dipsychus,” “halting between two opinions” or rather two instincts. Cp. Soph. fr. 162. 8 οὕτω γε τοὺς ἐρῶντας αὑτὸς ἵμερος | δρᾶν καὶ τὸ μὴ δρᾶν πολλάκις προΐεται: Anacr. fr. 89 ἐρῶ τε δηὖτε κοὐκ ἐρῶ | καὶ μαίνομαι κοὐ μαίνομαι.
οἷς ἐγὼ ᾔκασα αὐτὸν. Sc. τοῖς σιληνοῖς. ᾔκασα recals the δἰ εἰκόνων of 215 A.
οὐδεὶς...γιγνώσκει. Plato may mean by this, as Hug suggests, that the majority of the admirers and followers of Socr. possessed a very dim insight into the sources of his real greatness—ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ (Plato, behind the mask of Alcib.) δηλώσω.
