Abstract

This line has long been a crux in the interpretation of Pindar, and there is still no consensus on its syntax or meaning. The conclusions reached by Stefan Radt, 148–74) and Richard Stoneman, 65–70) in the most recent studies of the problem are in all respects at variance. The cardinal difficulty of0 the line is the sense of, which must be elucidated before one can attempt to disentangle the syntax. I believe that previous commentators have overlooked or misapplied crucial parallel passages because of their preconceptions about the nature of the metaphor here.