216 Journal of Philology. sequence an explanation of the change from /cpai-eW, which I believe was the original word at the end of 1. 32, into uptparai ; the -fi- having slipt down from r-fp-cpos, and the -artap having passed from its contact with ayav and apav into arm. I am led to the conclusion that Kpareap is the true reading by the simple fact that it is the very word which Pindar would be most likely to use in this collocation. Compare the words : dpi- a 6 dp par ov ye pas dp(f>eftae Ttalaip Kopats k pare cop, with Pyth. II. 4 6 : TeTpaopias, cvdpparos 'Upa>p ip a Kpareap TTjkavyeaip dpcdrjo-cp 'Oprvylap ovecpdpois. Surely no one will fail to see a perfect simi- larity of phrase in these two passages ; and if there were no trace of K/jareW in the words under consideration, I should miss the word on its own account. But with this participle inserted, it becomes necessary that Carrhotus, to whom it refers, should be the nominative to the verb in the antecedent clause. And inde- pendently of any grammatical necessity, it is more natural that the poet should tell us what Carrhotus did with his equipage, than that a new nominative peXadpop should be introduced to tell us where the vehicle was to be found. I think therefore that we must substitute for ?x m 1- 37, Pindar's favourite word Syt i, which occurs twice before in this passage (11. 25, 34), and which may be followed by an accusative of motion without a preposition accord- ing to Pindar's practice (see 1. 27). This change is not unconnected with the old corruption of roo-fi for roo-a in this place. For it is possible that the reading of the MSS. has originated in some marginal gloss of cacptpei or Trpoo-cpepci to explain the 5y with an accusative following. Some critics might prefer to substitute npoo-fptpei in the text for too-c^x"* on tne authority of Olymp. ix. 108 : tovto 8e 7rpoo-<ptpa>p affKop: but I am convinced that aytt is the true reading, and I would also substitute dyw for dyop in Pyth, x. 15: fOrjKt Ka fSa6vtip(OP imb Kippas aycop rrtrpap Kparqo-iiroba <&puciav, where the mention of wealth immediately afterwards strengthens my belief that Phricias was a horse (cf. Isthm. in. 17). With these two emendations, I think it will be admitted that every difficulty vanishes from the passage before us, which may then be translated as follows : " for he broke none of the strong equi- page" (for fata see Nem. ix. 22 ; BOckh says : * eWo)v non de fracnis sed de ipso curru est') ; " but gaining the victory, whatever orna-
