In her review of my book (JHS lxxxii 171) Professor A. M. Dale writes: ‘… in Pind. Pyth. 2.21 we are asked to hear doch., pher., iambus, the last five syllables forming another doch, by overlap (the extra syllable at the beginning of pher. is not explained). It is not always clear what happens to ictus in these overlaps where there is a conflict, e.g. E. Alc. 443 where λίμναν is left stranded (link?), is Anacreontic and is pher. by overlap Has -σας ictus or not?’

The identity of the pherecratic-iambus Ἰξίονα φαντὶ ταῦτᾶ βροτοῑς is established by the occurrence of the same phrase in the First Olympian, as I pointed out (pp. 76, 143). The initial syllable is explained by the fact that here the phrase echoes 2 ἵππων τε σιδαροχαρμᾶν, just as it is itself echoed in the final cadence 24 ἐποιχομένους τίνεσθαι. All this is made quite clear, I think, in my analysis of the composition as a whole (pp. 141–2, 157).