^{page 54 note 1} The case is of course quite different where the negative goes directly with the adjective (and is accordingly placed next it), γὼ δ τις οἰ ταχνπειθς Theocr. VII. 38, οὐ πολλο τινες (i.e., λγοι τινς) our play, 510. As for οὐ πνυ τι, that is, like οὔτι, another affair.

^{page 54 note 2} That Ionicism, the ‘schema Chalcidiacum,’ is Tragic, and Aeschylean, but (naturally) not with the part of εἰναι unexpressed; indeed, such a thing as Plat. Rep. 374 D8—E2 is different in any case. And who would write οὐδ τις περν when he could have written οὐδ τις περᾷ?

^{page 54 note 3} Nor does the mystery cease there; read W's crit. n., then consult the 1893 Addenda to Wecklein's Appendix.

^{page 55 note 1} First proposed by me at a meeting of the Oxford Philological Society, February 27, 1931.