^{page 58 note 1} The substance of this note was read at a meeting of the Cambridge Philological Society on 20 Oct. 1938; summary in Proceedings, clxx. 7 f. In its present form the note has benefited both directly and indirectly from the criticisms of Mr. W. L. Lorimer.

^{page 58 note 2} Not the second person singular (Goodwin, M.T., § 297, and others)—an odd and unnatural restriction. For (i) there is (despite M.T., § 299, a wholly untenable view; see n. 4, below) no essential difference between Soph. O.T. 638 (οίσετε) and, say, Ar. Wasps, 397. Moreover (ii) I cannot doubt that at Ar. Frogs, 607 (a dual) Tucker justifies his punctuation and construction (his view, as Mr. E.Harrison points out to me, was anticipated by Verrall in C.R. iii. 259). Indeed, the colon of the MSS. in is itself in fact no bar, because—for whatever reason—scribes would sometimes insert a colon between οú and μή even when, as normally, they adjoin; e.g. R and others at Clouds, 296, V at 367 and 505; cf. Goodwin, M.T., App. II, p. 391, n. 1.

^{page 58 note 3} Elmsley in Quarterly Review, 7. 454 (June, 1812)Google Scholar and on Eur. Med. ‘1120’ (1151); accepted substantially by Hermann, on Med. I.e., Opusc. 3. 235 ff.;Google Scholarcf. Gildersleeve, in A.J.P. iii. 202–5;Google ScholarWhitelaw, R. (whose analysis and argument are very good, except as regards Clouds, 296—cf. p. 59, n. 1)Google Scholar in CM. x. 239–44 and xvi. 277; Jebb on Soph. O.C. 177, cf. 849; Kūhner-Gerth, i. 176 f., ii. 221 ff.; Stahl, J. M., Kritisch–historische Syntax d. griech. Verbums d. klass. Zeit, pp. 360 (1), 367 (2), 368 (1 and 2);Google ScholarWackemagel, J., Vorlesungen üb. Synt. 2. 305. See further, n. 4, below.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} So far as feasible; i.e. in my Types A and B (see p. 60, n. 1), but in C it naturally cannot be done, and that is just the trouble.

^{page 58 note 2} Cf. Elmsley on Eur. Med ‘1120’ (1151) sub fin.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 3} G. is followed substantially by Thompson, F. E., Syntax of Attic Greek (rewritten, 1907)Google Scholar, §§ 297–9 (esp. 299); and with reservations by Chambers, in C.R. x. 150–3 and xi. 109–11Google Scholar, Sonnenschein, in C.R. xvi. 165 ff.Google Scholar and Syntax (6th ed. 1926), §§ 597 ff. and App. ii, p. 344. Brugmann– Thumb and Kieckers completely ignore οò μή prohibitive; whether from oversight or heresy does not even appear. Of current standard editions some are undecided or negligent; e.g. Hall and Geldart's Aristophanes has interrogative with compounds of KOTO. (!), Ach. 165 (but not at 166!), Wasps, 397, elsewhere not; Murray (Aesch. and Eur.) has interrogative eight times but refuses it four times (and, in my Type A, by preference).

^{page 58 note 4} See the excellent summing–up in Pearson's Eur. Hel., Appendix on 437–9, pp. 199 ff., and references there.

^{page 59 note 1} This is where Whitelaw fails (C.R. x. 240); for (inter alia) ‘Won't you not–remain but— away with you!’ is unnatural, whatever he says.

^{page 59note 2} My statement here of the case as regards MS. readings is (i) an accurate account of the practice of modern editors, e.g. Hall and Geldart, van Leeuwen, Coulon; (ii) a fair summary of the situation. Actually the question of readings is slightly more complicated, and may be appreciated by reference to Starkie's critical notes on Clouds, 296, 367, and references there; also to (e.g.) Pearson's text and critical notes on Soph. Tr. 978 and 979. But, of course, this and kindred issues are in any case essentially, as Jebb said on Soph. O.C. 849, questions of usage. And usage depends, not on MS. readings at this or that place, but on judicious deductions from a comparison of readings at all the relevant passages. That may sound obvious, but see my final paragraph.

^{page 59 note 3} Where G. states that all the MSS. have –μς. It would be truer, indeed I gather it would be strictly true, to say that none of them has that.

^{paeg 59 note 1} Where an imperative does follow there is no copula e.g. Eur. Andr. 757 f. Similarly (for the sole apparent exception see the end of this note) after οù with future, e.g. Ar. Lys. 456–61. The difference is material; if anybody does not feel it merely from reading these passages, let him re–read them inserting καί. Furthermore, after a non–negatived (and accordingly not interrogative) future there is only the MS. atrocity of PL Prot. 338a to circulate like the dinner–service of the Segestaeans until it looks normal instead of unique (in e.g. Wackernagel, i. 205; Kieckers, iv. 28). Why does the former say that such things are common? No one had ever produced anotherexample, nor can W. The fact that there are three alternative ways of emending a passage does not prove that the traditional text is sound. ‘Where an imperative follows at a distance from the copula the case is naturally different; yet even here the sole example is Soph. Ant. 885–7, where the participial phrase keeps us expecting a second future (as in Eur. Andr. 1066–8) until the direct imperative is forcibly substituted by a slight anacoluthon.]

^{page 60 note 1} As I know of no exhaustive list I append a tabulation.

(i) Drama. Type A, οù fut., 10: A. Sept. 250; E. Hipp. 213, Andr. 757, Suppl. 1066; Ar. Ach. 165 f. (2 exx.), Clouds, 367, Wasps, 397, Frogs, 607 (Tucker). [The first and last of the above have οù … μή.] And Elmsley rightly reckoned also Ar. Thesm. 1108. [To this type belongs also E. El. 982 (πέσμς codd., corr. Elmsley) as that passage is normally edited; but now see under Type B.] Type B, οù μή fut.+ fut. (pos. or neg.), 13: S. Tr. 978ff. (καί καί, 2 neg.); E. Med. 1151 ff. (, 4 pos.), Ba. 343 f. (δέ … μηδέ, 1 pos., 1 neg.), El. 383–5 (δέ, pos.), Hipp. 606; Ar. Frogs, 298 (both μηδέ); E. Ba. 792 f.; Ar. Clouds, 505, Frogs, 202, 462, 524, Eccl. 1144–6 (all àλλ´, as is also the next); and Denniston in an admirable note has convinced me that at E. El. 982–4 Weil's brilliant reconstruction (with Wilamowitz's amendment) is inescapable. Type C, οù fut.+καί μή(or μηδέ) fut., 6: S. At: 75, Tr. 1183 (both μηδέ); O.T. 637f.; E. Hipp. 498f., Hel. 437 ff.; Ar. Eccl. 1144 f. (all καί μή). (ii) Prose. Type A: Isaeus, viii. 24 (but N.B. quoted as from a conversation). Type C: Pl. Sytnp. 175 a 10–II (καί μή). Total, 31 exx. in 29 passages. [I omit, of course Ar. Clouds, 295–7.]

² Cf. Goodwin, p. 396; but his deduction unfortunately is (p. 105, § 300) that this passage ‘seems decisive against the interrogative theory’; and he admits that heresy even into a handbook for, students, Gk. Gram., § 1361.

³ Cf. Denniston, J. D., Greek Particles, pp. 13 (fin.) to 15.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. Jebb, on Soph, . Phil. 1300.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} And a grammar or two; e.g. Stahl.

¹ An admirable sentiment which Weidner and his follower Richardson expunge.

² On the actual irrelevance of such considerations cf. p. 59, n. 2.