ἄξει was altered to ἄρῃ by Elmsley on the ground that οὐ μή with the fut. indic. forbids; with the subjunctive, denies. But, besides the passages in which οὐ μή stands with the 2nd pers. fut. ind., and forbids (as Aristoph. Ran. 462 “οὐ μὴ διατρίψεις”, "don't dawdle"), there are others in which it stands with the 1st or 3rd pers. fut. ind., and denies. In some of these our MSS. are doubtless corrupt; but there are others in which the correction, if any, must be bold. Thus: (1) with 1st pers.: Soph. El. 1052 “οὔ σοι μὴ μεθέψομαί ποτε”: Aristoph. Ran. 508 “οὐ μή ς᾿ ἐγὼ ι περιόψομἀπελθόντ᾽”. (2) with 3rd pers.: Xen. Hellen. 1.6.32 “εἶπεν ὅτι ἡ Σπάρτη οὐδὲν μὴ κάκιον οἰκιεῖται αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος”:
(oblique of οὐ μὴ πράξει). On the whole the evidence points to the conclusion that οὐ μή could be used with the 1st or 3rd pers. fut. indic., as with the aor. or pres. subjunct., in giving a strong assurance.“σαφῶς γὰρ εἶπε Τειρεσίας οὐ μήποτε
σοῦ τήνδε γῆν οἰκοῦντος εὖ πράξειν πόλιν
”
