In an article which was the first contribution to the stylistic method from France and the last example of unwitting repetition of work already done Baron expressed surprise that no one had thought of investigating Plato's use of the anastrophe πέρι. Ironically enough, the book which would have informed him of Lina's earlier research on this subject was actually in the process of being published.

Whereas Lina drew no chronological conclusions from his material, Baron intended to do so by measuring the total number of πέρι in each dialogue against that of πɛρί on the basis that each occurrence of πɛρί represented an opportunity for the use of anastrophe. Obviously, however, if the ratios thus obtained were to be truly accurate, any instances of πɛρί which did not afford an opportunity for the substitution of πέρι would first have to be deducted from the total. Such instances, according to Baron, were as follows:

1. The expression, πɛρὶ πολλοῦ, πλείονος, πλείστου ποιεῖσθαι etcc., for which not a single instance of anastrophe can be quoted.

2. The use of πɛρί in a phrase qualifying either a substantive (e.g. ὁ πɛρὶ τῆς ψυχῆς λόγος) or a substantival article (e.g. τὰ πɛρὶ τῆς ψυχῆς) Instances of anastrophe in these cases do occur, but only rarely and mostly in works of the last period. There are certainly none at all in dialogues of the first period, the earliest example perhaps being Rep.iii 39206, τὰ μὲν δὴ λόγων πέρι.

Finally Baron also declared his intention of discounting all instances of πɛρι occurring in myths on the grounds that the anastrophe is ‘never once found in a myth’.