It is curious how little recognition has been given by the authorities on Greek grammar to the persistent use of the future participle, except within very narrow limits. Goodwin,1 for example, recognizes its use mainly with expressions of motion (go or send) in the sense of purpose, and in indirect discourse, or with the article, or with ώς: the only quotation he gives which goes beyond these uses is one passage where is found with the nominative of the participle. Gildersleeve2 quotes only cases where it represents in indirect discourse the future indicative and refers to its use with verbs of motion. Monro3 recognizes the use with verbs of motion, and in the following cases, (i.) the isolated ; (ii.) in in two passages, but with the suggestion4 that the form is not a future at all, but an aorist; (iii.) in Il. xviii. 309, and (iv.) in Od. xi. 608, . Even then he5 describes the usage in (iii.) as a use of the future participle, which is hardly to be defended. Kiihner-Gerth6 also give nothing further.

. That fat animals are bad breeders was well known to the ancients; Aristotle insists upon it several times. is, as Dr. Hunt observes, an epithet of the willow in Homer, but the explanations he quotes from Hesychius do not look very satisfactory; the willow was thought to ‘lose its fruit’ because it was supposed never to produce seed at all. Hence means ‘barren willows,’ and so Cercidas means ‘barren fat,’ i.e., fat which prevents a man from breeding.

Inter praecepta, quae Priapus amatoribus dat ad puerorum uolutitatem sibi conciliandam, hoc quoque est (I 4, 41–44):

neu comes ire neges, quamuis uia longa paretur

et Canis arenti torreat arua siti,

quamuis praetexens picta ferrugine caelum

uenturam amiciat imbrifer arcus aquam.

Ubi Varro (R. R. I 13, 2) de uilla rustica facienda agit, de culina haec monet: in primis culina uidenda ut sit admota, quod ibi hieme antelucanis temponbus aliquot res conficiuntur, cibus paratur ac capitur. Hunc locum legentes sponte nosmet ipsos rogamus, quid sibi uelit illud admota. ‘Prope cellam uilici,’ inquit Keilius (Comm. p. 46), de qua paulo ante sermo est: uilici proximum ianuam cellam esse oportet eumque scire, qui introeat aut exeat noctu quidue ferat, praesertim si ostianus eat nemo. Sed si locum ita interpretamur, quomodo intellegenda est sententia, quae sequitur, causalis: quod ibi hieme cet. ? Num uilicus in cella iacens uel sedens moderari debebat opera, quae mane in culina fiebant ? An idcirco culinam proximam cellae uilici esse oportebat, ut inter utramque paruum spatium interesset, si uilicus ab altera ad alteram commeare uellet ? Et hoc et illud uix credibile est Varronem significare uoluisse.

Though the problem of the Homeric augment eventually needs a rather intricate handling, it can at first be stated quite simply. Briefly, the facts are these:

A. True present-aorists, such as are seen in the similes and gnomes, take the augment idiomatically. In the whole of the similes there are only sixteen unaugmented aorists; three of the instances are difficult (4, Δ 279, O 682), but the rest could be emended by slight changes.

B.Iteratives do not take the augment; ν 7 is the only certain exception.

In the course of the preparation of the introductory article on ‘Drama’ for Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, my attention was directed, not only to the problem of the origin of this type of drama, but also to the basal meaning of the Greek term . It need scarcely be said that the rise of tragedy is almost universally connected with the cult of Dionysos (for the most recent exponents of this theory see Miss Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, pp. 568 sqq., Cambridge, 1908; Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, p. 1436, Munich, 1906; Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, v. 229 sqq., Oxford, 1909). On the other hand, the theory has been advanced by Crusius (Preussische Jahrbiicher, lxxiv. [1893], 394), Hirt (Indogermanen, pp. 477 sq., 727, Strassburg, 1905–07), and especially Ridgeway (Address before the Hellenic Society, May, 1904 [cf. Athenaeum, No. 3995, p. 660, and Maas in Wochenblatt für klassische Philologie, 1904, pp. 779–783]; and particularly in his Origin of Tragedy, Cambridge, 1910), that tragedy arose not from the Dionysos-cult, but from the desire to honour and appease the dead. It is to this latter theory that I strongly incline, and I feel that tragedy can be connected with the cult of Dionysos only through this deity's aspect of a chthonic god who gave release from the lower world and who was later identified with Attis, Adonis, and Osiris (cf. Harrison, chap. viii.; Farnell, chap, v.; Gruppe, pp. 1407–1440).