^{page 1 note 1} That is, with the indicative; and with the optative, infinitive, and participle used in place of the indicative.

^{page 2 note 1} Unfortunately it is often doubtful whether we have to do with the future indicative or the sigmatic aorist subjunctive, not only in the 1st person sing, of the active (e.g. Il. 9. 262 εἰ δ⋯ σὺ μ⋯ν μευ ἄκουσον, ⋯γω δέ κέ τοɩ καταλέξω), but also in other persons, where Epic has the shortvowel subjunctive of the sigmatic aorist (e.g. Il. 22. 49–50 ⋯λλ' εἰ μ⋯ν ζώουσɩ μετ⋯ στρατῷ, ἦ τ' ἂν ἔπεɩτα | χαλκο⋯ τ' χρυσοû τ' ⋯πολυσόμεθ').

^{page 2 note 2} Agamemnon varies the expression by repeating the formula without κεν at the end of his speech, ⋯ς ποτέ τις ⋯ρέεɩ in l. 182.

^{page 3 note 1} Cf. l. 54, where Nestor tells Diomedes that his counsel is best among his equals in age; and again 11. 57–8, where he commends Diomedes' speech while impressing on him how very youthful he is.

^{pag 3 note 2} It is interesting to note that similar tones of irony are sometimes conveyed by ἄν with the subjunctive: cf. Il. 1. 205; 11. 387; 22. 505.

^{page 3 note 3} For us: and I might say for Homer's first audiences too.

^{page 4 note 1} ‘Ἄν with the future in Attic’, Richards, H., C.R. vi. 336–42Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 1} One may compare the crescendo in Hom, . Od. 16Google Scholar. 437 οὐκ ἔσθ' οὗτος ⋯ν⋯ρ οὐδ' ἔσσεταɩ οὐδ⋯ γένηται.

^{page 8 note 2} See the examples in Monro, , Homeric Grammar, paras. 275–6 (subj.)Google Scholar; 299–300 (opt.).

^{page 9 note 1} The restriction of forms in Classical Greek was not (apart from μέλλω, which was also Homeric) compensated by the use of auxiliary verbs, to which English and French have made such extensive resort. See Jespersen, , Modern English Grammar, ivGoogle Scholar, chapter 18, 9 (2), and Meillet, , Linguistique historique et Linguistique générale, ii, 29–35Google Scholar. After the Classical period both the use of auxiliaries extended, and the subjunctive with future prospective and volitive sense returned to wider use: see Wackernagel, , Vorlesungen über Syntax, i, pp. 233–5Google Scholar; Moulton, , Grammar of New Testament Greek, pp. 184–6, 240Google Scholar. The search for forms which may be used as alternatives to the future proper, the fruit of which we observe in Homeric and post-Classical Greek, is a further example to be added to those which Meillet cites. Meillet sees the basic reason for the fluctuation in this, that we are not so anxious to be able to express ‘pure’ future time, as to express the various modal (affective) meanings associated with the future. This it was that led to the eventual disappearance of the Classical Greek future indicative, and its replacement by new form θ⋯ plus subjunctive: as also to the loss of the Latin future in the Romance languages, which have made new forms. Even Indo-European, so far as can be seen, had no distinctive future tense. In Classical Greek we see the future indicative in its heyday.

^{page 9 note 2} Unless Lucian was castigating the construction as a live idiom, but belonging to the vulgar speech of his day: on that aspect, see the remarks below. On either interpretation of Lucian's attitude in the Pseudosophista, it seems that we are forced to reject ἄν with the future participle in Asin. c. 26, t. ii, p. 595.