Aspectual Distinctions in the Future Passive: Lysias 19.61

Abstract

In this article, I will discuss the variants ὠφελήσεσθε (a middle future form with passive meaning, found in manuscript C and printed by Bekker) and ὠφεληθήσεσθε (a morphologically passive future form, attested in all other manuscripts and printed by most editors), both found in Lysias 19.61. I first provide a critical assessment of the scholarship on the alleged differences between these two types of ‘passive’ future forms. I then list all the morphologically passive forms in Lysias. I then discuss the meaning of the verb ὠφελέω (and its opposite ζημιόω) and assess how the meaning could have influenced the use of the future form. After that, I take a look at elements that could play a role in deciding which variant to choose, namely the value of manuscript that has the variant reading ὠφελήσεσθε, the presence of other aorist and/or present forms in the passage and two parallel passages with the future passive forms of ὠφελέω, namely 18.20 and 29.4. Finally, I discuss the instance under discussion. Although there are elements that can be used in favour of both variants, I nevertheless argue that the middle form has preference: it is the lectio difficilior because Lysias rarely used middle forms with passive meaning, there is an aspectual distinction between the two forms (the middle form confers a duration) and the middle form can have middle meaning in this passage.