aorist indicative with future reference

[Stirling Bartholomew]

aorist indicative with future reference

Iphigenia at Aulis 1177-1178

Ἀπώλεσέν σ', ὦ τέκνον, ὁ φυτεύσας πατήρ,
αὐτὸς κτανών, οὐκ ἄλλος οὐδ' ἄλληι χερί,

Euripides Trag., Iphigenia Aulidensis
Ed. Diggle, J. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

“Daughter, the father who begot you has destroyed you, killing you himself! It is he and no one else nor by any other’s hand,”

D. Kovacs 2002, Harvard UP.

Clytemnestra is addressing her daughter Iphigenia who is at the time of speaking still in good health and among the living. Guy Cooper[1] states that the use of the aorist with verbs of killing is idiomatic (tragedy) even when the killing never takes place. His examples involve κτείνω which in this context is a participle. Ἀπώλεσέν however is a aorist indicative referring to a future event at the time of speaking. Some would perhaps suggest that Clytemnestra chooses to present the killing of Iphigenia as an accomplished fact when it has not yet transpired.

According to David Kovacs, the text under consideration was not written by Euripides the elder or the younger. He brackets most of Clytemnestra’s speech as an addition by the fourth century reviser.

In another place Cooper[2] shows two examples from Euripides of ἀπόλλυμι but he claims that this only happens in a conditional context which doesn’t apply to Iphigenia at Aulis 1177-1178. Carl Conrad addressed Cooper’s two examples from Euripides in 2006.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/lists.ibi ... 40142.html



[1] Greek Syntax, vol 3, p2377, 2:53.6.0

[2] Attic Greek Syntax, vol 1, 1.53.6.3.B

[Stirling Bartholomew]

CORRECTION:

Cooper[1] shows two examples from Euripides of ἀπόλλυμι and claims that this only happens in a conditional context.

Cooper is right, this is a conditional setting. Clytemnestra is presenting a hypothetical future scenario which begins at 1171 εἰ στρατεύσηι καταλιπών μ' ἐν δώμασιν “if you go on campaign, leaving me in the house ...” She addresses her her daughter from this future frame of reference which puts the sacrifice of Iphigenia in the past.

Iphigenia at Aulis 1171-1178

ἄγ', εἰ στρατεύσηι καταλιπών μ' ἐν δώμασιν
κἀκεῖ γενήσηι διὰ μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας,
τίν' ἐν δόμοις με καρδίαν ἕξειν δοκεῖς;
ὅταν θρόνους τῆσδ' εἰσίδω πάντας κενούς, [2]
1175
κενοὺς δὲ παρθενῶνας, ἐπὶ δὲ δακρύοις
μόνη κάθωμαι, τήνδε θρηνωιδοῦσ' ἀεί·
Ἀπώλεσέν σ', ὦ τέκνον, ὁ φυτεύσας πατήρ,
αὐτὸς κτανών, οὐκ ἄλλος οὐδ' ἄλληι χερί,

Euripides Trag., Iphigenia Audiences
Ed. Diggle, J. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994

.

Come, if you go on campaign, leaving me in the house, and are there for a long time, what kind of heart do you think I will have in my breast at home when I see the chair of your daughter empty, and her maiden chamber empty, and I sit alone in tears, always bewailing her? “Daughter, the father who begot you has destroyed you, killing you himself! It is he and no one else nor by any other’s han

Iphigenia at Aulis, D. Kovacs 1994, Harvard UP.

[1]Attic Greek Syntax, vol 1, 1.53.6.3.B

E.Alc

386 APWLOMHN AR, EI ME DH LEIYEIS, GUNAI.

E.Med

78 APWLOMESQ' AR, EI KAKON PROSOISOMEN

79 NEON PALAIWI, PRIN TOD' EXHNTLHKENAI.

[2] Kovacs has a different text at line 1174 but this has no impact on the issue at hand.

[Robert Crowe]

Perhaps a new category here. Always a temptation for those of us who indulge in a multiplicity. Not sure how to christen it. Never a thing to rush into. I think it could render the meaning something like 'Your father has as good as killed you.'

ὁ φυτεύσας πατὴρ looks like an amusing tautology to fill out the meter, but the intent is probably to emphasise the kinship.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Perhaps a new category here. Always a temptation for those of us who indulge in a multiplicity. Not sure how to christen it. Never a thing to rush into. I think it could render the meaning something like 'Your father has as good as killed you.'

Robert,
Yes that is how I read it initially. Yesterday I picked up an InterLibLoan copy of the minimalist Bryn Myre Commentary on the play. Last night I looked to see if they would comment on ἀπώλεσεν line 1177. No way. So I figured it was worth taking another look at it. Now it appears that Clytemnestra’s words addressed to Iphigenia are situated within a hypothetical future scenario where Agamemnon is away at war and Clytemnestra is morning the loss of her daughter and her quoted speech is a lament addressed to Iphigenia from that future reference point so the aorist ἀπώλεσεν is one way of doing this. Kovac’s translation doesn’t make this particularly obvious and it escaped my notice. At first it looked to me as if Clytemnestra’s quoted speech was addressing her living daughter. But it appears (?) that the hypothetical future scenario that begins at 1171 [1] extends past her quoted lament.


[1]εἰ στρατεύσηι καταλιπών μ' ἐν δώμασιν ... 1171

[Robert Crowe]

I think your uptake is sound here, Clay. I have a vague recollection of a similar scenario elsewhere in Euripides. Looking through my chaotic notes.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

After taking some time to look at Cooper’s citations from Euripides Alcestis 386 and Medea 78-79, I don’t think they have much in common with Iphigenia at Aulis 1177-1178. In Alcestis and Medea we appear to have an idiom that takes the form “I am doomed if ...” or “we are ruined if ....” but that isn’t really similar to the scenario in Eurip. IA 1171-1178.

Euripides Alcestis
Ἄδμητος
ἄγου με σὺν σοί, πρὸς θεῶν, ἄγου κάτω.

Ἄλκηστις
ἀρκοῦμεν ἡμεῖς οἱ προθνῄσκοντες σέθεν.

Ἄδμητος
ὦ δαῖμον, οἵας συζύγου μ᾽ ἀποστερεῖς.

Ἄλκηστις
385 καὶ μὴν σκοτεινὸν ὄμμα μου βαρύνεται.

Ἄδμητος
ἀπωλόμην ἄρ᾽, εἴ με δὴ λείψεις, γύναι.

Ἄλκηστις
ὡς οὐκέτ᾽ οὖσαν οὐδὲν ἂν λέγοις ἐμέ.


Admetus
Take me with you, by the gods, take me below.

Alcestis
My death in your place is enough.

Admetus
O fate, what a wife you take from me!

Alcestis
[385] Already now my sight is dimmed with darkness.

Admetus
I am lost, then, if you are going to leave me.

Alcestis
No more existing: such you may call me now.

David Kovacs, 1994 Harvard UP

Euripides Medea
Τροφός
καὶ ταῦτ᾽ Ἰάσων παῖδας ἐξανέξεται
75 πάσχοντας, εἰ καὶ μητρὶ διαφορὰν ἔχει;

Παιδαγωγός
παλαιὰ καινῶν λείπεται κηδευμάτων,
κοὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἐκεῖνος τοῖσδε δώμασιν φίλος.

Τροφός
ἀπωλόμεσθ᾽ ἄρ᾽, εἰ κακὸν προσοίσομεν
νέον παλαιῷ , πρὶν τόδ᾽ ἐξηντληκέναι.

Παιδαγωγός
ἀτὰρ σύ γ᾽, οὐ γὰρ καιρὸς εἰδέναι τόδε
δέσποιναν, ἡσύχαζε καὶ σίγα λόγον.

Nurse
But will Jason allow this to happen [75] to his sons even if he is at odds with their mother?

Tutor
Old marriage-ties give way to new: he is no friend to this house.

Nurse
We are done for, it seems, if we add this new trouble to our old ones before we've weathered those

Tutor
[80] But you, hold your peace, since it is not the right time for your mistress to know this, and say nothing of this tale.

David Kovacs, 1994 Harvard UP

[Robert Crowe]

Philip Vellacott's translation makes the hypothetical future scenario more explicit.

What thoughts do you imagine will occupy my heart,
–––
Mourning for her, day in, day out? 'Dear child,' I'll say,
'Your father, who begot you, took away your life;
–––'

Penguin Classic (1972)

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Philip Vellacott's translation makes the hypothetical future scenario more explicit.

What thoughts do you imagine will occupy my heart,
–––
Mourning for her, day in, day out? 'Dear child,' I'll say,
'Your father, who begot you, took away your life;
–––'

Penguin Classic (1972)

Robert,

I went looking for NT examples of an aorist indicative found after a temporal shift to a future point of reference.

Rev. 10:7 ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἑβδόμου ἀγγέλου, ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς εὐηγγέλισεν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τοὺς προφήτας.

This is prophetic scenario similar to a hypothetical future scenario but without a conditional expression.

Alford's comment on ἐτελέσθη: "The speaker looking back, in prophetic anticipation, on the days spoken of, from a point when they should have become a thing past." See also A. T. Robertson, pp. 846-847, 1019-1020.

[Robert Crowe]

Clay,

Wallace cites Rom 8.30 as an example of what he refers to as the Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist.

οὕς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν
those whom he justified, these he also glorified

The glorification of those who have been declared righteous is as good as done from Paul's perspective.

Definition
The aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed. This usage is not at all common, though several exegetically significant texts involve possible proleptic aorists.

Clarification
An author sometimes uses the aorist for the future to stress the certainty of the event. It involves a "rhetorical transfer" of a future event as though it were past.

[GGBB p563-564]

He also cites Matt 18:15; John 15:6; 1 Cor 7:28; Heb 4:10; Jude 14 as examples, and Matt 12:28; Eph 1:22 (ὑπέταξεν); 2·6 (συνεκάθισεν); 1 These 2:16 as some possible but debatable examples.

I have pencilled in a key to help with identification: Translating the Aorist as Future also makes sense.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Robert,

I looked up all of Wallace’s examples. It appears that he has minded most of these from the older grammars[1]. Wonder where he came up with Jude 14, the citation from 1Enoch.

Jude 14 Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων· ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ

It appears that Wallace also cited Rev. 10:7. See previous discussion of Wallace’s examples here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 21348.html

Rev. 10:7 ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἑβδόμου ἀγγέλου, ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς εὐηγγέλισεν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τοὺς προφήτας.

David Aune (Rev. WBC 1998, n.7d p550-551) gives some further examples from the Apocalypse of John:

I have highlighted what appear to be the relevant verbs:

Rev. 11:2 καὶ τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ ἔκβαλε ἔξωθεν καὶ μὴ αὐτὴν μετρήσῃς, ὅτι ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν πατήσουσιν μῆνας τεσσεράκοντα [καὶ] δύο. Aune seems to suggest that this example is dubious.

Rev. 11:10 καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς χαίρουσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς καὶ εὐφραίνονται καὶ δῶρα πέμψουσιν ἀλλήλοις, ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ δύο προφῆται ἐβασάνισαν τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

Rev. 15:1 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μέγα καὶ θαυμαστόν, ἀγγέλους ἑπτὰ ἔχοντας πληγὰς ἑπτὰ τὰς ἐσχάτας, ὅτι ἐν αὐταῖς ἐτελέσθη ὁ θυμὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. The form ἐτελέσθη is discussed as a possible hebraism.

Rev. 21:4 καὶ ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, [ὅτι] τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν.


[1] E. Burton, Moods & Tenses, #50; A.T. Robertson 856-847, 1019-1020; Zerwick #257; N. Turner p. 74; BDF #333.2 and probably Winer.