Page images

Another point of view from which concessive sentences may be studied is that of the types of expression found among them. The relation formulated as a-b=a may, of course, be expressed by a phrase as well as by a clause; there are, indeed, as in the case of Modern English for all, instances of one connective serving for either phrase or clause. A more fruitful division is that according to the speaker's approach to the sentence. All concessions, thus classified, fall into three groups: the simple, the disjunctive, and the indefinite. The simple concession contains a fact or notion in spite of which the main proposition stands. The disjunctive or alternative concession introduces mutually exclusive possibilities, in spite of either of which the proposition is maintained. But this is often only a more emphatic substitute for the former method. Whether I come or not'—though it may be logically analyzed into “if I come, or though I do not come'-is often simply equivalent to though I do not come. The indefinite concession generalizes the situation: the main proposition is asserted in spite of any possibility-no matter what the case may be.

Finally, the concessive form is often employed where the relation between parts of the sentence is less strict than in the typical case, as in the statement, 'He is an ingenious lad, though his brother is more ingenious. There is no real conflict of ideas here; the second clause enters as an afterthought, which has not sufficient importance to be given a new sentence.

In the following chapters I shall attempt to show in what forms all these types of concessive sentence are to be found in Old English. Where reference to Modern English or to other languages may throw

light upon Old English idiom, I shall endeavor to include what is of value.

In the more important translated works, I have found almost constant reference to the original essential to the evaluation of the material. In the case of so variable and sometimes elusive a relation as that of concession, such reference is indispensable if any valid comparisons are to be made. This comparative study enables one to distinguish two streams of influence: the tendencies of the native idiom, and the modes of expression copied from Latin, or given special importance by their use in translation. Citations from Latin, it is true, have always to be interpreted with care. There is always the chance that the Latin manuscript before the translator was different in some small but significant detail from the text we possess. Much Old English translation, moreover, is to be described as free paraphrase. Even with these reservations, nevertheless, Latin originals must frequently be taken into account.

It has not seemed feasible to put a large part of the material into statistical form. On the one hand, constructions which occur very rarely, such as the concessive use of the preposition butan, must be treated exhaustively in the body of the thesis. On the other hand, certain constructions which occur in great number, such as the concessive period with ac or and deah as connective, shade off so variously into mere antithesis or some kindred notion, and offer so much room for arbitrary and personal judgment, that enumeration would be futile. I have indicated in treating separate constructions, however, whether they

1 See, for example, Bright's Introduction to John, pp. xxvi ff., for a brief statement as to the text used by the translators of the Gospels.

are rarely or frequently to be found. Constructions for which statistics seemed of value have been indexed.


EXAMINED. It is essential to the purpose of this study that all important Old English prose texts available be taken into account. For the sake of clearness I have therefore included in my list of texts those which proved to contain no concessive constructions.

In citing from editions which present parallel manuscripts of the same work, I have in each case quoted from the preferred manuscript. If reference to another has become necessary, I have named the manuscript cited. It has seemed expedient also, while copying the texts faithfully in other particulars, to repunctuate many passages, in order to indicate the interpretation given them. Citations are by page and line, following the system of line-numbering found in the edition used, if there be any. Biblical passages, however, are of course cited by chapter and verse, and the Apothegms by number. References are to the line in which the word or construction under consideration appears.

In the list of texts, Bibliothek stands for Grein's Bibliothek der AS. Prosa. Adm. ...= Basil's Admonitio. See Hex. below. Æ. Asm. = Ælfric's Writings in AS. Homilien und Heiligen

leben, ed. Assmann. Kassel, 1889. (Bibliothek 3.) ÆH. ... = Homilies of Ælfriec, ed. Thorpe. 2 vols. London,

1844–46. Æ. Th. . = Ælfric's Writings contained in Ancient Laws and

Institutes of England, ed. Thorpe. London, 1840.

Apoth. . . = Apothegms in Kemble's Salomon and Saturn.

See Sat. below. Ap. T... = Die AE. Bearbeitung der Erzählung von Apollo

nius von Tyrus, ed. Zupitza. Archiv 97. 17–34. The Latin original in: Märkisch, Die AE. Bearbeitung der Erzählung von Apollonius von Tyrus. Grammatik und Lateinischer Text. Ber.

lin, 1889. (Palaestra 6.) BH. .... = The OE. Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History,

ed. Miller. 2 vols. London, 1890–98. (EETS.
95, 96, etc.) Text in Vol. 1.
The Latin original in: Bedae Historia Ecclesias-
tica Gentis Anglorum, etc., ed. Plummer. 2 vols.

Oxford, 1896.
Bl. H. .. = The Blickling Homilies of the Tenth Century,

ed. Morris. London, 1880. (EETS. 58, 63, 73.) Bo...... = King Alfred's Version of Boethius De Consola

tione Philosophiae, ed. Sedgefield. Oxford, 1899. The Latin original in: Boetius De Cons. Philos.,

ed. Peiper. Leipzig, 1871. BO. .... = Das Benediktiner-Offizium, ein AE. Brevier, ed.

Feiler. Heidelberg, 1901. (Anglistische Forschungen 4.)

Includes the Latin original. BR. .... = Die AS, Prosabearbeitungen der Benedictiner

regel, ed. Schröer. Kassel, 1885. (Bibliothek 2.) For versions of the Latin text, see IG. and

WV. below. Byr. .... = AS. Excerpte aus Byrhtferth's Handboc oder

Enchiridion, ed. Kluge. Anglia 8. 298–337. Cart. ... = Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch. 3 vols.

London, 1885–93. Chad ... = Ein AE. Leben des Heiligen Chad, ed. Napier.

Anglia 10. 131–156. Chron... = Two ofthe Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Earle and

Plummer. 2 vols. Oxford, 1892–99. Textin Vol.1. Cod. Dip. = Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici, ed. Kemble.

6 vols. London, 1839—48.

Coll. ... = Colloquium Ælfrici, ed. Wülcker. London, 1884.

(Wright's Vocabularies, 2d ed., 1. 88–103.) Craw. .. = Crawford Collection of Early Charters and

Documents now in the Bodleian Library, ed.
Napier and Stevenson. Oxford, 1895. (Anec-

dota Oxoniensia, Med. and Mod. Ser. 7.) CP. .... = King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's

Pastoral Care, ed. Sweet. London, 1871. (EETS. 45, 50.)

The Latin origin in: Migne, Patrologia Latina 77. De Abus. = De Octo Vitiis et de Duodecim Abusiuis Gradus,

ed. Morris. London, 1868. (OE. Homilies, First

Series, pp. 296–304.) De Temp. = Ælfric's Translation of Bede De Temporibus,

ed. Wright. London, 1841. (Popular Treatises

on Science, pp. 1--19.) Deut. ...= Ælfric's Translation of Deuteronomy, ed. Grein.

Kassel and Göttingen, 1872. (Bibliothek 1.) De Vet.. = Ælfric's Prefaces to his Biblical Translations.

Pref. (Bibliothek 1.)
Dial..... = Bischofs Wærferth von Worcester Übersetzung

der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. Hecht.
Leipzig, 1900. (Bibliothek 5.)
The Latin original in: Migne, Patrologia Latina

66 and 77. Dip. Ang. = Diplomatarium Anglicum Ævi Saxonici, ed.

Thorpe. London, 1865. Eluc. ... = A Fragment of an OE. Elucidarium, ed. Förster.

Oxford, 1901. (An English Miscellany, pp. 90

-92.) Epis. ... = Epistola Alexandri ad Aristotelem, ed. Basker

vill. Anglia 4. 139–167.
Exod.... = Ælfric's Translation of Exodus. (Bibliothek 1.)
Gen. ...= Ælfric's Translation of Genesis. (Bibliothek 1.)
Gen. b. . = Cambridge Fragment of Genesis, in Biblical

Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, Second
Series (pp. 305—317), ed. Cook. New York and
London, 1903.

« PreviousContinue »