Page images
PDF
EPUB

The value of this device for linking sentences was by no means always appreciated by the translator, and there are numerous examples of its omission. Of these a few may be cited here: L. 10. 2 Her is mycel rip, and feawa wyrhtan (Messis quidem multa, operarii autem pauci); cf. BH. 88. 29 þætte her wære micel rip onweard, 7 fea worhton (multam quidem sibi esse messem, sed operarios paucos). Other instances: BH. 116. 28; 128. 3; 136. 2; 358. 21: Gen. 48. 19.

The same construction, however, appears in a few passages where Latin influence seems to be indirect rather than direct: ÆH. 1. 154. 6 He worhte pa wundra soolice purh godcunde mihte, and mid þam wundrum þæs folces geleafan getrymde; ac hwædre þær wæs oðer ðing digle on dam wundrum, æfter gastlicum andgite; 2. 132. 1 þu miht blissigan gewisslice þæt dære deode sawla þurh da yttran wundra beoð getogene to dære incundan gife; ondræd de swa-đeah...: Wulf. 34. 18 his dyrstignes witodlice dereð him sylfum, ac þæt ne deres elles þam na þe swyðor, þe þa denunga underfoð.

A sentence may also be related to the one succeeding it by a sort of concessive formula, indicating that the statement of the first sentence is to be corrected by the second. The two then form a group analogous to the quidem...tamen period. Such groups in Modern English are introduced by 'I admit,' 'certainly, no doubt,' and usually connected by 'but'. The usage in Old English is illustrated by the passages which follow: John 8. 37 Ic wat þæt ge synt Abrahames bearn: ac ge seceað me to ofsleanne (Scio quia... estis; sed...); 11. 42 Ic wat þæt þu me symle gehyrst; ac ic cwæd for þam folce... (Ego autem sciebam quia... audis; sed ...); Jos. 2. 4 Ic andette þæt... ac ic ne cude (Fateor... sed nesciebam);

O. 214. 1 Ic wat, cwæo Orosius, hwæt se Romana gelp swipost is.... Ac þær hie hit georne ongitan cupen, þonne wisten hie...; Sol. 36. 12 Ic gehyre nu þæt þu ...; ac ic wolde witan; De Temp. 13. 10 Soð dæt is þ seo sunne þa stod...; ac se dæg eode forð.

Other concessive groups consist of distinct sentences apparently connected only by an emphatic and. This structure is very different from the placing of sentences side by side, without regard to logical relations, joining them by and as mere copula. In fact, the structure considered here is usually transferred directly from the Latin. The former clause is generally sententious, and has something of the same double value ascribed, in Chapter VI, to certain conditional clauses (see p. 82 above). It is seen first as an emphatic independent sentence, and then as having a concessive relation to what follows. The second clause may be a question. Examples are found mainly in the Biblical translations. These passages, indeed, have their chief interest as illustrating the early entrance into the language, from Biblical sources, of a norm of style which has persisted to our own day. In PPs. 49. 22 we find a considerably expanded version: Eall pis yfel þu dydest, and ic swugode and þolode swylce ic hit nyste (Vulg.: Haec fecisti, et tacui). A statement followed by a question: L. 8. 45 þas menegeo þe ðringað and geswencao, and þu segst, Hwa athran me? (Vulg.: turbae te comprimunt et affligunt, et dicis: Quis me tetigit?) The concessive group in a Biblical quotation: Bl. H. 69. 24 pis folc me weorþaþ mid wordum, & is peah heora heorte feor fram me (Vulg.: Mk. 7. 6 Populus hic labiis me honorat, cor autem eorum longe est a me). Other examples: M. 6. 26: L. 4. 25-27; 7. 32; John 2. 20; 3. 10; 8. 52: Num. 11. 21: Deut. 34. 4.

Finally, we have examples of coördinate structure, neither so definitely antithetic as the type last considered, nor so explicitly connected as the periods containing witodlice. These groups are used in rapid or colloquial style, often to give separate emphasis to the separate members included, very much as similar sentences are used to-day. It is the desire to make the first clause impressive that breaks up the following period into the coördinate form; LS. 1. 344. 117 He is ofer ealle pincg ælmihtig scyppend, and he wolde swadeah wite drowian for us.1 Similar in principle are the following passages: ÆH. 1. 10. 3: 48. 33; 122. 21; 592. 4: De Vet. 266. 12 ff.: E. Th. 444. 10: Bl. H. 225, 30.

THE CONCESSION COÖRDINATED WITH A
SUBORDINATE CLAUSE.

In treating conditional concessions I pointed out the fact that a clause with concessive meaning might be coördinated with a pure condition. There are many sentences in which the concessive clause seems 'attracted' into the form of some other which it accompanies or in which it is merged. The result is often a gain in rapidity of style, for sub-subordinate clauses readily lead to clumsiness. Such clauses are found in Latin, and in translations from Latin into Old English. For example, John 20. 29 pa synt eadige þe ne gesawon and gelyfdon (Vulg.: beati qui non viderunt, et crediderunt); cf. Quot. 178. 6 ac þa beoð gesælige pe hit ne gesawon and hwæþere gelyfað. It is to be noticed that here the concessive clause does not simply follow the pattern of a clause preceding

1 Cf. the relative clauses expressing a similar idea (p. 71 above).

it, as did the 'inadvertent concessive conditions' discussed in Chapter VI. In the passage just quoted the concession is embodied in the relative clause as the first of its coördinate members, the second forming what may be termed the apodosis. This is true in general of such concessions.

That the interpretation of these clauses as concessive is not simply academic or arbitrary is shown by their appearance in place of subordinated Latin constructions: as in John 9. 25 An þing ic wat, þæt ic was blind and þæt ic nu geseo (Vulg.: unum scio, quia caecus cum essem modo video); 10. 33 and for þam pe pu eart man, and wyrcst þe to Gode (Vulg.: et quia tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum); BH. 82. 24 se de in fyre geseted bið 7 beornan ne conn (qui in igne positus nescit ardere).

Concessive clauses of this kind may appear within various subordinate constructions. I cite the most typical examples, italicizing, in each case, the concessive member of the group. Within a substantive clause: O. 162. 16 þa ofþuhte heora ceorlum þæt mon pa peowas freode, 7 hi nolde; LS. 1. 526. 631 him þa for an puhte þæt he þæs gewiss wære, þæt he pas on æfen ælcne man gecneowe, and alc gecneowe hine, and he þæs on morgen nænne ne gecneowe ne nan hine. Within a causal clause: HL. 184. 84 þæt ic mæge myd ealre heortan on hyne gelyfan, forþon ic hyne næfre ne geseah and he me swa þeah halne gedyde (here the adversative enforces the concessive meaning). Within an adjective clause, and evidently for the sake of separate emphasis on the 'protasis': Wulf. 219. 19 and pam bip wa æfre geborenum, þe hit secgan can and ne wile; 231. 25 swa hwylc mæssepreost swa hæbbe pis gewrit and nelle cyoan godes folce.

A curious example of attraction from one construc

[ocr errors]

tion into another is found in the following rather confused sentence: Chad, Anhang,' 1. 37 And se man þe god dep mid godum inge hyde þ he oþrum men fremige on feo oððe on læne 7 seo læn be cume to sumon lape þam men, he bio swa þeah orsorh...7 he hæfð his mede his modes goodnesse. This clause, like those I have termed 'inadvertent concessive conditions,' follows the structure of the clause preceding it, but is equivalent to a deah-clause dependent on the following principal clause. I mention it here rather than among the 'relative concessions' of Chapter VI because it illustrates so well the influence of one construction upon another.

An example of the baldest juxtaposition within a clause is found in a late portion of the Peterborough Chronicle: Chron. 264. 29 pa ræueden hi 7 brendon alle the tunes ð wel þu myhtes faren all a dæis fare sculdest thu neure finden man in tune sittende ne land tiled.

In conclusion, the points which seem to me especially noteworthy in connection with the material studied in this chapter are these: the lack of absolute delimitation between subordinate and coördinate structure, and the different degrees to which coördinate constructions may approach grammatical subordination; the double function which a clause or sentence may sometimes have; the influence of Latin in the development of balanced structure (the use of witodlice, of concessive formulae' and of the emphatic and); and the fact that naïve and formless structure, far from being peculiar to the earliest stages of Old English prose, appears occasionally in all periods, notably in the late portions of the Chronicle.

« PreviousContinue »