Page images
PDF
EPUB

atives as frequently follow concessions, the meaning is not always categorical. I cite one of the doubtful sentences: BH. 50. 6 Ac hwæðere þa de lifigende wæron for dam ege þæs deades noht pon sel woldan, ne fram heora sawle deade acigde beon ne mihton (sed ne morte quidem suorum, nec timore mortis

animae . reuocari poterant).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a morte

But when for is accompanied by eall, the contrast between the 'cause' referred to and its ineffectiveness' becomes explicit, and the meaning of the preposition shifts to 'in spite of.' Examples of this idiom, already cited, are ÆH. 1. 108. 22 and Chron. 136. 17. In another passage, the phrase actually resumes a deah-clause: Wulf. 147.7 and þeah hit wære eall mid mannum afylled and dæra æghwylc hæfde ænne hamor on handa, and peah man bleowe mid eallum þam byligeon and mid þam hameron beote on þæt isene þell... ne awacode he næfre for eallum þisum. The notion of 'ineffective cause' is further emphasized by næfre.

I have found only one instance of concessive for in a positive sentence, without the reinforcement of eall: Dial. 219. 15 nallæs þæt an þæt his lichama was gesund for by fyre, ac eac swylce ne mihton hi forbærnan nanra þinga his hrægles. Wærferth's style, however, is in many ways peculiar, and can hardly be cited as representative of Old English idiom. The Latin here has an ablative of agent: ut non solum ejus caro ab ignibus, sed neque extrema... vestimenta cremarentur.

The history of the concessive use of for is probably to be traced thus: Causal for was used in a negative sentence, in mere denial of the positive statement; but in such sentences the emphasis readily shifted to the contrast between condition and effect, especially when a strengthening word like all was added; and

so such phrases, with the strengthening word, came to be used also in positive sentences with concessive force. A similar progress may be traced for the adverb fordy, which is etymologically a for-phrase. It may be used, as has been pointed out in Chapter II, as a correlative to the deah-clause in a negative sentence, in the sense of 'on this account.' In a sentence like the following it might be understood as concessive : ÆH. 1. 248. 25 þeah he us þærrihte ne getiðige, ne sceole we forði þære bene geswican; 'we should not on that account cease from prayer,' or 'in spite of that, we should not cease from prayer.' In this sentence fordi has true concessive meaning: LS. 1. 332. 167 He wæs ærest gecoren eallra þæra god-spellera, ac he is forði se feorða, forþan þe he sette þa feorðan boc; 'but in spite of that' ('for all that,' 'nevertheless').

NOTE 1. The use of nat forthy, in ME., in the sense of nevertheless, would seem to have originated in an ellipsis. Cf. Chaucer, Melibeus, § 4 but nat for-thy he gan to crye and wepen ever lenger the more (i. e. nat the leesfor-thy).

NOTE 2. All is still the usual sign of the concessive use of for. Sometimes, it is true, for is combined with an indefinite, aught or any (cf. Baldwin, p. 112, on the concessive for-phrases in Morte d'Arthur; and Chaucer, Phisiciens Tale, 1. 129 This mayde shal be myn, for any man). The familiar idiom, however, is the use of all; and the same intensive often gives concessive force to with. Cf. Heywood, A Woman Killed with Kindness III. ii. For all your cunning, 't will be to your shame; and Lamb, Christ's Hospital (Works, London and New York, 1903, 4.73) with all his faults, indeed, Mr. Perry was a most extraordinary creature. How naturally such an idiom arises may be seen from the Biblical phrase, which resembles a concession: Vulg. Matt. 6. 29 nec Salomon in omni gloria sua.

NOTE 3. The use of for all as a concessive conjunction was a natural sequence. On this, see Koch, p. 474.

2. betweox.

In a few cases betweox seems to lose most of its ordinary meaning, and to have a concessive coloring: Bo. 39. 25 Ond þeah betwuh þyllecum unrihtū was him no þy læs underpeod eall þes middangeard; here the adversative comparative is noteworthy. In the following late passage, betwyx oðrum þingum has a complex meaning, and yet, along with other things': Chron. 220. 12 He hæfde eorlas on his bendum

7 æt nextan he ne sparode his agenne broðor ... Betwyx oðrum þingum nis na to for gytane þ gode frið þe he macode on pisan lande.

3. butan.

I have already cited a passage in which butan receives concessive coloring from the context. Only one perfectly clear case of a phrase in which butan itself has a definite concessive meaning has come under my observation: Chron. 144. 10 purcyl bead þilce to pam here þe læg on Grena wic, 7 buton þam hi hergodan swa oft swa hi woldon.

APPOSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS.

A. Appositive Nouns and Adjectives.

The use of appositive nouns and adjectives is not common in Old English. Of the few that are to be found, a very small number replace concessive clauses. The following passages, however, must be noticed in a survey of concessive constructions. In BH. 182.22 the appositive, in direct imitation of the Latin, is accompanied by an intensive: fordon þe he of operre mægbe wæs, 7 ofer heo rice onfeng, ealdum feoungum hine eac swylce deadne ehton (ueteranis eum odiis etiam mortuum insequebantur). In the following sen

tence the Latin intensive has been passed over, and the adjective added by the translator: CP. 37.8 ðær he ymb his getreowne degn unsynnigne sierede (etiam devotum militem extinxit). In each case, however, the concessive relation is more or less clearly implied. There is concessive force also in the appositive noun of the following: ÆH. 1. 588. 28 Ic wundrige đe, snoterne wer, þæt du dyssere lare fylian wylt; 'I wonder that thou, astute man as thou art, wilt follow this teaching.'

There are a few passages in which appositive adjectives, with odde or ge... ge (which ordinarily means both... and) approach the meaning of a disjunctive concession: BR. 13. 2 for pon ge peow ge freoh, ealle we synd an Criste an (quia sive servus sive liber, omnes in Christo unum sumus; Laws 250.4 7 þæt man heonan forð læte manna gehwylcne, ge earmne ge eadigne, folcrihtes wyrde (Latin version: statua . . . nulli abstrahantur persone, nobili neque ignobili); 308. 13 læte manna gehwylcne ge earmne ge eadigne, folcrihtes weorðne (Latin version: reputetur omnis homo publica dignus rectitudine, pauper, diues, quicumque sit); LS. 1. 504. 277 eall þæt he ær agylte læsse oppe mare, we lætað hit of gemynde swilce hit næfre ne gewurde. With no connective but ne: Cod. Dip. 4. 242.30 ik hate and beode dat no man ne worde swa doerste ... dat dis ilk wharf ... breke, haded ne leawed (nullus omnino nec clericus nec laicus). In none of these cases is the concessive relation clearly marked. But the Latin constructions which the appositives translate or by which they are translated, especially sive and quicumque sit, show that these Old English constructions were sometimes felt as at least having a hypothetical turn. Nor is the content of these phrases very different from certain disjunctive concessions with

swæder or with the beo ... beo construction. Cf. with the legal passages just cited the following: Lev. 24. 22 Gilde eage wið eagan and toð wid teð, si he landes man, si he utlendisc; Laws 164. 9 onfo se his be he hit ær ætbohte, beo he swa freoh swa deow, swa hweðer he sy. And the following sentence actually illustrates interchange of the concessive with the appositive construction: Gram. 19. 12 f. hic coruus, des hremn, swa hwæðer swa hit byð, swa he swa heo; hic miluus, des glida, ægðer ge he ge heo.

B. Appositive Participles.

The use of the appositive participle to express various subordinate relations, which is so important a feature of Latin syntax, naturally appears in many of the works translated from Latin into Old English. The concessive use of the participle, however, is not frequent. Callaway, in his admirable monograph, The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon (p. 282), states that he has found in the prose twenty-five cases of the appositive participle concessively used. I have been unable to trace so many, having ruled out examples which seemed to me doubtful. In Old English, as in Latin, the construction is often ambiguous. The following early instance, not taken from Latin, may, as Callaway points out (loc. cit.) be modal: O. 250. 14 Æfter pæm Germanie gesohton Agustus ungeniedde him to fripe. Other early examples, in which the concessive element is stronger, are these: BH. 278. 18 Gif he æne siða onfongen, haten ham hweorfan, ne wille (Quod si semel susceptus noluerit inuitatus redire); CP. 153. 1 Ac monige scylda openlice witene beod to forberanne (Nonnulla autem vel aperte cognita mature toleranda sunt).

« PreviousContinue »