Page images

been largely influenced by the Latin use of this form, it also employs it independently.

With the conditional clause the case is different. The spontaneous use of gif in a concessive sense is rare; where the word is truly concessive, it is usually influenced by Latin si. The tendency of Old English is rather to employ deah in a conditional sense.

The correlative constructions with swa are, of course, thoroughly native in their general form. As for their concessive use, we may say at once that what I have called the definite' clause of quantity or degree (swa with a positive adjective or adverb) is entirely independent of Latin influence. In almost every case it is found either in an original passage, or representing a Latin construction of a different type. The correlation of two comparatives is very similar to a Latin idiom. We find it persisting, however, as a concessive construction, when the Latin expression varies. A parallel from Otfrid is significant as showing, in a cognate language, the same means of reproducing the Latin idiom: Ev. IV. 36. 21 f. So sie sin mer tho wialtun, thaz grab ouh baz bihialtun: so wir io mer giwisse in themo irstantnisse. As the source of this passage Erdmann cites (Ev., p. 215): quanto amplius reservatur, tanto magis resurrectionis virtus ostenditur. We may, then, regard this also as a native concessive construction, though its frequent use in translations may have helped to perpetuate it.

To sum up, the most clearly independent of the constructions treated in this chapter are the correlative clauses with swa. The most clearly derived from Latin is the conditional concession. The other forms of clause seem to have arisen, in some degree, independently, but to have had their chief development in translation.

Another point of interest concerning these clauses is the use made of particles and pronouns to emphasize antithesis. With relative, temporal, and conditional concessions we find, on the whole, more use of adversatives in Old English than in corresponding Latin passages. We sometimes find demonstrative pronouns with relative concessions. The necessity for these grammatical guideposts was somewhat greater in Old English, because of its greater diffuseness; Old English frequently used expanded clauses where the Latin had balanced phrases. Less formal signs of antithesis are also found with these clauses, sometimes following Latin usage, sometimes independently -contrasted adverbs of time, emphatic adjectives like ægen.

To apply the categories of 'fact' and 'supposition' to these secondary concessive clauses is sometimes difficult, as in them the concessive relation is usually combined with some other. The same clause, in some cases, may be looked at in either way. In the main, however, the use of these clauses-leaving out of account for the moment the conditional clauseis for `real' concessions. This, of course, is very natural, since all these forms of clause-except the conditional-are chiefly used for reference to facts. The conditional clause, which is by its nature hypothetical, includes a larger number of suppositions than all the others.

To attempt the tracing of any general influence of the concessive idea upon the modes of such clauses as are considered in this chapter would be futile. Each form of clause follows rather its own usages, modified not according to secondary relations, but according to the practice of individual authors.

The great majority of the clauses mentioned in this chapter-apart from conditional concessions—have the indicative. They are thus in contrast with the deah-clause, which, even in a 'fact' concession, usually retains the optative. Nor do the occasional occurrences of the optative among secondary concessions coincide exactly with the hypothetical concessions among them. In Apoth. 24, Đær der du neode irsian scyle, the optative may, it is true, be regarded as emphasizing the general hypothesis involved. But we find one statement firmly grasped as a fact appearing in the optative mode, and that in direct discourse : Sol. 68. 20 de ma þe Abraham wolde þam welegan arian þe he hys ægnes kinnes were. There may even be vacillation in mode within the same sentence: CP. 463. 4 dæt he hine selfne ne forlæte dær he oderra freonda tilige, & him self ne afealle, dær dær he odre tiolað to ræranne. Even with gif there is no perfectly uniform practice in hypothetical concessions; cf. BR. 53. 14 Gif he ... utforð oþhe adræfed bid, and 54. 13 gif hwylc broðor unsceаdelice hwæs bidde. The mode of the clauses surveyed in this chapter is thus independent of their concessive use.



An account of the concessive constructions of Old English prose would be incomplete without some discussion of the coördinated sentences which may approach more or less closely the meaning of the Deah-clause. Were there only periods following the model of the Latin quidem ... tamen structure to be considered, they would form a chapter of some importance. In fact, however, we have not only such finished periods as these, but a variety of constructions arising spontaneously, some of themrhetorically, if not chronologically-very primitive. Many of these are definitely connected by the copula and by some approach to parallel structure, so that they may properly be called coördinate. In other cases, sentences are placed side by side with so little external sign of any relation between them that I have preferred to speak of their arrangement as one of juxtaposition rather than of coördination.


One phenomenon of great interest, though of rare occurrence, is the use of and to introduce a virtual concession. This is distinctly a coördinate construction, and not to be confounded with the later use of and or an as a true subordinating conjunction.i

· For example, Jonson, Every Man in His Humor, II. ii. I'd not wear it as it is, an you would give me an angel.

Indeed, side by side with the latter, the coördinate construction still exists in careless or illiterate speech. It would be more exact to say that it still arises. For, whether in Old English or Modern English, this form of sentence is less a definite feature of the language than the outcome of a particular kind of thinking. In such cases the relation of the two sentences is felt rather than defined. The speaker is in haste to seize upon facts, and does not pause to indicate their exact bearing. Of the same nature is the juxtaposition of two sentences, the second amounting to a concession, without even a copula between them. In Modern English, such sentences, whether with or without and, are usually enforced by too. 'I cannot keep these plants alive—and I have watered them well, too’; or-probably with a longer pause'I cannot keep these plants alive-I have watered them well, too. With a different emotional tinge we have deprecatory adverbs: "Well, I can't keep these plants alive-I 've worked hard enough over them. In all these cases, modulations of the voice supply the place of connectives. And similar modulations may have been present to the ear of the Old English writer.

A typical example, such as we might hear in careless speech today, is found in the Parker MS. of the Chronicle, in the entry for A. D. 905: Chron. 94. 6 pa æt sæton ða Centiscan þær be æften ofer his bebod, 7 seofon ærend racan he him hæfde to asend. More difficult to account for is the similar construction in an interrogative sentence: Bl. H. 143. 9 To hwan ondrædeþ þeos halige Maria hire deaḥ, & mid hire syndan Godes apostolas & opre þa þe hie berab to hire æriste? This is similar to questions in Boethius, in which the concession is introduced by nu (see

« PreviousContinue »