chapter-apart from conditional concessions-have the indicative. They are thus in contrast with the Jeah-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, Ɖær dær 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 oðerra freonda tilige, & him self ne afealle, dær dær he oðre tiolað to ræranne. Even with gif there is no perfectly uniform practice in hypothetical concessions; cf. BR. 53. 14 Gif he ... utfærð oppe adræfed bio, and 54. 13 gif hwylc broðor unsceadelice hwæs bidde. The mode of the clauses surveyed in this chapter is thus independent of their concessive use. CHAPTER VII. COÖRDINATION AND JUXTAPOSITION 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 Jeah-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. THE CONCESSIVE SENTENCE PLACED SECOND. 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.' 1 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 da Centiscan þær be æften ofer his bebod, 7 seofon ærend racan he him hafde to asend. More difficult to account for is the similar construction in an interrogative sentence: Bl. H. 143. 9 To hwan ondrædep þeos halige Maria hire deaþ, & mid hire syndan Godes apostolas & opre pa pe hie berap to hire æriste? This is similar to questions in Boethius, in which the concession is introduced by nu (see p. 78 above). In the Soliloquies we actually find the construction corresponding (though in a free translation, to a Latin cum-clause: Sol. 48. 23 þu woldest gemetigan mynne wop and mynne unrotnesse, and ic ne ongyte nan gemet mynra yrmoa and ungelympa (modum vis habere lacrymas meas, cum miseriae meae modum non videam?) Essentially the same structure, due in this case to awkwardness in handling pronouns, appears in a clause added to the original in the translation of Orosius : O. 206. 35 þa þa Lapidus Mutius was consul, wolde seo strengeste þeod winnan on Romane, þe mon þa het Basterne, 7 nu hie mon hæet Hungerre. This might have been reduced to a parallel relative clause: 7 pe mon nu hæt... A deahclause, however, would have given the more usual construction. A series of and-clauses in the following passage from Orosius is due to inability to copy the balance of the Latin: O. 92. 35 ff. pæt wæron pa tida pe Romane nu æfter sicað, 7 cweþað þæt him Gotan wyrsan tida gedon hæbben ponne hie ær hæfdon, 7 næron I on hie hergende buton þrie dagas; 7 Gallie waron ær siex monað binnan þære byrig hergende, 7 him þæt þagiet to lytel yfel puhte buton hie eac hie pas naman bename þæt hie nan folc næren; 'although the Goths harassed them but for three days, whereas the Gauls . . .' The Latin is ironical: Revera pares sunt hae duae captivitates, illa sex mensibus desaeviens, et tribus diebus ista trans currens. Equally characteristic of the style of an untrained writer in any period are the loose-built sentences which follow, in which an and-clause, amounting to a concession dependent on what precedes it, is followed by an adversative, contrasting it also with what follows h it: Bo. 99. 4 Dyllica leasunga hi worhton, 7 meahton eaðe seggan soðspell, gif him þa leasunga næren swetran, 7 þeah, swide gelic disum; 'Such falsehoods they devised, though they might easily have recounted truth... and truth, after all, very like their own stories.' A similar, but even more artless structure appears in this sentence: Nic. 471. 16 7 swyðe manege oðre eodon to Pilate, 7 þone hælend wregdon, 7 sædon for manegum yfelum dædum, 7 he ne weard næfre nane wyrcende; 7 hig þeh pus cwædon ... Other sentences, which may be viewed as equivalent to concessions, may contain an adversative following and, or an adversative alone. It is sometimes difficult to decide whether such sentences were felt by the writer as virtually dependent or as new and independent statements. Some of them may better be described as in contact with than as coördinated with or subordinated to other sentences. An example from the earlier part of the Chronicle (Parker MS.): Chron. 48. 297 pone æþeling ofslogon, 7 þa men þe him mid wærun alle butan anum, se wæs þæs aldor monnes god sunu, 7 he his feorh generede 7 peah he was oft gewundad. There is absolutely no grammatical subordination here, but it is possible. that the last clause was felt as simply a qualification to the clause preceding it. Similar sentences, with clearer approach to subordination, appear sporadically in other and later writings. Examples: Bl. H. 23. 28 þa nolde he him geceosan welige yldran, ac þa þe hæfdon lytle worldspeda, ne hie næfdan for him lamb to syllenne ... & hwæpere hie waron of Dauides cynnes strynde, þæs riht-cynecynnes; ÆH. 1. 384. 24 Godes gelaðung wurðað þisne dæg dam mæran apostole Paule to wurðmynte . ... was deah-hwædere his martyrdom samod mid dam eadigan Petre gefremmed. In the latter |