ePub 版

the facetious; Landor, Achilles and Helena (Imag. Conv.) desirous though I always was. This device is almost unknown to Old English writers; the concessive conjunction stands regularly at the head of its clause. I have found one example, however, of inversion in exactly the modern manner: Sol. 26. 12 Uncuð þeah ic wære, donan cume ic to þæt ic hine mæge sweotolor geseon. Cf. BR. 25. 20.

In some cases of forcible assertion or injunction, where deah alone does not sufficiently mark the contrast between principal and subordinate clause, intensive particles are added. For example: BR. 119. 3 Æfter his lifes geearnunge and after his wisdomes lare sy gecoren se þe to abbodhade sceal, eac swylce beah he latost to mynstre come and ytemest sy on endebyrdnesse þære gesomnunge. This perhaps follows etiamsi of the Latin, though the usual translation of etiamsi is geah. Other intensives : Inst. 477. 21 Ac on eallum þingum he sceal his lareowes bebodum hyran, ge peah þe hyt sy ...Þ se lareow þe him tela tæce him sylf elles-hu do; HL. 142. 96 Midþam þe he cweð: Brec þinne hlaf, he getacnað, þæt þu scealt of þam þone þearfan aretan, and beah þu mare næbbe þonne ænne hlaf; perhaps also PPs. 22. 4 þeah ic nu gange on midde þa sceаde deaðes. The same tendency is, of course, seen in Modern English, where though is sometimes reinforced by even: Scott, Heart of Midlothian, ch. 43 This, in David's eyes, was a sin of presumption, even although it should not be followed by any overt act or actual proposal.

In the use of eall as a strengthening particle with Deah we have the source of the modern conjunction although. This is only one of many cases where eall —which shades from its literal meaning, 'quite, altogether,' to an intensive of the most general sort

serves to emphasize a word or phrase. The most common is the familiar eal swa in its various senses. We find also: Wulf. 54. 17 eal hy beoð yfele and swicole; Chron. 258. 11 eall riht swa; Jud. 16. 11 mid eallniwum rapum; Cod. Dip. 3. 349. 4 eall to wide; HL. 184. 99 þa Iudeas hyne ... on rode ahengon, eall þurh heora andan; Wulf. 162. 18 eal for urum synnum ; etc.

The earliest examples of all strengthening though cited by the New English Dictionary are from the fourteenth century. Under the word although we read : 'c. 1325. E. E. Allit. P.A. 758 My dere destyne Me ches to hys make alþaz vnmete.' Here the two words have already coalesced. Under all (p. 227 a), however, we find a citation of about 1330, from Robert of Brunne, which retains a form closer to the Old English: þof alle Edgar þe gate, Estrild þi moder ware. In the Old English instances which I have found, eall is separated from deah by other words, and, as a rule, belongs rather to the verb than to the connective. Its function, however, is plainly to emphasize the concessive idea; it might be paraphrased, in the first cases cited, by 'never so much.' Bo. 106. 14 deah he eall wille, he ne mæg; ÆH. 2. 122. 12 pa ne mihte se papa þæt gedafian, þeah de he eall wolde; Wulf. 165. 10 ær hy na ne magan, þeah hy eall willan. Very similar, though perhaps a step nearer the modern idiom, is the example from Beowulf pointed out by Nader (Anglia 11. 452, § 59): Beow. 679-680:

Forban ic hine sweorde swebban nelle,

aldre beneotan, þeah ic eal mæge. In the following late passage, eall has become more colorless—less clearly connected with the verb, and more entirely devoted to the emphasizing of the concessive idea: S. Mar. 10. 65 And þeh hit eall gelumpe þæt ænig hæfde þa geðincðe þæt heo mihte mæden beon and eac cildes moder, þehhweðere nefullcumð næfre nan to þære mærde, þæt heo þone ilca sune gebere oðde ægne his gelica.

Note. In Middle and Modern English, all, of course, has its separate history as a concessive connective. See NED., article albeit, and cf. the following: Hal. Meid. 43. 23 Ne telle þu nawt edelich, al beo þu meiden, to widewen ne to iweddede; Leigh Hunt, Autobiog. (London, 1870) p. 369 I could have got it, had I been wise, for a third part of the sum, albeit it was neatly bound.

Thus all becomes, in the Middle English period, virtually a concessive conjunction. This originates as an adverb within the concessive clause, as the examples given above make clear; and the history of the particle is not parallel to that indicated by Mensing for MLG., MHG. al and alein (Mensing, pp. 60-69).

A mannerism consisting in the use of nu after both deah and other conjunctions-rather as a mere expletive than as an intensive-is characteristic of the Old English Boethius. This nu has usually no definite meaning, and no influence on the construction of the clause. I cite a few out of numerous examples : Bo. 27. 22 þeah hy nu ece wæron; 44. 4; 46. 30; 48. 17; 69.1; 72. 30; 101. 8. The same expletive in teahclauses is found in a few passages of Cura Pastoralis : 41. 2; 101. 11; 265. 6

The deah-clause is sometimes periphrastically introduced; thus BH. 124. 14 has peah þe þæt wære pæt for the quamvis of the original. The periphrasis consists in the use of the copula or of a colorless verb meaning to happen,' 'to befall,' followed by tæt. In some cases, the intention is, apparently, to emphasize the remoteness or deplorableness of the idea contained in the concessive clause: S. Mar. 10. 65 (see p. 21 above); ÆH. 1. 242. 21 Ge sceolon beon geornfulle to eower agenre dearfe, þeah hit swa getimige þæt se lareow gimeleas beo; PPs. 4. 5 þeah hit gebyrige þæt ge on woh yrsien, ne scule ge hit no þy hraþor þurhteon, þe læs ge syngien, where the Vulgate has simply: Irascimini, et nolite peccare; probably Inst. 477. 21 (see p. 19 above). In Dial. 34. 2 there is probably an effort to render fortasse : þeh þe hit gelumpe þæt him hwilc man þe hine ne cube ongen come (Si quis illum fortasse nesciret, salutatus). In other cases the construction serves rather to give weight and impressiveness to the statement of the deah-clause. Such is its value in the passage from Bede quoted above (BH. 124. 14); Dial. 13. 1 þeah þe heom gelumpe, þæt hi utan on heora lichaman mænniscra lareowa lare wana waron, þehhwæðre heom gelamp, þæt hi mid haliges gastes gife in heora heortan ingehigdum onbryrde 7 gelærde wæron; Wulf. 78. 17 and deah þæt sy, þæt fela manna Antecrist sylfne næfre his eagum ne geseo; 79. 19 and deah þæt geweorðe þæt ure ænig, þe nu leofað, þonne ne libbe; 227. 8 and þeh hwam gebyrige, þæt his fyr ut gewite, nis þæt alyfed to begetenne. The last case, however, is to be interpreted as periphrasis in the making, not developed as a separate construction, since gebyrige may be regarded as retaining its full meaning. In the other passages quoted, where the periphrasis is plain, its effect is one of heaviness and clumsiness; but, by acting as a sort of retard, it undoubtedly serves to fasten attention upon the concessive clause.

C. The Mode of the Clause. The problem of modes in concessive clauses cannot be investigated in the mass; each connective requires special study. By far the greatest importance in this regard belongs to deah, by which simple concessive clauses are ordinarily introduced. An index of deahclauses would show the overwhelming preponderance of the optative with this conjunction. But a word must be said as to the method to be applied in such investigation.

The only way to secure trustworthy results in the tabulation of modes is to make due allowance for ambiguous forms. Among these must be reckoned, in Old English, not only the preterit singular first and third person of weak verbs, but also preterit plurals in -on, except in the few texts where the distinction between optative and indicative preterit is consistently marked. It is only when unmistakably indicative forms occur that we can assert: 'In these cases, deah is followed by the indicative. This fact has not always been duly recognized, however, by writers upon Old English. Selecting, for example, the deah-clauses from the variety of concessive clauses which Wülfing cites (2.148) as containing an indicative verb, we find that most of his examples (leaving out of account one optative: ongitan) are weak preterits in the third person singular, or plural preterits ending in -on. Only one example is certainly indicative, a passage from Boethius quoted, apparently, from Cardale's edition. For the distinction between indicative and optative plural preterit is by no means

1 An error, probably, of the late Bodleian MS., for Sedgefield, printing the end of the word from the Cotton MS., has the optative: Bo. 50. 21 þeah þu nu hwene ær sæde.

« 上一頁繼續 »