CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

It is the purpose of this thesis to set forth the resources possessed by Old English for the expression of concessive relations, grouping the material in such a way as to show what are the main types of idiom employed, and their history so far as it can be traced. The search for origins, it is true, must in the case of many Old English idioms be disappointing, for however the language may have gained in firmness and compactness under the influence of Latin, the earliest prose we have shows most of the essential constructions of the language already present. What conclusions may be drawn have to do rather with the native character of a large number of concessive constructions, the influence of Latin upon others, and the antiquity of many locutions still in daily use. It is my hope also that part of the material included may illustrate some of the psychological processes involved in speech. My aim has not been, however, to enter the field of the psychologist, but to give an account as accurate as possible of facts which may prove to have psychological significance.

The concessive relation is usually understood as a specialized form of the conditional relation, or at least as most nearly akin to it. In each form of sentence the main proposition is thought of as conditioned by the subordinate. Typically, the conditional sentence contains a hypothesis and a conclusion contingent upon the truth of that hypothesis; the concessive sentence contains a hypothesis, or a fact, and a

b

conclusion independent thereof. The concessive sentence may be represented by the formula, linguistically though not mathematically true, a-b=a, in which b has a positive value. It is evident that this relation, like the conditional, has affinities with that of cause. The concession-the notion subtracted, as it were, from the main proposition-may often be looked upon as a blocked or inoperative cause or reason. The view, the reason, the circumstance is admitted, but the opposite of its natural consequence is asserted.

The close relation between the concessive and the conditional idea is shown by the frequency with which conditional particles are adapted to concessive use. The Greek εἰ καί and ἐὰν καί, the Latin etsi, etiamsi, the Gothic pauhjabai, and the German obwohl, obschon are familiar examples. In Modern English, if and even if are largely in use as concessive conjunctions. The likeness of causal and concessive ideas is especially seen in negative sentences. When a negative assertion or command is expressed, with a reason tending to an opposite conclusion, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether the minor clause is causal or concessive.

Old English, like other languages, reflects in its idioms the close relationship between the notions of concession, condition, and cause. Conditional par

ticles, it is true, are less frequently employed to denote concession than in modern English. The kinship of the two ideas is shown rather by mixture of constructions. We find the concessive clause, for instance, slipping into what is logically a condition1: ÆH. 1. 394. 6 peah hwa forlæte micele æhta, and ne forlæt

1 For explanation of abbreviated titles see the list of texts at the end of this chapter.

da gitsunge, ne forlæt he ealle ding. Similarly the conditional clause may slip into the concessive, as in the 'inadvertent concessive conditions' to be cited in Chapter VI. The similarity of causal and concessive constructions is more marked in Old English. Exceptionally we find concessive clauses approaching causal meaning, as in this passage: EH. 2. 216. 24 Gif hwam seo lar oflicige, ne yrsige he nateshwon wio us, deah de we Godes bebodu mannum geopenian. More frequently we find mingling of the constructions. The two may be used side by side with only a slight change of emphasis: Bo. 69. 6 ff. Hwæðer þu beo a þy fægerra for oðres mannes fægere? [cause] Bið men ful lytle by bet peah he godne fæder habbe [concession], gif he self to nauhte ne mæg. The same slight shift in emphasis may lead to an even closer combination, as in the following: CP. 261. 22 ff. Hwa sceal donne, dara de hal & good andgiet hæbbe, Gode unðoncfull beon, forðæm, deah he hine for his synnum suinge...? (Latin original: Aut quis sana intelligentia de percussione sua ingratus existat . . . ?) ; ÆH. 1. 252. 14 f. Getimige us tela on lichaman, getimige us untela, symle we sceolon pas Gode dancian. It may be added that comparative adjective and adverbial phrases, such as those in the passage Bo. 69. 6 just quoted, are in frequent use in Old English as correlatives of causal, conditional, and concessive clauses.

Analyzing the concessive relation more closely, we find that the three categories of assumed fact, hypothesis of possibility, and hypothesis contrary to fact, commonly applied to conditions, may be applied to concessions. The broader division between fact and hypothesis is, however, much more readily grasped and more fundamental.

Another point of view from which concessive sentences may be studied is that of the types of expression found among them. The relation formulated as a-ba may, of course, be expressed by a phrase as well as by a clause; there are, indeed, as in the case of Modern English for all, instances of one connective serving for either phrase or clause. A more fruitful division is that according to the speaker's approach to the sentence. All concessions, thus classified, fall into three groups: the simple, the disjunctive, and the indefinite. The simple concession contains a fact or notion in spite of which the main proposition stands. The disjunctive or alternative concession introduces mutually exclusive possibilities, in spite of either of which the proposition is maintained. But this is often only a more emphatic substitute for the former method. 'Whether I come or not'-though it may be logically analyzed into 'if I come, or though I do not come '-is often simply equivalent to though I do not come.' The indefinite concession generalizes the situation: the main proposition is asserted in spite of any possibility—no matter what the case may be.

Finally, the concessive form is often employed where the relation between parts of the sentence is less strict than in the typical case, as in the statement, 'He is an ingenious lad, though his brother is more ingenious.' There is no real conflict of ideas here; the second clause enters as an afterthought, which has not sufficient importance to be given a

new sentence.

In the following chapters I shall attempt to show in what forms all these types of concessive sentence are to be found in Old English. Where reference to Modern English or to other languages may throw

light upon Old English idiom, I shall endeavor to include what is of value.

In the more important translated works, I have found almost constant reference to the original essential to the evaluation of the material. In the case of so variable and sometimes elusive a relation as that of concession, such reference is indispensable if any valid comparisons are to be made. This comparative study enables one to distinguish two streams of influence the tendencies of the native idiom, and the modes of expression copied from Latin, or given special importance by their use in translation. Citations from Latin, it is true, have always to be interpreted with care. There is always the chance that the Latin manuscript before the translator was different in some small but significant detail from the text we possess.1 Much Old English translation, moreover, is to be described as free paraphrase. Even with these reservations, nevertheless, Latin originals must frequently be taken into account.

It has not seemed feasible to put a large part of the material into statistical form. On the one hand, constructions which occur very rarely, such as the concessive use of the preposition butan, must be treated exhaustively in the body of the thesis. On the other hand, certain constructions which occur in great number, such as the concessive period with ac or and deah as connective, shade off so variously into mere antithesis or some kindred notion, and offer so much room for arbitrary and personal judgment, that enumeration would be futile. I have indicated in treating separate constructions, however, whether they

1 See, for example, Bright's Introduction to John, pp. xxvi ff., for a brief statement as to the text used by the translators of the Gospels.