ePub 版

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 yrmða 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 : 0.206.35 pa þa Lapidus Mutius wæs consul, wolde seo strengeste þeod winnan on Romane, Þe mon þa het Basterne, 7 nu hie mon næt Hungerre. This might have been reduced to a parallel relative clause: 7 þe 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 þa tida þe Romane nu æfter sicað, 7 cweþað þæt him Gotan wyrsan tida gedon hæbben þonne hie ær hæfdon, 7 næeron I on hie hergende buton þrie dagas; 7 Gallie wæron ær siex monað binnan þære byrig hergende, 7 him bet bagiet to lytel yfel Duhte buton hie eac hie þæs 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 transcurrens.

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 foMowed by an adversative, contrasting it also with what follows


it: Bo. 99. 4 Đyllica leasunga hi worhton, 7 meahton eade 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 swyde manege oðre eodon to Pilate, 7 þone hælend wregdon, 7 sædon for manegum yfelum dædum, 7 he ne wearð næfre nane wyrcende; 7 hig þeh þus 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. 29 7 þone 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 wæs 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 ... & hwæþere hie wæron of Dauides cynnes strynde, þæs riht-cynecynnes; ÆH. 1. 384. 24 Godes gelabung wurồaờ bisne dog đam maran apostole Paule to wurðmynte ... was deah-hwæðere his martyrdom samod mid Jam eadigan Petre gefremmed. In the latter

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

case, Thorpe translates though.' A closer parallel
to the Old English would be our phrase “to be sure,
which has sometimes the effect of subordinating the
sentence in which it occurs. Another example with-
out copula : Epis. 149. 271 þa cwomon we to þæm
mere de us mon ær foresæde ; þa wæs he eall mid
wudu beweaxen mile brædo, was hwæpre weg to dæm
wcetre. In all these cases, the relation of the two connected
sentences is actually less clearly defined than in the
case of the concessive sentence introduced by and.

In Ælfric's Lives of the Saints occur several par-
enthetical clauses resembling the adversative sentences
treated in the preceding paragraph: LS. 1. 458. 266 Sum
wer wæs betogen þæt he wære on stale- -wes swaðeah
unscyldigand hine man sona gelæhte; 502. 233 and
he malchus se getreowa fleah of ðære byrig sona mid
ege and mid ogan-hæfde mid him þeah eapelicne
fodan-and com to his geferan and heom eall cydde
...; 516. 491 da geseah he hwær þa weorc-stanas
lagon ofer eall þær onbutan and he healfunga þæs
wundrode-peah na swiðe embe poet ne smeademac he
forht of þære dune mid micclan ege nydereode.

Here should be mentioned also a type of phrase ending with sua teah, which is characteristic of the same work. These phrases are loosely tacked-on to a preceding statement; and, though they bear some resemblance to the appositives and adverbs to be treated in the following chapter, are equivalent to elliptical sentences : LS. 1. 166.319 swa þæt da munecas ... eodon to uhtsange, ær timan swa þeah; 276. 199 Ic wylle eac sweltan, na scyldig swapeah; 2. 440. 232 ' Datianus, þa cwæþ se deofollica cwelleræ, ofsceamod swapeah, 'gif ic ...?; 1. 84. 565; 444. 63; 470. 474.

NOTE 1. The use of MHG. unde introducing concessive clauses furnishes an analogy to the coördinate sentences

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

discussed in this section. Since OE. and, while remaining a coördinate conjunction, takes on in these sentences the logical function of a subordinating particle, it is interesting to compare a note of Tobler'sl upon the use of und and unde: Die concessive Bedeutung des und = obgleich, da doch, ist im untergeordneten Satz dasselbe was die einfach adversative und doch' im beigeordneten. Da die letztere schon ziemlich alt ist und z. B. auch dem altsächsischen endi zukommt so dürfen wir uns nicht wundern, auch ihr Correlat schon auf althochdeutschem Boden zu finden.'

Note 2. Although, as I have said, the coördinate sentence with and is to be distinguished from the use of and as a subordinating conjunction meaning although' or if, it is possible that the latter use may have arisen from the former. I may note that Wülfing is inclined to understand and as conditional in Wulf. 229. 24; 231. 13. But in each case the sentence introduced by and seems to me an independent prophecy.

THE CONCESSIVE SENTENCE PRECEDING. Another type of concessive structure is that in which a sentence, not formally subordinated, bears a concessive relation to another following it. Such constructions vary from the crudest and most childlike collocation of clauses to the most effective balanced periods. In Old English, the two related sentences may be connected by and, ac, or an adversative adverb, or—rarely-may simply stand side by side without formal connective. The use of the same structural types for expressing various other ideas than that of concession makes definition somewhat difficult. In the necessary absence of formal signs of relation, one must resort to a logical criterion. The sentence in question must in every case be read in the light of the context. If in the light of the context the first of two sentences appears to be introduced only for the sake of the second, especially if it be a mere repetition of something already stated, and now referred to for its bearing on the second sentence, it may fairly be regarded as subordinate in thought. Or, as often happens, if the former sentence, having at first an independent value, is overshadowed by the importance of the second, the former sentence may still approach the subordinate relation.

i Über den Relativen Gebrauch des Deutschen und (Germania 13. 91–104), p. 101.

2 Wülfing, Kommt and in der Bedeutung von if schon im Altenglischen vor? (Anglia, Beiblatt 12. 89).

Into passages largely connected by means of and, the coördinate concessive structure naturally enters, as in the following example of entirely formless collocation: Bl. H. 57. 19 Manige men beoð heardre heortan Þe þa godcundan lare gehyraþ & him mon þa oft bodaþ & sægþ & hi hi þonne agimeleasiad; though they are often preached to and instructed.' BI. H. 93. 16 & þonne hit biþæt sunnan setlgange, & þeah hwepre nænig leoht ne æteoweþ; here þeah hwepre, a more definite adversative than donne, marks the relation of the sentences. Epis. 146. 168 þa was haten Seferus, min þegn, funde þa water in anum holan stane and þa mid ane helme hlod hit and me to brohte, and he sylfa þursti wæs, se min þegn, and hwa þre he swiðor mines feores and gesynto wilnade þonne his selfes ; here again we have the adversative after and.

An example of how a sentence may seem at first to have independent value, and may be turned into a tributary to what follows, is seen in this passage: Æ. Th. 447. 39 Manega sinoðas wæron syöðan gehæfde, ac þas feower syndon fyrmeste swa-beah. Another instance of subordination to the context occurs in this passage from the Peterborough Chronicle, where the

« 上一頁繼續 »