64 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, ArtSj and Letters. 



that A is B, in tlie absence of any possible antagonism, is at the 

 most but tamely gratifying ; but to bold tbat A is B, against the 

 attack of even a single opposition, is a bait to tlie controversial 

 impulse ; and to defend this proposition against all comers, chal- 

 lenges a knightly instinct in matters of speech as well as in 

 those of the lists. 



The antagonistic element cited in connection with a statement 

 is commonly called a concession. From what has been noted 

 above it follows that, when a concession is made, it is rhetorical 

 to make it big. I shall hardly say that "I can thrash Brown, 

 though he is an inch the taller.'' Better make it a foot, or add 

 to his superiority in height advantage in years, strength, weight, 

 and knowledge of pugilistics. Or better yet, make B's superi- 

 ority quite indefinite ; leave its determination to your imagina- 

 tion; and stimulate that imagination by making the indefinite- 

 ness intense. Accordingly, ^^I can thrash B, though he is taller 

 to any decree whatever." As a matter of fact, when con- 

 cessions are made, they are as a rule in some way intensified. 

 It now, it be true that concessions are attended by intensifica- 

 tion, it holds conversely that to some extent intensification is at- 

 tended by concession. The door is therefore open for intensi- 

 fication to become the sieii that concession is intended. Thus 

 the phrases "for a truth," "indeed" and "forsooth" are obvious 

 intensifiers of reality; as such they have become unmistakable 

 signs of concessive intention. If I start by saying that "My 

 nephew is forsooth industrious," you are well aware that I shall 

 continue with something: like "He nevertheless is unsuccessful." 



These tendencies proved extremely useful in the develop- 

 ment of concessive particles. He who first endeavored to ex- 

 press concession must have been considerably puzzled, for how- 

 ever adept he might be in the invention of symbols naturally 

 suggestive of objects, qualities and actions, he could hardly 

 invent a word suggestive per se of a relation so subtle as the con- 

 cessive. The best he could do was what is still done even to- 

 day. He would name what was conceded and also w^hat held 

 in spite of the concession, leaving the concessive (antagonistic) 

 relation to be inferred.-^ The limitations of inference on the 

 one hand would restrict him to such concessions as miffht read- 



o 

 ^Conf. "He might come at any moment. He would always find a welcome." 



