THE ACTIVE INFINITIVE. 
23 
Of the eleven examples of the uninflected infinitive as subject of gedafenian, 
two ( Bede 74.22,342.18) are very near the finite verb, but correspond, the former 
to a Latin accusative and infinitive and the latter to a Latin noun in the accusa¬ 
tive, and the latter may be a predicative infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Two (Mlf. 
Horn . II. 318 m2 and JElf. L. S. 240.31) are each the second in a series of two 
infinitives in each of which series the first infinitive is inflected, and the second 
is appreciably separated from the first. The remaining seven are separated 
from the finite verb. But the datival force of the verb, gedafenian , occasionally 
is stronger than the influence of separation, as in Mlf. L. S. 240.30, XXIII B. 
238 b , in each of which we have the inflected infinitive despite the separation of 
infinitive from finite verb. In the remaining sixteen examples of the inflected 
infinitive, the infinitive is very near the finite verb, usually in immediate juxta¬ 
position therewith. 
In the single instance of an uninflected infinitive as the subject of gelician 
(L . 12.32), the infinitive is separated from the verb, but by only two words. 
In one of the three instances of the subjective inflected infinitive (< Oros . 106.24), 
the infinitive is separated from the verb by ten words; in the other two the 
infinitive is in close proximity. 
In one instance of the uninflected infinitive as subject of lician (Bede 276.12), 
the infinitive phrase corresponds to a Latin accusative and infinitive, and we 
may possibly have the same idiom in Anglo-Saxon. In another instance of the 
uninflected infinitive (Mlf. L. S. 308.32), the infinitive is the second of a series 
of two infinitives the first of which is inflected, and is considerably removed 
from the second. In the four instances of the inflected infinitive, the infinitive 
is near the finite verb, in two instances in immediate juxtaposition. 
That the original idiom with lystan was the uninflected infinitive is evident. 
Only the uninflected infinitive is found in the poetry (7 examples). In a total, 
in prose and in poetry, of about 65 examples, 61 are uninflected, and this despite 
the fact that in a majority of these cases, in both poetry and prose, the infini¬ 
tive is in close proximity to, in many instances in juxtaposition with, the finite 
verb (lystan). But why have we with this verb the uninflected rather than the 
inflected infinitive, especially when the infinitive is so often so near the finite 
verb, and when, on a first glance, lystan seems in sense so closely akin to what 
for lack of a better word I have termed the datival verbs ? The answer seems 
to be that the kinship is in reality not so close as it appears, for, while the 
datival verbs often govern a dative, lystan seldom does so: on the contrary, as 
is well known, it governs habitually the accusative of the person and the geni¬ 
tive of the thing. It is not unnatural, therefore, that its subjective infinitive 
should be, as it almost always is, uninflected. The surprise is rather that we 
find, in four instances (Oros. 102.25; Solil. 14.23, 59.33 a> b ), the inflected infini¬ 
tive as subject, — a fact that may be partially due to the disturbing influence 
of the comparative adverb 1 immediately preceding the infinitive in each ex¬ 
ample, but more largely, perhaps, to the double regimen of lystan (an accusative, 
occasionally a dative, of the person and a genitive of the thing). 
In the single example of an uninflected infinitive as the subject of anhagian 
(Greg. 289.16), the infinitive is removed by three words from its verb. Even 
greater separation, however, fails to withstand the datival force of anhagian in 
1 The comparative adverb has no such disturbing influence in Solil. 42.4 a ' h. 
