22 
THE SUBJECTIVE INFINITIVE. 
infinitive uninflected if remote from the principal verb, but inflected if near it. 
One exception does occur with aliefan: it is difficult to see why we have the 
uninflected infinitive, don, in Luke 6.9 a ( alyfS on restedsegum wel don, o<5(5e 
yfele; sawle hale gedon, hwseber be forspillan? = si licet sabbatis benefacere an 
male, animam salvam facere, an perdere?), but the inflected infinitive, to donne, 
in the almost identical passage of Mark 3.4 a (AlyfS restedagum wel to donne, 
hweber be yfele? sawla gehselan, hweber be forspillan = Licet sabbatis bene¬ 
facere, an male? anjmam salvam facere, an perdere?); for, while the infinitive 
is one word further removed from the principal verb in the former than in the 
latter passage, that alone hardly accounts for the difference in translation. 
Perhaps the confusion is partially due to the disturbing influence of the adverb 
wel in Anglo-Saxon or of the datival verb, benefacere, in Latin. Another prob¬ 
able factor in the twofold construction with aliefan is its double regimen (with 
an accusative and a dative) when transitive, for, as we shall see in the next 
chapter, double regimen is, with many verbs, a prolific source of confusion 
between the uninflected infinitive and the inflected infinitive in the objective 
function. 
In the single example of the uninflected infinitive as subject of beon plus 
betere (Mk. 9.47) and in the two of beon plus selre (Napier’s Ad. to Th. 101.332 11 , 
Mlf. L. S. XXV. 144 b ), the distance of the infinitive from the verb phrase 
doubtless contributes to the lack of inflection, for, with selre, the first of the two 
infinitives in a series (Mlf. L. S. XXV. 144 a ) is inflected, while the second, 
with an adverb preceding, is uninflected. It is only fair to state that in Matthew 
18.9 we have the inflected infinitive with beon plus betere although the infinitive 
is as far removed from the verb phrase as in Mark 9.47; but in the other ex¬ 
amples the infinitive is very near the verb. 
In the example of fremman (fremian), ‘ help/ with an inflected infinitive as 
subject (Mat. 19.10), we have what we should naturally expect. That, con¬ 
trary to expectation, we find the uninflected infinitive, gedon, in Mlf. Horn. I. 
394 m , with only two words intervening between it and fremede, is probably due 
to the confusion of meaning between fremman (fremian ) in the sense of ‘ effect' 
and in the sense of ‘ benefit/ and to the consequent double regimen of fremman 
(with an accusative or a dative). In the two passages in question, fremman 
(fremian) clearly has the latter of the two meanings. 
Of the seven examples of the uninflected infinitive with gebyrian, one (L. 
11.42 b ) is the second of a series of two infinitives with several words intervening 
between the infinitives. One (L. 12.12) precedes the finite verb in Anglo- 
Saxon, and corresponds to an accusative and predicative infinitive in the 
Latin original. Two (L. 24.26 a - b ) are appreciably separated from the finite 
verb. One (Mat. 18.33) is near the finite verb, but translates a Latin 
accusative and predicative infinitive, and may itself be considered an instance 
of the predicative infinitive in Anglo-Saxon, as may the remaining two (L. 
15.32 a> b ). Personally, however, I believe that, in Mat. 18.33 and in L. 
15.32 3 ’ b , the Anglo-Saxon infinitive is subjective, but I doubt not that 
the Latin accusative-with-infinitive construction, present in the passage 
from Matthew and in three other passages with gebyrian in Luke, may have 
had something to do with the absence of inflection in Anglo-Saxon. Perhaps, 
also, the twofold meaning of gebyrian ( l happen * and ‘ be fitting ’) in part 
accounts for the use of the two infinitives. 
