I would be careful about applying the term "subjunctive" too loosely for an unreal situation. That's rather like calling any sentence where the subject isn't the agent a passive voice. Rather than talking in terms of unreality, it might be more helpful to think about epistemic, deontic, and dynamic modality (see the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for more detail).

In the most obvious reading (at least the one that seems most salient to me) both "would" and "could" have dynamic modality. In other words, we're referring to qualities and attitudes of the subject (Adam). Relative to the basic time described (in the prelapsarian garden), "would" indicates that the declaration has yet to occur. Presumably, he will be making this declaration after the fall, when the threat of loss becomes real.

The big contrast that I see here is less between factuality and unreality as between declaration and belief. The first line suggests that there is a possibility Adam could say something that he doesn't believe (i.e., lie), even if he's not doing it in this case. That possibility reinforces the notion that the speaker's stance is one of reflecting back upon the garden from the fallen world.

You can probably sketch out alternative readings in which "would" is epistemic (i.e., indicating that this is a conclusion of the speaker rather than direct assertion of truth), and "could" is deontic (giving permission), although they seem to me to make less sense in context.

The expression "Be that as may be" is subjunctive, but it's also a fossilized idiom. Everything else is declarative, but I don't see this poem as an ironic violation of Frost's statement, as they hardly constitute "simple" declarative sentences. Their syntax is reasonably complex, with embedded clauses and phrases displaced from their ordinary order.

Karl

On Oct 10, 2013, at 3:17 AM, Natalie Gerber wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> I would appreciate the group's expertise in weighing in on two questions of grammar regarding a Robert Frost poem that relies heavily on the modals would and could.
>  
> Never Again Would Birds' Song Be the Same
>  
> He would declare and could himself believe
> That the birds there in all the garden round
> From having heard the daylong voice of Eve
> Had added to their own an oversound,
> Her tone of meaning but without the words.
> Admittedly an eloquence so soft
> Could only have had an influence on birds
> When call or laughter carried it aloft.
> Be that as may be, she was in their song.
> Moreover her voice upon their voices crossed
> Had now persisted in the woods so long
> That probably it never would be lost.
> Never again would birds’ song be the same.
> And to do that to birds was why she came. (CPPP 308)
> Certainly, the modals--along with expressions like be that as may be and admittedly and negators--function as hedges, qualifications, but I wonder whether we might say they make sentences in the text subjunctive, expressive of irreality, or whether we might say they indicate the speaker's stance toward his statement while remaining within the range of expression within the indicative.
>  
> Also, I would appreciate your confirming for me that the poem is largely or entirely written in declarative sentences. The question interests me because Frost once wrote, "The simple declarative sentence used in making a plain statement is one sound. But Lord love ye it mustn’t be worked to death. It is against the law of nature that whole poems should be written in it. If they are written they won’t be read."
> The poem strikes me as a successful violation of this law.
>  
> In full disclosure, I am seeking your advice toward an essay I am revising that compares Frost's investment of belief in sound to Wallace Stevens' and William Carlos Williams'. The emphasis is upon Frost's notion of sentence sounds, but I'd like to get the grammar right.
>  
> Thank you very much for any light you can shed.
>  
> With best wishes,
> Natalie
> Natalie Gerber
> Associate Professor, English
> Secretary-Treasurer, Wallace Stevens Society
> Associate Editor, Wallace Stevens Journal
> phone: (716) 673-3855
> email:  [log in to unmask]
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/