priori, that this case is not quite congenial to the spirit of the English language. We do not say much of wine, or little of good, but much wine, little good. Therefore, in the above-quoted passage, VI. 223, "How much more of power," it would be usual to say "How much more power."* Greater freedom is taken in V. 779, "This only to consult, how we may best With what may be devised of honour new, But still more receding from the usual diction is the following line- We have here the double licence of using what with the genitive, and heavier as a substantive; what of heavier, instance of what heavier punishment. We have not done with pronouns yet. Milton brought from his Greek reading into his style a peculiar use of the relative pronoun, technically called attraction. The relative pronoun being, with its appended sentence, only a qualification of what is called its antecedent, may be affected as to its case by the construction of the governing sentence. The antecedent, namely, when it is a pronoun, is sometimes dropped altogether, and the relative pronoun apparently occupies its place, being placed in that case in which the antecedent would have been. Thus, in Greek, μeμvnμévos âv éτpage is used, instead of μeuvnμένος τῶν (πραγμάτων) ἃ ἔπραξεν. The Latin writers kept very shy of this Græcism. Yet it is found occasionally. (See Horace, Sat. I. 6, 15, and Bentley's note.) Milton seems to delight in it; e.g. 66 I. 332. "As when men wont to watch, On duty sleeping found by whom they dread, By whom they dread" would be in Greek up' of poßoûvtal. This observation explains the difficult passage, I. 91. "Into what pit thou seest, from what height fallen."§ Greek, πεπτηκὼς ἐς οἷον ὁρᾷς βάραθρον. XI. 247. "How wearisome Eternity, so spent II. 415. 11. "For on whom we send The weight of all and our last hope relies." The partitive genitive seems to be gaining ground. See Macaulay's Essay on Milton"That style to which every ancient and every modern language has contributed something of grace, of energy, or of music." + A similar coustruction is found II. 20, "With what besides has been achieved of merit." I do not intend, of course, to give a complete theory of Greek attraction, but only to illustrate its Miltonian use. § For the double pronoun what there is an analogy in Thucydides, V. 7. It is not uncommon now to use the relative pronoun in comparisons, to say, e.g. "A man, than whom no greater lives." This is evidently an imitation of the Latin quo in similar constructions. I do not remember meeting with it in Shakspeare, nor do I think a plain spoken man would use it either in conversation or writing. There is something artificial and unnatural about it. The fact is, it was, if not first introduced, at least much favoured, by Milton, who has the following passages: V. 805. "Abdiel, than whom none with more zeal adored the Deity. Satan except, none higher sat." A similiar use of the relative pronoun is found- The "like which" is intended to represent the Latin “qualem." The relative pronoun is of the greatest importance in the structure of Latin periods. Whoever knows how to handle it well, and to combine it skilfully with participles and the adversative, causative, and other particles, has the secret of a good Latin style. In English its use is very much more limited. It is only used in secondary, never in principal clauses. But this does not apply to Milton, who avails himself of it in a variety of ways in imitation of Latin, e.g. in the passage just quoted— II. 299. "Which when Beelzebub perceived," is quod quum B. animadverteret. The Latin quod quum ought never to be translated by which when, but the Latin relative pronoun has to be changed in English into a demonstrative. Examples of principal sentences beginning with relative pronouns are numberless in Milton. I will quote a few : V. 371. "Whom thus the angelic virtue answered mild." V. 385. "On whom the angel hail bestowed." V. 404. "To whom the angel." Turning now from pronouns to other parts of speech, we find a decided Latinism in the use of the superlative degree of adjectives, when no comparison is introduced, but the absolutely highest, or a very high quality, is attributed to an object, not the relatively highest. When we say "The wisest man," we think of one wiser than all the others. If we wish to attribute the quality wise in a very high degree, without making a comparison, we say "a very wise man," or "a most wise man," employing the indefinite article; but Milton, when he says— I. 409. "The wisest heart of Solomon he led by fraud," does not speak of one heart wiser than all the others of Solomon, he means to express sapientissimum Solomonis animum. applies to II. 894 "Where eldest night and chaos The same "Before each van Prick forth the airy knights, and couch II. 951. "At length a universal hubbub wild Assaults his ear with loudest vehemence." I would hardly reckon these among the following: I. 251. "And thou, profoundest Hell, receive thy new possessor;" for as there are several Heavens, one above the other, so we may imagine several hells, into the lowest of which Satan was hurled. It is a schoolboy rule, that two negatives make an affirmative. This applied to Latin is quite correct, but it is neither true of German nor of English. Where these languages are most unalloyed with classical phraseology, viz. in the pages of writers independent of the so-called revival of learning, and in the mouth of the common people, who retain in its greatest purity the genuine old character of a language, there, I say, we find two negatives to make not an affirmative, but simply to strengthen the negation. It is, therefore, a Latinism when Milton says I. 325. "Nor did they not perceive the evil plight With respect to adverbs generally, it must be observed by the most superficial reader, that Milton studiously avoids, wherever he can, the adverbial termination ly, thereby likening his adverbs to adjectivesE.g. II. 816. "And thus answered smooth." This can hardly be called a Latinism or Græcism, for Milton has not confined himself to the cases in which the classical languages admit of the adjective to qualify the verb. The Greek and the Latin adjectives can be used either subjectively or objectively to qualify a verb where we should expect an adverb. Subjectively used, it is always in the gender of the subject of the clause, and it is looked upon as belonging rather to the subject than to the verb, e.g. ăкov àñîλеe we translate, "he went away unwillingly;" but we should express the meaning quite satisfactorily by saying "he (being) unwilling went away." On the L'Allegro I. "Hence loathed melancholy Of Cerberus and blackest midnight born." ✦ The two negatives make logically an affirmative, and, therefore, are avoided by good writers. When I say they are genuine English, I do not pretend to maintain that they are good English. other hand, when the adverb stands in the relation of object to the verb, being the result of the verbal action, it may be expressed in Greek and Latin by the adjective in the neuter gender, où éyéλare dulce ridebat, he smiled sweetly, i.e. the sweetness being the effect of the smiling. It is this use of the adjective, instead of the adverb, which Milton has especially introduced into his poem. But he has thereby sometimes made his meaning rather obscure, the inflexibility of the English language not furnishing him with a distinctive mark for the neuter gender, e.g.— V. 733. "To whom the Son, with calm aspect and clear, Lightning Divine, ineffable, serene, Made answer." To show the obscurity of this passage I will transcribe Dr. Newton's note: If lightning is a participle, the adjective divine is to be taken adverbially, as if it had been lightning divinely; but it is rather a substantive, and in Scripture the Angel's countenance is said to have been like lightning. Dan. x. 6, Matt. xxviii. 3." To such a dilemma the learned commentator is reduced. In my opinion he is altogether wrong. I fail to see the cogeucy of his argument. To compare the Messiah to lightning in this place seems highly improper; and what is serene and ineffable lightning? There can be no doubt, in my opinion, that Milton intended the three adjectives, divine, ineffable, serene, to qualify the participle lightning. But the mere possibility of Dr. Newton's mistake is a sufficient condemnation of the license taken by the poet. In imitation of the use of the Latin infinitive perfect, where an infinitive present is expected, we find, that Milton has the following construction:: Already known what he for news had thought I. 38. "By whose aid aspiring, To set himself in glory above his peers, He trusted to have equalled the most High." The intransitive verb, as is well known, is destitute of a passive voice. In Latin, however, the third person singular is formed, so that it is quite usual to say venitur, ventum est, &c. In English, however, to say "it has been come" would hardly pass current, I believe. Yet Milton, VI. 335, has the following passage :— "Forthwith on all sides to his aid was run By angels many and strong." It is difficult to introduce anything like a regular system into grammatical observations like the present, the more so, as I do not intend to exhaust the subject, and, therefore, should have to leave many dis agreeable blanks were I to adopt a strictly scientific classification. I must be content to string together remarks of a sometimes heterogeneous character, which would perhaps be better disposed of as notes to the text of the poet. A considerable difficulty lies in the following lines: I. 105. "What, though the field be lost? All is not lost; the unconquerable will The last of these lines is generally looked upon as a question, and explained as a boast of Satan, who declares, that every other quality is liable to defeat, except the unconquerable will, study of revenge, immortal hate and courage, never to submit or yield. But I agree with Pierce, who rejects the sign of interrogation at the end of the last line, and explains it, Et siquid sit aliud, quod superari nequeat, if there be anything else, besides the particulars mentioned, which is not to be overcome. Bentley's stopping is quite unintelligible to me. He puts a comma after "else," a sign of interrogation after "overcome?" and begins "Not" with a capital. I. 604-612. "Yet faithful how they stood." i.e. yet to behold (605) how they stood faithful. VI. 391. "What stood, recoiled O'er wearied through the faint Satanic host Then first with fear surprised and sense of pain Fled ignominious." Bentley says the sentence is inexplicable. He sees a contradiction. in this expression, "What stood, fled," and asks, what is THROUGH the host? His remedy is, of course, a sweeping emendation. His first objection has been satisfactorily removed by Newton, who shows that "what stood" is said in opposition to that part of the Satanic host, which lay overturned, and it does not imply that they kept their ground, but merely that they kept on their feet. The second difficulty, which lies in THROUGH, has not been noticed by Newton, but it is greater than the other. Those who are related to have recoiled through the Satanic host, belong to that host themselves. It is impossible that the term Satanic host should apply to those only who lay overturned. The difficulty is removed by explaining the preposition through, as used for throughout, (as in I. 754.) This Latinism (through being merely a translation of per) is not uncommon with Milton : I. 375. "And various idols through the heathen world." I. 518. “Or in Dodona, and through all the bounds of Doric land." |