The Text of Paradise Lost: A Study in Editorial Procedure 9781487576653

Citation preview

THE TEXT OF PARADISE LOST: A STUDY IN EDITORIAL PROCEDURE

Paradise Lost, possibly the 'most read, most criticized, and most exalted'

poem in the English language, has been published more often perhaps in the three hundred years of its existence than any other work of English literature. In the eighteenth century alone, when the English nation went Milton mad, more than a hundred editions were made available to the English reading public. This study traces the transmission history of the poem from its first appearance in 1667, through the eighteenth century with its emphasis on conjectural criticism, to the present century when it was subjected to unwarranted 'restoration.' For the editor of Paradise Lost, who must seek to know 'everything there is to know' about the authoritative texts, that history is a complex one; it includes a first edition with internal variants in five distinct issues, a revised second edition redivided into twelve books, with more than a thousand variants between the two, and subsequent editions (including that of 1732 by 'slashing Bentley') which introduce and perpetuate many fresh errors and ultimately 'restore' the text to a state which Milton might have achieved had he not gone blind. Moyles not only traces that history - describing the text's treatment at the hands of such editors as Fenton, Tickel, Bentley, Newton, Darbishire, and Wright - but raises questions regarding the authority of the original editions, an editor's choice of copy-text, the amount of emendation required, the matter of eclecticism, and the difficulty of establishing authorial intention regarding the accidentals. In short, an editorial procedure for Paradise Lost is proposed. This, along with the historical and human context of the whole study, involves issues of interest not only to students of Milton but to textual scholars, students of bibliography, and students of literary history. R . G. MOYLES

is associate dean of arts at the University of Alberta.

R.G . MOYLES

The Text of Paradise Lost: A Study in Editorial Procedure

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

© University of Toronto Press 1985 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada Reprinted in 2018 ISBN 0-8020-5634-2 ISBN 978-1-4875-7734-6 (paper)

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Moyles, R.G. (Robert Gordon), 1939The text of Paradise lost Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 0-8020-5634-2 1. Milton, John, 160~1674. Paradise lost Criticism, textual. 2. Milton, John, 160~1674 Editors. 3. Transmission of texts - Case studies. I. Title.

PR3562.M69 1985

821'.4

C84-099339-0

To David G. Pitt who introduced me to Milton

Contents

PREFACE

ix

1 The Original Texts: A Question of Authority 3 2 The Transmission of Paradise Lost: The Early Editions, 167~1730 30 3

Towards a Definitive Text: Richard Bentley to Thomas Newton, and After 59 4

Orthography: The Modern Editorial Preoccupation 80 5

Punctuation: A Question of Grammar and Rhetoric 117 6

Editing Paradise Lost 134

APPENDIX 145 NOTES 153 BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX 185

171

Preface

Since Paradise Lost was first published in 1667 it has been printed, in complete and distinct editions, at a rate equivalent to once every year, more often perhaps than any other work of literature in the English language. If one were to take into account the many translations of the poem, that astonishing figure would be more than doubled. In the eighteenth century alone - when the English nation went Milton mad more than a hundred editions of Paradise Lost were made available to the English reading public, eloquent testimony to the fact that, by the middle of that century, the hitherto 'despised' Milton was beginning to be 'revered.' Many features of the early editions have already been described and discussed by a variety of scholars: the early illustrators in Marcia Pointon' s excellent work Milton and English Art; the development of a critical commentary - through annotations, introductions, and life histories in Ants Oras' Milton's Editors and Commentators; and fragments of their publishing history have appeared in such works as Kathleen Lynch's Jacob Tonson: Kit-Cat Publisher. Various aspects of the text itself, particularly the bibliographical and textual nature of the original editions, have also been examined by several modern scholars, notably Harris Fletcher, Helen Darbishire, John T. Shawcross, and Robert Adams. But a complete and comprehensive history of the text of Paradise Lost - describing how it was treated by its early editors, showing when the textual state of the originals became known, ascertaining just when definitiveness was achieved, and revealing the full implications of the modern editor's concern with spelling and punctuation - has not yet been attempted. This study seeks to provide such a history: it is a sustained examination of the textual and bibliographical state of Paradise Lost involving a

x Preface thorough description of the transmission of the text and its treatment at the hands of such editors as Fenton, Tickell, Bentley, Newton, Darbishire, and Wright. In the process, questions regarding the authority of the original editions, an editor's choice of copy-text, the amount of emendation required, the matter of eclecticism, and the difficulty in establishing authorial intention for the accidentals are raised and discussed in detail. In short, an editorial procedure for Paradise Lost is proposed. Although this study will, I hope, be of interest both to Milton scholars and to textual scholars in general, I have consciously entertained the further hope that students of bibliography and textual theory might also find it useful as a practical illustration of the problems and issues encountered in courses on those subjects. For it illustrates, above all, that editing a literary text - even one with seemingly few major cruxes - is a task which demands a great deal of critical acumen, a thorough knowledge of textual history, and a large amount of diligence and patience. I have, during the many years of research spent on this project, received a great deal of practical and moral support for which I am very grateful. To the staffs of Cambridge University Library, Trinity College Library (Cambridge), the British Library Reading Room, the University of Illinois Rare Books Room, and the University of Alberta Special Collections I offer my thanks for their kindness and attention. I have been supported by research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Central Research Fund (University of Alberta), and the Faculty of Arts Endowment Fund. Publication has been made possible by grants from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Emil Skarin Fund (University of Alberta), and the Publications Fund of the University of Toronto Press. Parts of my book were, while still in the research stage, presented as articles in English Studies in Canada and Studies in Bibliography, and I hereby acknowledge their encouragement. And finally I wish to offer sincere thanks to several people: to Professors John T. Shawcross and James Forrest for valuable suggestions; to my indefatigable research assistant, Ms Barbara Rose; to Ms Prudence Tracy, my editor, for her patience; and to my wife, Ada, for everything.

THE TEXT OF PARADISE LOST

1 The Original Texts: A Question of Authority

In June of 1665, when the Great Plague was nearing its pestilential zenith, John Milton, then in his fifty-sixth year and known primarily as a great Latin scholar, a feared pamphleteer, and an arch anti-royalist (but not yet as a poet of stature), took leave of his London residence and sought refuge in a small country cottage at Chalfont St Giles. There, in August of that same year, he was visited by a young man, Thomas Ellwood, who had previously often read to the blind scholar in exchange for tutoring in the Latin tongue. 'After some common Discourses had passed between us,' Ellwood later wrote, 'he called for a manuscript of his; which being brought he delivered to me, bidding me take it home with me and read it at my Leisure.' 1 Into Ellwood's hands John Milton had placed his avowed magnum opus - a 'fair copy' of Paradise Lost. It was the world's first glimpse of a creative work destined to become the 'most noticed, most read, most criticized, and finally the most exalted Poem in the English Tongue.' 2 Two years later, after the plague had diminished and London had partially recovered from the effects of the Great Fire of 1666, Paradise Lost was presented to full public view in its first printed edition. Early in 1667 the manuscript was officially approved for publication - was granted its imprimatur - by the agent of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 3 Milton then sought out the printer Samuel Simmons, whose London shop near Aldersgate had escaped the fire, and on 27 April he signed the formal publication contract (offered here in abridged and modernized form): The said John Milton, in consideration of five pounds to him now paid by the said Samuel Simmons and other considerations herein mentioned, hath given, granted and assigned .. . all that Book, Copy or Manuscript of a Poem entitled

4 The Text of Paradise Lost Paradise Lost ... In consideration whereof the said Samuel Simmons, for him his executors and administrators doth covenant with the said John Milton, his executors and assignees, well and truly to pay unto the said John Milton the sum of five pounds of lawful English money at the end of the first impression which the said Samuel Simmons ... shall make and publish of the said Copy or Manuscript, which impression shall be accounted to be ended when thirteen hundred books ... shall be sold and retailed off to particular reading customers, and shall also pay other five pounds unto the said Mr. Milton ... at the end of the second impression to be accounted as aforesaid. And five pounds more at the end ofthe third impression, to be in like manner accounted . And that the said three first impressions shall not exceed fifteen hundred books or volumes of the said whole Copy or Manuscript a piece. 4

Five months later, soon after 20 August when the poem was registered at Stationers' Hall, the first copies of Paradise Lost were in the booksellers' hands and soon in the hands of discerning readers. The early purchasers of Paradise Lost - those who bought copies between 1667 and 1674 - could have received any one of what appeared to be five different copies of the poem (see Figures 1-7): 1 With a title-page dated 1667, entitled 'Paradise lost. A POEM Written in TEN BOOKS By JOHN MIL TON.' It did not contain the printer's name, but did list the names of three booksellers: Peter Parker, Robert Boulter, and Matthias Walker. (There is a variant of this title-page, in every respect similar to this except that the words 'JOHN MILTON' are considerably reduced in size. Some early commentators describe this as a new or distinct title-page, but it is clearly not.) 2 With a title-page dated 1668 on which the words 'By JOHN MILTON' have been altered to 'The Author J.M .' (There is also a variant of this title-page which has a period after 'BOOKS.') 3 With a title-page also dated 1668, but which now reads 'The Author JOHN MILTON,' includes 'Printed by S. Simmons,' removes the name of Peter Parker and adds two new booksellers: S. Thomson and H. Mortlack. 4 With a title-page dated 1669 on which the names of Thomson, Mortlack, and Boulter no longer appear, the only bookseller listed being 'T. Helder at the Angel in Little Brittain.' 5 With a title-page dated 1669, in all respects similar to the preceding, except that 'LONDON' has been reduced in size and some minor punctuation and typographical changes have been made in the imprint information.

5 The Original Texts

Paradife loll:. A

POEM Written in

TEN BOOKS By JOHN MILTON. Licenfed and Entred according to Order. LONDON

Printed, and are to be fold by P,,,,. P11,fdjd]). Preterites and past participles with liquid vowels (1, r) or nasal vowels (m, n) before the suffix can be pronounced either way (smelt or smelled [sm::>lt, sm::>ld]). It is only with the second category that we are concerned in this study, for it is the only one which admits variant spellings. Where the sound of the word was actually t and not d it was usual practice in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to spell with at (mixt, fixt, and vext), and this is still accepted for some words (see my preferred spelt). As one might expect, however, in an age where the practice was customary rather than fixed, when printers exercised different views and when standards were beginning to change, many inconsistencies are to be found. Thus, in Paradise Lost one finds vanquish'd and vanquisht, seduc't and seduc'd, advanc't and advanc'd, astonish'd and astonisht, and so forth. H.J.C. Grierson was of the opinion that Milton was fastidious in the 'use of "t" for "d" in the past tense and past participle of verbs when the sound is that of "t. "'48 That this is a false assumption is easy to demonstrate. The word blessed occurs twenty-seven times in Paradise Lost: six as blessed (disyllabic), eighteen as blest, and three as bless'd. There are three occurrences of dropt and three of drop' d. But Darbishire and Wright are again the only editors to ascribe anything more than poetic convention to these variants. In Darbishire's words: 'After unvoiced consonants the final d or t of the preterite and past participle of weak verbs are used distinctively as follows: the preterite is spelt with final d, the past participle with final t.' 49 It is not necessary to look at every preterite and past participle in Paradise Lost in order to test the validity of this claim. A random sampling should suffice to reveal any principle that Milton might have applied. This particular aspect of the study also serves to illustrate the problems involved in testing the theories concerning Milton's spelling. Many of the words chosen could not be used as anything more than corroborative evidence because their numbers were too small. Stooped, for example, occurs only twice: stoop'd (8.351) and stoopt (11.185). The first seems to be a preterite (although Wright reads it as a past participle) and the second is a participle. Nor can one rely on lapsed1 undiminished, or eclipsed, there being only two or three of each in the poem. The word mixed, however, occurs nineteen times and, optimistically, it seems that some light might now be shed. But it occurs eighteen times as a past participle and only once as a preterite: it is spelt with a t every time. The words advanced and wished offer more substantial evidence. Wished occurs five times as a preterite and four times as a past participle:

106 The Text of Paradise Lost four of the preterites end with d and one with t; two of the participles have a final t, one ad, and one -ed. Advanced occurs ten times as a past participle (eight with final t, two with final d) and twice as a preterite (one with t, one with d). Ideally, what is needed are two words which occur frequently and whose ratio of preterites to past participles is reversed. This is relatively true for ceased and blessed. The former occurs thirteen times in the poem: nine as a preterite and four as a past participle. The nine preterites all have terminal d and the four participles t. Blessed occurs twenty-four times as a past participle and three as a preterite: all preterites end with d and all past participles (except six which end with -ed) end with t. Other words in this category are spelt as shown in Table 5. Taken together, these figures seem to support the theory set forth by Darbishire and Wright: preterites of weak verbs are most often spelt with final d and past participles with final t. It seems most likely, however, that, instead of this being a part of a complex system governing all spelling, Milton was here following an accepted tradition. He was not spelling intentionally to apprise his readers of the fact that ad denoted a preterite and a ta past participle, but was merely following a tradition which gave to the past participle, because it most often acted as an adjective, that pronunciation. It is ludicrous to suggest that any reader, early or modern, 'might easily misread without the help of spellings.'50 For why should Milton wish to distinguish between preterites and past participles with unvoiced consonants when he could not do so with those having voiced consonants; and why only for the preterites and past participles of weak verbs when he could not (or need not) do so for those of strong verbs? Or is there yet another undiscovered principle underlying the spelling of those as well? OTHER USES OF THE APOSTROPHE

Before discussing the major role of the apostrophe in Paradise Lost it is necessary to describe briefly Milton's handling of elision. The term, in its broadest sense, is defined as the omission or slurring of a syllable to secure a desired rhythmic effect. In Paradise Lost this device is employed about once in every four lines, and critics agree that Milton has used elision more often and more skilfully than any other poet in the English language. The most comprehensive and lucid commentary on this aspect of Milton's poetry has been written by Robert 0. Evans in his Milton's Elisions. The following definitions and categories are based on

107 Orthography TABLE 5

lopped worshipped walked stretched confessed abashed provoked vanquished impressed

as preterite

with t

d

0 1 6 1 1 0 0 1

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2

5

1 1 0 0 1 2

as past participle

d

2

2

0 3 6 1

0 3 6 1

5 4 4 2

5 4 4 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

his excellent work, in which he identifies six varieties of elision in Para-

dise Lost: 51

1 Hypermonosyllables: 'That class of words whose pronunciation in English might historically be either monosyllabic or disyllabic, words like heaven and power.' And Powers / that earst / in Heav / en sat / on Thrones (1.360)

2 Elision over liquids and nasals: 'When a liquid, nasal, or sometimes a sibilant is intervocalic, elision may occur, usually of the vowel preceding the consonant.' Most of these elisions cause the omission of a vowel preceding r within a word or before a suffix: answering, wandering, tem-

perance, reverence, amorous.

She all/ night long/ her am/ orous des/ cant sung (4.603)

Contrast this with: And sweet I reluct I ant am/ orous / delay (4.311)

There are also many occurrences of elision over the liquid l and intervocalic nasals: popular, populous, javelin, covenant, opening, countenance, and reasoning are all metrically disyllabic. 3 Elision by synaloepha: 'Commonly words ending in a vowel, usually prepositions and articles, elide the final vowel of the first word before a word beginning with another vowel, semi-vowel, or aspirate.' The most

108 The Text of Paradise Lost frequent occurrence of this type in Paradise Lost is with the definite article, but it may be found with the following combinations as well: be it, t'whom, valley of, thee and, and sorrow and. Above I th' Ao I nian Mount, / while it I pursues (1.15)

4 Elision between contiguous vowels. This is clearly illustrated in the line quoted above (1.15). In the third foot nian is metrically monosyllabic. Another immediate example is the first line of Paradise Lost: Of Mans / First Dis I obed I ience and/ the Fruit (1. 1)

5 Speech contractions. Many prosodists, who like to distinguish between a clear omission of the vowel and a mere slurring of it, prefer to exclude contractions from any discussion of elision. Evans, who contends that Milton uses the contraction for the same purpose, prefers to be as comprehensive as possible. The two chief examples (there are very few) are o're for over and e're for ever. 6 Elision by considering a final inflection a non-syllable. These include the -ed suffix already discussed, -eth, -est (as in gav'st, draw'st), and final nasals (such as giv'n, fall'n, chos'n, and ris'n) . This last category needs amplification because it becomes the cause of controversy when we consider Darbishire's treatment of the apostrophe. When the sonorous n and l occur terminally after a vowel or a voiced or unvoiced stop, a fresh syllable is constituted. Thus, such words as sudden, ridden, written, riddle, and liken are phonetically always disyllabic. The same is true when the vowel is preceded by an open voiceless consonant (lesson or whistle). When, however, the vowel is separated from n by a voiced open consonant, the sound of the syllable is barely perceptible and is generally regarded as not constituting a syllable. Hence prison, chosen, heaven, even, fallen, swollen, risen, and stolen are often used by poets as monosyllables. The former is referred to as the syllabic n and the latter as the nonsyllabic n. Milton, it is perhaps needless to say, understood the function of elision better than any of his editors. No other poet packed so much variety into the decasyllabic line, and elision was one of the techniques used to obtain this variety. Nor was the device used merely to prevent 'euphonic monotony': as Evans points out, elision 'might be used functionally, almost symbolically, to help the poet indicate certain things about particular speakers, or certain passages, in his poem' (p. 50). One

109 Orthography must agree with Evans that the ponderousness of these lines is considerably enhanced by elision: Gambold before them, th'unwieldy Elephant (4.345) Wallowing unwieldie, enormous in thir Gate (7.411)

Those unconvinced may seek further examples and extra enlightenment in Evans' excellent study. Returning in more detail to Milton's use of the apostrophe to indicate elision, it is clear that, among the hypermonosyllables, only heav'n (monosyllabic) and heaven (disyllabic) occur with any degree of consistency. The word power, which is always monosyllabic in Paradise Lost, is (except in one instance) spelt power. The word seven is also always monosyllabic, but is variously spelt: seven (3), seaven (4), and seav'n (3). Words which are both mono- and disyllabic are also inconsistently spelt, but very few have an apostrophe to indicate the omitted vowel. Thus the monosyllabic forms of flower, bower, and tower are flour or flowr, bowre, and towr, towre, or tour. The same indecisiveness is evident with elisions over intervocalic liquids and nasals. Glistering appears three times and glist'ring twice: both versions are disyllabic. One also finds as disyllables ravenous and rav'nous, covenant and cov'nant. Generally, those words with an elided vowel before r are spelt without an apostrophe (although one finds sovran and sov'ran) and those with vowels elided before intervocalic nasals have an apostrophe: lik'ning, ev'ning, op'ning, count'nance, and awak'ning, although again there are exceptions (evening, always disyllabic, appears as ev'ning and evening). Although elision by synaloepha occurs with various combinations of contiguous vowels (to ask, to have, only and, worthy of, happie and), only the definite article before a vowel and the preposition to before whom are spelt with an apostrophe. Of the former there are many examples; of the latter very few. Thus, while there are many lines in which the vowel is not elided ('To whom/ the An/ gel. Son/ of Heav'n / and Earth'), the few occasions where it is ('T'whom thus / the Por / tress of I Hell Gate / reply'd') may have caused sufficient confusion to have warranted the apostrophe. For non-syllabic -est inflections Milton seems to have used the apostrophe only for those words whose inflections constituted a fresh syllable. Words like canst, maist (mayst), and shouldst are rarely, if ever,

110 The Text of Paradise Lost pronounced as canest, mayest, and shouldest. They are, therefore, logically without apostrophes. On the other hand, words like gav'st, draw'st, hear'st, cam'st, and took'st (although all these together occur only eight times) are invariably spelt with an apostrophe. This is not to suggest, however, that there is a rigid system or that there is consistency in application. Shouldst never has an apostrophe, but could'st and know'st are found both ways. For the non-syllabic final nasal the picture is much the same: one finds fall'n and falln, driv'n and drivn, ris'n and risn, giv'n andgivn. All editors of Paradise Lost, then, except those preparing facsimile texts, will be concerned about their treatment of elision, for even those who intend to modernize the spelling must consider the effects of totally omitting all such apostrophes. For example, while the voiced open consonant preceding a vowel allows an actual repression of the vowel sound (heaven is rarely pronounced as two distinct syllables), a full spelling of knowest, gavest, and other -est inflections would almost certainly create extra syllables. Editors like David Masson and Northrop Frye, who have modernized their texts (rejecting the original spellings heav'n and th'Aonian for heaven and the Aonian) have nevertheless recognized the virtue of retaining the originals for know' st and gav' st. That seems straightforward enough - until we consider Helen Darbishire' s position. She believes that, apart from using apostrophes to indicate elision, Milton also used it to indicate the 'vowel sound before syllabic n and l.' 52 In essence, she is suggesting that Milton used the apostrophe not only to show that a word is monosyllabic (heav'n), but also to show that some words are disyllabic (as in' And tempt not these; but hast'n to appease,' where hast'n is two metrical syllables). Her conclusion is based primarily on the occurrence of syllabic n with an apostrophe when it is clear that no elision has taken place and on certain manuscript corrections: 'thus forbidd'n, op'n, in the manuscript of Book 1 have been corrected from forbidden, open.'53 The fact that the printers of the Quarto and Octavo texts did not comply with the manuscript corrections, but printed as follows: Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast (1.2) Open or understood must be resolv'd (1.662)

does not in the least alter Darbishire's opinion. But not only is her contention not borne out by those two examples, it is only occasionally borne out elsewhere. Open occurs twenty-three times; op'n only five.

111 Orthography Darbishire has emended twenty-three. Forbidden occurs five times; forbidd'n occurs twice when the vowel is elided and three times when it is not, as in 12.279: 'Forbidd'n knowledge by forbidd'n means.' Golden occurs thirty times and the final vowel is never elided. The two occurrences of gold'n, then, are most likely, as with so many other variants, compositorial lapses. Most editors, including Wright, have adopted the spelling which prosody demands and have emended the few words with redundant apostrophes. Darbishire adopts forbidd'n and gold'n throughout, having emended thirty-five of forty-two spellings. The internal evidence of the text makes it quite clear that, as with so much of the spelling of Paradise Lost, the apostrophe has not been consistently applied. It is obvious that Milton, like most other poets of his time, used the apostrophe to indicate elision and contraction in certain words. It is equally obvious that the printer, accidentally or carelessly, sometimes omitted the apostrophe and, on occasion, inserted it where it was not needed. Beyond that there are no safe assertions. SPELLING PHONETICALLY

That John Milton preferred certain spellings or, put another way, that there are certain spellings in Paradise Lost unique to Milton, is an undisputed fact. There are some words, such as ammiral for admiral, which no editor would modernize. But just how many there are of these, and whether Milton uses them deliberately to enhance the musical effect of his poetry or merely because he preferred them, are questions that have caused considerable debate and disagreement. We may begin, I think, by safely stating that there is a large number of spellings which are obvious archaisms and which can have no poetic, grammatical, prosodic, or pronunciational significance. If there are variants in this group, they are merely indicative of the orthographical uncertainty of the age, the poet, the amanuenses, and the printers. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss at length words in which the seventeenth-century writer habitually used t for c ors (gratious), s for c (scarse), c for s (sence), k for c (carkases), ck for c (arctick), ff for f (affraid), f for ff (ofspring), f for ph (fantasm), s for z (surprise), t for ght (hautie), ght for t (despightful), ie for y (pitie), y for i Uoynd), w for u (disswade), u for oo (chuse), and e for u (terf). By the same token, the following spellings and their variants may be dismissed without comment: sieze-seize, yield-yeild, councel-council, faithful-faithfull, mere-meer, streight-straight, neer-near, cheerchear, clothe-cloath, smoke-smoak, fold-fould, fowl-foul and shew-show. Others

112 The Text of Paradise Lost such as complete-compleat, receive-receave, seven-seaven, and proclaim-proclame, which I would also have placed in this category, were made so much of by Darbishire and Wright that they were discussed in the subsection entitled 'Spelling for Individual Stress' (pp 98-102 above). The variants baum-balme and persue-pursue require some extra comment because again Darbishire and Wright believe that Milton made deliberate use of the older forms. The facts, however, do not support such a view. Baum(e) occurs only once in Paradise Lost; balm(e) occurs five times and is so spelt in the 1673, 1645, and 1637 versions of Comus. Persue is not to be found in Paradise Lost at all; pursue occurs six times, and this again is the spelling in all versions of Comus. Wright has consistently spelt the word baum throughout his edition, and both he and Darbishire emend every instance of pursue to persue. Such antilogic is farcical. Finally, belonging to the list of archaisms are several homophones which, since no orthographical distinction had been introduced, remained homographs: waste for waist, gate for gait, and main for mane. And quires for choirs, far from being peculiarly Miltonic, was the accepted spelling of his day. It is possible, of course, that even if choirs was, by the 1660s, becoming the accepted spelling, Milton would still have retained the older form. But that he would have insisted on it for phonetic reasons seems highly unlikely, and the spelling, when modernized, does not alter the sound or sense of the reading. That is also true for several other words: Milton's preferred spellings for cattle, battle, and subtle are cattel, battel, and suttle, but again such spellings, commonly found in other seventeenth-century books, do not prove that Milton was deliberately using spelling as an aid to pronunciation. It is E.J. Dobson's opinion that 'for the most part his spelling was conventional; he was not writing phonetic transcriptions.' 54 In fact, one can go further and suggest that in many instances, where it looks as if he might be writing phonetically, the evidence is marked by the same inconsistency which attended the other categories. One finds imbalm'd, imbark't, imbellisht, imbody, imbattel, inroll'd, inflam'd, ingendring, imploy, and ingag'd, but just as frequently finds entic'd, endow, encounter, enforc't, encamp, enjoin, and ensue and, lest one should argue that there is a marked (even deliberate) difference in pronunciation, one can also find such variants as imbrace-embrace and ingag'd-engag'd. Strong claims have been made to the effect that Milton intended to indicate the length of the vowel by such spellings as bredth, brest, endevor, threds, and trechery; spellings which both Darbishire and Wright

113 Orthography emend consistently to fit such a theory. But a thorough examination of those words, both in the holographs of early poems and in Paradise Lost, suggests that this practice may have been the result of habit rather than deliberate innovation. For while one finds only stedfast, the instances of brest-breast, endevor-endeavour, and bredth-breadth are almost exactly proportional. There are no instances of tred or thret. Even in the Trinity College manuscript we find endeavour twice and endevor only once. Far from suggesting a phonetic rationale, the variants terms-tearms and the like seem to indicate that Milton preferred the modern forms. One occasionally finds earst, neather, and tearms but more often finds erst, nether, and terms (the last being the spelling found in the manuscript of Comus). Whether such spellings are an indication that Milton's own pronunciation was undergoing a change may be decided in some future study. On the face of it, however, the presence of so many variants clearly proves that he did not attempt to spell according to predetermined phonetic principles. Nevertheless, there is a category of words whose spellings are unfamiliar to the modern reader and, if altered, would appreciably affect the pronunciation of the word itself. The most obvious are those contracted or simplified for metrical purposes or preferred on etymological grounds - words such as 'sdein'd for disdain'd, eremites for hermits (a particularly beautiful word in its context), senteries for sentries, pennons for pinions, and other words of this kind whose rate of occurrence is detailed below:

alablaster: once in PL; once in the 1637, 1645, 1773, Bridgewater, and Trinity College manuscripts of Comus; the OED states: 'The spelling in 16-17th c. is almost always alablaster.' ammiral: occurs once in PL; an obsolete form even in the seventeenth century. autoritie: once only in PL; authoritie: twice in PL, four times in PR and SA. Although authority can be found in seventeenth-century texts, autority is more common and was used until the eighteenth century. Darbishire adopts autoritie; Wright, autority and autoritie. braunching: only once thus in PL, but three times as branching and spelt thus in 1645, 1673, and Trinity College manuscript of' Arcades.' All eight occurrences of branch(es) are spelt thus, and neither Darbishire nor Wright has emended. charioter: once in PL and once in 'On the Death of a Fair Infant,' where it rhymes with neer. A common seventeenth-century spelling.

114 The Text of Paradise Lost

cherube: (pronounced, according to Daribshire, as 'keroob') occurs thus six times in PL; corrected twice in the manuscript of Book 1 from cherub; cherub occurs twice in PL and once each in 'II Penseroso' and 'On the Passion' (1645 and 1673). childern: four times in the Quarto of PL; once in the Octavo, where the other three have been altered to children, which is also the spelling twice in Comus (1645, 1673, and the Trinity College manuscript). Darbishire and Wright always read childern. counterfet: twice in PL, but counterfeit in 'II Penseroso' (1645 and 1673). The former was quite common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but was becoming rare in the seventeenth. drouth: this is the predominant spelling in all Milton's poetry, although droughth occurs once. fift and sixt: always spelt thus in PL; the former occurs only once, the latter three times. Quite common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but also cited in several seventeenth-century quotations by the OED. furder: only occurs in the Trinity College manuscript version of 'Arcades'; in the printed text of that poem (1645 and 1673) it is changed to further, which is the predominant spelling in PL (further seven times and furder twice). Darbishire adopts furder; Wright adopts further . highth: twenty-five times in the Quarto of PL; once as hight. In the Octavo it appears twenty-two times as highth, twice as hight, once as higth, and once as heighth. The OED states: 'In ME, the forms in -t were predominant in the north, and since 1500 have increasingly prevailed in the literary language; though heighth, highth were abundant in southern writers till the 18th c., and are still affected by some.' hunderds: occurs once in PL; in the manuscript of Book 1 and the Quarto it is hundreds; in the Octavo it is hunderds in accordance with the erratum for 1.760. Both forms were common in the seventeenth century. lantskip: three times in PL; once in 'L' Allegro.' Landscape was a rare spelling in the seventeenth century. perfet: sixteen times in PL; perfect occurs twice, once in defiance of the manuscript reading. In the minor poems perfect is more usual, although perfet does occur. In the manuscripts Milton always wrote perfect. Both forms were used indiscriminately in the seventeenth century. sovran: occurs nineteen times thus spelt in PL (twice with an apostrophe: sov'ran); the OED cites sovran as being peculiarly Miltonic (from the Italian sovrano), and it is adopted by Coleridge, .Lamb, Landor, and Tennyson.

115 Orthography

voutsafe: always spelt thus in PL and in the minor poems. It was an uncommon spelling even in the seventeenth century. In summary, then, one must sift the evidence with care: it does not, for example, show that Milton had a phonetic system or even rationale, but it does indicate that he preferred certain archaic and derivative spellings and retained some out of habit. Just which are to be retained by the editor of a modernized text is a matter deserving serious attention: certainly the evidence in favour of retaining sovran seems more weighty than that for autoritie. It is, indeed, a delicate issue. My aim in this chapter has not been to find out if there is such a thing as a Miltonic spelling but rather to find out if there is a Miltonic system of spelling. The difference is essential. Very few scholars would argue that Milton's spelling is, except for the few words cited immediately above, any different from that of other seventeenth-century poets, although they might agree with Robert Bridges that in matters of spelling, 'as in other respects, he was a true Elizabethan.' 55 Darrell Figgis, unless he means more than he says, is manifestly wrong when he states that 'Milton's spelling was not merely old. It was personal and peculiar. It was not simply antique. It was unique and original. It was devised by himself, for himself.' 56 Some textual critics have maintained, however, that, though Milton's spelling was very much the spelling of his day, he used the conventional spelling at hand (with its complete repertoire of variants) as no other English poet had. Wright states their position succinctly and well: 'It is generally thought, and sometimes said, that Milton's spellings are idiosyncratic: they are not. All his spellings were in common use at the time, including his variant spellings of words .. . But Milton came more and more to use these variant spellings in his own way, to mark differences in pronunciation or meaning, and above all to point his prosody; until in Paradise Lost he has developed something like a system. It is these uses, not the spellings themselves, that are idiosyncratic. '57 My aim has been to test the validity of that statement by minutely examining the spelling of the original editions and its treatment at the hands of such advocates. That examination has, I submit, shown quite clearly that Milton did not intend his spelling to function on the levels proposed by Darbishire and Wright. John T. Shawcross, who carried out an intensive study of the orthography of the manuscripts, concluded that 'Milton cared less about spelling than has previously been thought. He did not write cer-

116 The Text of Paradise Lost tain words or groups of words in any rigid way, and even those which seem to be consistent do not give evidence of a grand scheme of improved spelling. Rather, such distinctive spellings as are seen represent practice, not philosophic ideas. No spelling system appears.' 58 That statement applies equally well to Paradise Lost. Moreover, the inconsistencies in the printed texts - the Quarto and Octavo - which caused Darbishire and Wright to emend their editions so liberally support the views expressed in my first chapter: Milton did not labour mightily over the accidentals and it is therefore impossible to say with any assurance just which spellings are his and which the compositor's. The implication of this view for future editors of Paradise Lost will be discussed in my concluding chapter.

5

Punctuation: A Question of Grammar and Rhetoric

The last chapter of Ben Jonson's The English Grammar(ca 1616; published 1640) is entitled 'Of the Distinctions of Sentences,' and in it one finds a succinct and lucid summary of Elizabethan punctuation theory. There is in his discourse, he writes, 'one generall Affection of the whole, dispersed thorow every member thereof, as the bloud is thorow the body; and consisteth in the breathing, when we pronounce any Sentence.' To facilitate the breathing and to ensure a 'plainer deliverance of the things spoken' was the function of the marks of punctuation: a 'Sub-distinction [semicolon] is a meane breathing' and a 'Comma is a distinction of an imperfect Sentence' involving a 'longer breath.' The 'Distinction of a perfect Sentence hath a more full stay, and doth rest the spirit, which is a Pause [colon], or a Period.ti The chief difference, then, between the punctuation theory taught to Milton and that which we practise today is that modern punctuation tends to be logical (that is, syntactical or grammatical), whereas the early system was primarily expressive (that is, elocutionary or rhetorical).2 In Shakespeare's day, states Alfred W. Pollard, 'at any rate in poetry and the drama, all the four stops .. . could be, and (on occasion) were, used simply and solely to denote pauses of different length irrespective of grammar and syntax' and 'the normal punctuation was much nearer to normal speech than is the case with our own, which balances one comma by another with a logic intolerable in talk.' 3 One can, of course, find examples in Shakespeare's Folio texts of sentences seemingly punctuated according to an extreme logic: 'Thou ow'st the Worme no Silke; the Beast, no Hide; the Sheepe, no Wooll; the Cat, no perfume' (King Lear III iv 106). It is highly improbable that the

118 The Text of Paradise Lost commas between the accusative and dative represent distinct breathing pauses for an oral delivery of the line, and many modern editors omit them. But that remains the exception; overwhelmingly the punctuation of Shakespeare's printed texts, like that of most other Elizabethan books, was governed by the exigencies of the speaking voice rather than by the demands of grammar and syntax. While modern punctuation is supposed to represent a compromise between the need to indicate speech pauses and the identification of grammatical structure, the latter is the prime determinant. Logical construction today demands that vocatives be isolated by commas 'Go, Tom, and fetch the water') even though one would only pause after the vocative and not before. A seventeenth-century printer, if he punctuated at all, would more likely place the comma after the vocative, as in this Shakespearian line: 'Well Shylocke, shall we be beholding to you?' 4 Today's excessively logical system was, of course, slow in gaining acceptance; even in the late eighteenth century no logical basis for the colon and the period had been established. The grammars of Isaac Watts (1720), Buchanan (1762), and Sheridan (1780) all refer to the complementary syntactical and rhetorical use of punctuation; and Samuel Johnson, in his Dictionary, defined a comma as 'the point which notes the distinction of clauses, and order of construction in the sentences, ' but could only define the colon as 'a point[:] used to mark a pause greater than that of a comma, and less than that of a period . Its use is not very exactly fixed .' 5 When reading Paradise Lost, then, should we expect to find a punctuation based primarily on grammatical considerations, one based primarily on rhetorical needs, or a delicate blending of both? Darbishire states that 'the music and meaning of [Milton's] long metrical paragraphs depended on a close interlocking of grammatical construction with metre. A delicate adjustment of stops was needed, to mark at once the right articulation of his sentence and the due degrees of metrical pause.' 6 Though that says little about the punctuation, Darbishire does conclude that the punctuation as it exists in the printed texts seems to meet Milton's requirements and does not need a great deal of correction. Wright agrees that Milton's punctuation reveals a clever blending of the grammatical and rhetorical functions but explicitly states that 'Milton's punctuation, despite its grammatical functions, is strictly rhetorical inasmuch as it always conforms to the prosody. The overriding principle of his pointing is that it must never counter or interfere with the intended

119 Punctuation rhythm of the verse.' 7 In this opinion Wright is supported by Mindele Treip, who has undertaken the only extensive study of Milton's punctuation. In her Milton's Punctuation and Changing English Usage 1582-1676 she argues that 'the punctuation of Paradise Lost ... seems to adhere substantially to the earlier tradition, retaining or reviving many of the best features of the poetical punctuation of the Elizabethans.' 8 Just how accurate these statements are, and with what justification one can dogmatize about the punctuation of Paradise Lost (that is, is it strictly rhetorical? strictly grammatical? a combination of both? or a vacillation between both?), can be discovered only by a full examination of the text; the representative passages which follow (all one can hope to offer in a study of this nature) are therefore meant to serve as testing pieces for those claims. That Paradise Lost is, on the whole, more lightly punctuated than a modem counterpart would be is obvious to see. There are many instances of vocatives and appositional phrases without commas, instances of vocatives followed by but not preceded by commas, and passages which we would partition by semicolons broken only by commas: This downfall; since by Fate the strength of Gods (1.116) Farewel happy Fields Where Joy forever dwells: Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: (1.249-53) Man falls deceiv' d By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace,

(3.130-1)

But neither breath of Morn when she ascends With charm of earliest Birds, nor rising Sun On this delightful land, nor herb, fruit, floure, Glistring with dew, nor fragrance after showers, Nor grateful Eevning mild, nor silent Night With this her solemn Bird, nor walk by Moon, Or glittering Starr-light without thee is sweet. (4.650-6)

As an example of modern logical punctuation, this is how David Masson revised those passages in 1874 (perhaps destroying the original fluency):

120 The Text of Paradise Lost This downfall; since, by fate, the strength of Gods, Farewell, happy fields, Where joy for ever dwells! Hail, horrors! hail, Infernal World! and thou, profoundest Hell, Receive thy new possessor Man falls, deceived By the other first: Man, therefore, shall find grace; But neither breath of Morn, when she ascends With charm of earliest birds; nor rising Sun On this delightful land; nor herb, fruit, flower, Glistering with dew; nor fragrance after showers; Nor grateful Evening mild; nor silent Night, With this her solemn bird; nor walk by moon, Or glittering star-light, without thee is sweet. Yet, in spite of my assertion that the poem is more lightly punctuated than a modern counterpart would be, there are many instances in the original texts where the comma is used in much the same way as it is in Masson's edition and where, if given its full rhetorical value, it would seem to impede the flow of the verse (in places where it does not seem likely that Milton would want it impeded): Whether upheld by strength, or Chance, or Fate (1.133) Deeming some Island, oft, as Sea-men tell,

(1.205)

Say, Muse, thir Names then known, who first, who last, We now debate; who can advise, may speak. (2.42) From hence, no cloud, or, to obstruct his sight,

(5.257)

And of thir wonted vigour left them draind, Exhausted, spiritless, afflicted, fall'n . Yet half his strength he put not forth, but check'd His Thunder in mid Volie, for he meant Not to destroy, but root them out of Heav'n: (6.851-5) She heard me thus, and though divinely brought, Yet Innocence and Virgin Modestie, Her vertue and the conscience of her worth,

(1.376)

121 Punctuation That would be woo' d, and not unsought be won, Not obvious, not obtrusive, but retir'd, (8.500--4)

Many of these examples illustrate a most consistent use of the comma for grammatical purposes, one which John S. Diekhoff discovered was used frequently in the printed text of Comus - the presence of commas before co-ordinating conjunctions: 9 Damasco, or Marocco, or Trebisond Exile, or ignominy, or bonds, or pain

(1.548) (2.207)

This would surpass Common revenge, and interrupt his joy (2.370-1) Lowly they bow'd adoring, and began (5.145) But let us ever praise him, and extoll His bountie (4.436-7)

Whether these are 'merely conventional,' as Diekhoff believes is true of the numerous commas before and in Comus, is a matter of opinion. While it could be argued that in none of the examples or in the hundreds of other similar instances does the presence of commas seriously interfere with the intended rhythm, it could hardly be suggested that they are there deliberately to enhance it. What they do indicate is that Paradise Lost, though certainly more lightly punctuated than a modern poem might be, is not as lightly punctuated (or as expressly rhetorical) as some commentators argue. As for the heavier stops, one cannot be more precise than with the commas. There are possibly two safe assertions: that the exclamation and interrogation marks are sparingly and often interchangably employed; and that the period is consistently used at the end of complete paragraphs (that is, where the next line is indented) and to introduce speeches. There are approximately one hundred and ninety-five speeches introduced in this manner; only twenty by either a semicolon or a colon. Further than that it is difficult and perhaps pointless to dogmatize. Helen Darbishire, for example, has attempted to define the function of each stop and has succeeded, it seems, in merely describing the lack of uniformity and purpose underlying the use of heavy stops: The full stop is used in the accepted manner, but also sometimes, not in accordance with modern custom, before as or so introducing a comparison: before

122 The Text of Paradise Lost which used conjunctively; and to introduce speech. The colon is a heavy stop coming very near in weight to the period. It is used to separate independent clauses in a paragraph; before clauses beginning with or or nor; before clauses introduced by for, but, yet, though (the semicolon is also sometimes used in this way); before a defining or qualifying clause; to divide clauses in speech so as to indicate pause or interruption or parenthesis or afterthought; to mark stops in a logical argument ... The semicolon is a somewhat lighter stop and seems in Milton's use to mark steps in a process, successive events, or to separate items in a catalogue, or groups arranged in sequence ... The comma is used in the modern way; but it is generally omitted before a relative clause with restrictive or defining function. 10

Darbishire's intention is to suggest that the punctuation of the original texts is the result of careful planning and judgment; but when one attempts to follow her account in an actual examination of the text, one begins to realize just how misleading such statements can be. True, similies are sometimes introduced by periods, but they are introduced just as often by semicolons, colons, and, on occasion, by commas: Of glory obscur'd: As when the Sun new ris'n

(1.594)

Thir glory wither'd. As when Heavens Fire (1.612) By strange conveyance fill' d each hollow nook, As in an Organ from one blast of wind (1.706-7) Thir nimble tread; as when the total kind

(6.73)

The colon, as Darbishire suggests, is often used before clauses with or, nor, for, but, yet, and though, and the following examples bear out her contention: others on the grass Coucht, and now fild with pasture gazing sat, Or Bedward ruminating: for the Sun Declin'd was halting now with prone career (4.350-3) Nightly I visit: nor somtimes forget (3.32) and could make the worse appear The better reason, to perplex and dash Maturest Counsels: for his thoughts were low;

123 Punctuation To vice industrious, but to Nobler deeds Timorous and slothful: yet he pleas'd the ear,

(2.113-17)

Yet one can with equal ease find as many examples where the construction of the lines is very similar but the punctuation does not fall within Darbishire' s framework: horror and doubt distract His troubl' d thoughts, and from the bottom stirr The Hell within him, for within him Hell He brings, and round about him, nor from Hell One step no more than from himself can fly (4.18-22) For envie, yet with jealous leer maligne Ey'd them askance (4.503-4) the Fiend Walk'd up and down alone bent on his prey, Alone, for other Creature in this place Living or liveless to be found was none, None yet, but store hereafter from the earth Up hither like Aereal vapours flew (3.440-5) my dwelling haply may not please Like this fair Paradise, your sense, yet such Accept your Makers work; (4.378-80) These then, though unbeheld in deep of night, Shine not in vain, nor think, though men were none, That heav'n would want spectators (4.67~)

Some of the poetry, then, is punctuated in a seemingly grammatical way, close to Darbishire's delineation of the functions; much, however, is not. The latter examples are more lightly punctuated, but even here - where there is nothing but commas - one would hesitate to say that their purpose is purely rhetorical, for it is highly unlikely that all the commas in those passages denote pauses of equal duration. One will, for example, in reading a passage like 4.18-22 pause longer between him and for than between thoughts and and. To illustrate the point once more, in passages of greater length, here are two excerpts which are punctuated (seemingly) grammatically, but not unpoetically:

124 The Text of Paradise Lost On th' other side up rose Belia[, in act more graceful and humane;

A fairer person lost not Heav'n; he seemd For dignity compos' d and high exploit: But all was false and hollow; though his Tongue Dropt Manna, and could make the worse appear The better reason, to perplex and dash Maturest Counsels: for his thoughts were low; To vice industrious, but to Nobler deeds Timorous and slothful: yet he pleas'd the eare, And with perswasive accent thus began. (2.108--18) Forgetful what from him I still receivd, And understood not that a grateful mind By owing owes not, but still pays, at once Indebted and dischargd; what burden then? 0 had his powerful Destiny ordaind Me some inferiour Angel, I had stood Then happie; no unbounded hope had rais' d Ambition. Yet why not? som other Power As great might have aspir' d, and me though mean Drawn to his part; but other Powers as great Fell not, but stand unshak'n, from within Or from without, to all temptations arm'd. (4.54-65)

One can find many such passages in Paradise Lost with ease and can just as easily find many others, equally long, broken only by commas (yet no less poetical): Awake My fairest, my espous' d, my latest found, Heav'ns last best gift, my ever new delight, Awake, the morning shines, and the fresh field Calls us, we lose the prime, to mark how spring Our tended Plants, how blows the Citron Grove, What drops the Myrrhe, & what the balmie Reed, How Nature paints her colours, how the Bee Sits on the Bloom extracting liquid sweet. (5.17-25) 11 But since though hast voutsaf't Gently for our instruction to impart Things above Earthly thought, which yet concernd

125 Punctuation Our knowing, as to the highest wisdom seemd, Deign to descend now lower, and relate What may no less perhaps availe us known, How first began this Heav'n which we behold Distant so high, with moving Fires adomd Innumerable, and this which yeelds or fills All space, the ambient Aire wide interfus'd Imbracing round this florid Earth, what cause Mov' d the Creator in his holy Rest Through all Etemitie so late to build In Chaos, and the work begun, how soon Absolv' d, if unforbid thou maist unfould What wee, not to explore the secrets aske Of his Eternal Empire, but the more To magnifie his works, the more we know. (7.8~97)

Clearly, the first examples seem to be more grammatically punctuated than the second two. It can be argued, of course, that the former demand a more logical application of heavier stops and it has been argued that, as far as the rhythm is concerned, both sets of passages are admirably handled. One can, with some ingenuity, examine all instances of light and heavy punctuation and, as Mindele Treip has done, insist that whatever exists (with a few minor exceptions) is, as Milton intended, perfectly suited to the poetry. Heavy stops may be at a particular place (instead of light) to 'emphasize the conflict,' 'throw into unexpected relief a significant phrase or clause,' 'block out emphatically the stages of a vigorous action,' 'register a number of sharper or more abrupt effects,' 'suggest an abrupt transition,' or 'convey a variety of sharp or emphatic, abrupt or broken effects.' And light stops (especially in passages where one might expect heavy pointing) may 'simulate ... speed,' impart the 'feeling of a dramatic acceleration,' or be omitted to impart an 'impression of confusion.' 12 There is little to quarrel with in Treip's assessment, except to say that it is of a type that is merely (but cleverly) descriptive. It is entirely reasonable to assume that the authors of such studies, who ascribe to Paradise Lost a clever and careful blending of the grammatical and rhetorical, or who insist that the punctuation serves Milton's poetical intentions well, would still have done so if the two long passages first quoted had fewer heavy stops and the latter more. It is not difficult to choose any given punctuation mark of any kind and concoct a reason why it should be that mark in that place, and not another. But whether

126 The Text of Paradise Lost that punctuation is what Milton intended at that place is another matter. The only firm conclusion warranted by the discussion thus far, therefore, is that the punctuation of Paradise Lost (the original texts) is not badly handled. Though the specific duties of the various stops and their lengths of pause cannot be easily or exactly defined (as Darbishire tries to do), it is only rarely that a heavy stop occupies the position of a comma (thereby impeding the smooth flow of the verse) . Conversely, though there are often occasions when a comma fulfils the function of a heavy stop, the sense is seldom hopelessly obscured by the occurrences, and the rhythm may, in fact, be enhanced. Before one can go beyond that - to insist, as Darbishire, Wright, and Treip do, that the punctuation is what Milton intended - one must examine the state of the text itself and assess the variants. Before we begin that examination, however, it will be useful to remind ourselves that the punctuation of a text was, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a matter left largely to the discretion of the printer, who relied on the expertise of his compositor and proof-corrector. Joseph Moxon, for example, in his chapter on the 'Compositor's Trade,' states that 'as he Sets on, he considers how to Point his Work, viz. when to Set , where ; where : and where . where to make () where [ ] ? ! and when a Break.' 13 Just how true that statement is can be shown in a comparison of known printers' copies and actual printed texts. W.W. Greg cites the example of Sir John Harington's verse translation of Ariosto's Orlando Furioso which Richard Field printed in 1591. 14 The manuscript, a fair copy, still survives (BM Add Ms 18920), and one finds, as Greg points out, that the printer 'evidently had no intention of following his copy in this respect [punctuation] any more than in its old-fashioned spelling.' The conclusion to which this leads, he continues, is as follows: 'In such a printing house as Field's, which was as good as any to be found in London at the time, it is evident that the compositors had a recognized standard of their own in the matter of spelling and to a lesser extent in punctuation ... This standard they followed without conscious regard for the idiosyncracies of the author. ' 15 In printing John Taylor's The Causes of the Diseases of this Kingdom and Aqua Musae (both 1645), the printer 'freely altered' the spelling and 'filled in defects in the punctuation. ,i 6 And even with the copy of Pope's Essay on Criticism (as late as 1711), a beautifully transcribed holograph, liberties were taken with the punctuation. 17 Normalization - that is, bringing the author's punctuation into line with accepted standards - was a recog-

127 Punctuation nized duty of the printer up until the eighteenth century. It would come as no surprise, therefore, to learn that the punctuation of the original texts of Paradise Lost was wholly or in part the printer's rather than Milton's. What we do learn, in fact, from an examination of the manuscripts of both the minor poems - the Trinity College manuscripts - and Book 1 of Paradise Lost is that they do not help in establishing authorial intention. If the punctuation of the manuscripts (especially of those in Milton's own hand) was very similar to that of the printed texts, one could reasonably assert that the latter are authoritative. But such is not the case. In the Trinity College collection, nearly all (it is believed) in Milton's own hand, the versions of 'Arcades,' Sonnet vn ('How Soon Hath Time'), and 'Upon the Solemn Musick' are all practically unpunctuated; 'On Time,' 'Upon the Circumcision,' and Comus are only very lightly punctuated by commas. All printed versions are much more heavily punctuated. Comus provides the best example: apart from the Trinity College manuscript there exist the Bridgewater manuscript, prepared by a professional scribe from an intervening (lost) fair copy, the first edition of 1637 (perhaps based on that same lost fair copy), a second edition of 1645, and a third of 1673. 18 Here are the first eighteen lines of Comus from the 1637 edition: Before the starrie threshold of loves Court My mansion is, where those immortall shapes Of bright aereall Spirits live insphear' d In Regions mild of calme and serene aire, Above the smoake and stirre of this dim spot Which men call Earth, and with low-thoughted care Conlin' d, and pester' d in this pin-fold here, Strive to keepe up a fraile, and feaverish being Vnmindfull of the crowne that Vertue gives After this mortall change to her true Servants Amongst the enthron' d gods on Sainted seats. Yet some there be that by due steps aspire To lay their just hands on that golden key That ope's the palace of )Eternity: To such my errand is, and but for such I would not soile these pure ambrosial weeds With the ranck vapours of this Sin-wome mould. But to my task. Neptune besides the sway

128 The Text of Paradise Lost There are eleven punctuation marks in that passage (seven commas, three periods, and one colon) compared with only four in the Trinity College manuscript (commas after in, line 2; Earth, line 6; is, line 15; and a period after task, line 18). The 1645 edition is more heavily punctuated than the 1637, and the Bridgewater manuscript is just as lightly punctuated as the Trinity College manuscript. What is missing, and what becomes a stumbling block to a clear understanding of authorial intention, is the fair copy from which the Bridgewater and the 1637 text were transcribed and set. It can be assumed that the Trinity College manuscript of Comus is, to all intents and purposes, a rough draft; and it has therefore been assumed, by John S. Diekhoff for example, that Milton's fair copy was more heavily punctuated than his draft and that he kept increasing the punctuation in each subsequent edition .19 It can just as easily be assumed, however, that the fair copy was as lightly punctuated as the draft because the Bridgewater manuscript, which seems to have been based on it, is also lightly punctuated; therefore, the extra punctuation of the printed text, which looks to be merely added rather than revised or refined, might be the result of the printer's normalization - a matter which Milton would not have objected to. It seems somewhat contradictory, in fact, to argue, as Diekhoff does, that 'the existence of the Trinity College Manuscript in which we have Milton's work in his own hand provides us with the best possible materials for the study of his punctuation,' and then to insist that the most heavily punctuated text of all is the closest to what Milton intended. Diekhoff's suggested reason for the heavier punctuation seems too large a surmise in the face of so little evidence: it is 'as though Milton realized that his reader needed more pointing to read the lines intelligently than was essential to his own convenience as a versifier.' 20 In fact, if Diekhoff had written 'the printer' rather than 'Milton' he would have had the weight of tradition on his side. As it stands, there is no evidence to show that Milton (even though he then had his sight) was scrupulous about his accidentals and certainly none to suggest that the trend away from the rhetorical system of his manuscripts to the more grammatical one of his printed texts was a conscious effort on his part. Nor does a study of the punctuation in the manuscript of Book 1 of Paradise Lost bring us any nearer to a clear understanding of Milton's preferences and intentions. For reasons already stated in Chapter 4, the authority of the manuscript, in matters of accidentals, is subject to doubt. There are, for instance, many changes made within the manu-

129 Punctuation script itself, by several different hands, and many of them, as Darbishire states, are 'generally right.' But whether they are Milton's or one of the scribes' cannot be affirmed with any certainty. Darbishire also states that 'in punctuation, as in spelling, the printer followed his copy with close but not absolute fidelity.' And she lists twenty-two instances where the manuscript is the 'sole authority' for punctuation which she believes Milton intended.21 She does not mention, however, that there are more than one hundred other instances where the printed text (first edition) differs from the manuscript. Must we assume that for these readings the manuscript is not authoritative? Such is the implication, for in her edition of the poem Darbishire adopts thirty-two manuscript readings (the twenty-two listed plus ten others) and approximately one hundred first edition readings. On the basis of what has happened to Book 1, we can assume that Samuel Simmons (or his compositor) altered the punctuation of his copy-text (that is, the manuscript) about thirteen hundred times. If we agree with Darbishire that for approximately a quarter of these the manuscript would have been the 'sole authority' - would have provided the authoritative reading - how shall we recover anything resembling Milton's intention?22 That task would be made especially difficult if we assume, as Mindele Treip does, that the lighter punctuation is more peculiarly Miltonic, for the trend of the printed texts is towards a more logical and grammatical system: Whither upheld by strength or chance or fate; (manuscript) Whether upheld by strength, or Chance, or Fate (1.133, 1667) If thou beest he, But oh how fal'n how chang'd From him who in the happie realmes of light (manuscript) If thou beest he; But O how fall'n! How chang'd From him, who in the happy Realms of Light (1.84--5, 1667)

What clearly emerges from an examination of the punctuation is the obvious impossibility of proving exactly what Milton intended or that he really preferred a lighter or heavier punctuation. And the changes from the 1667 to the 1674 edition are so few (approximately one hundred and thirty in 10,500 lines of poetry) that the issue is not helped at all by an examination of those variants. Two points might be worth making: first, that many of the changes made in the second edition are in error, which leads B.A. Wright, whose edition is based on it, to adopt more than

130 The Text of Paradise Lost two-thirds of the Quarto's punctuation variants; secondly, that they certainly contradict Harris Fletcher's contention that Milton 'laboured mightily' over the accidentals of the second edition. As with the spelling, then, one must conclude that it is not possible to establish just which punctuation marks are Milton's and which are not. And one must this time agree with Fletcher when he warns prospective editors 'against readily accepting any printed punctuation as being indubitably and precisely what Milton actually wanted.'n This does not, of course, mean that the punctuation of the printed texts is badly handled; one can say that the first edition is slightly preferable to the second but that in neither is there any reason to undertake major revision or restoration. In other words, even though one cannot say that Milton scrupulously supervised the printing of the accidentals or undertook a diligent revision of his second edition, or that the punctuation is entirely his own, or that he preferred a rhetorical to a grammatical system, one can be reasonably certain that he was not unhappy with the punctuation of his printed texts. There are only a very few instances where an editor must emend. That there are such passages should surprise no one; that there are so few is perhaps remarkable. Since every editor must collate his texts carefully and decide just which he or she considers faulty, it is my intention here merely to indicate a few examples of the better-known cruxes: innocence, that as a veile Had shadow' d them from knowing ill, was gon, Just confidence, and native righteousness, And honour from about them, naked left To guiltie shame hee cover' d, but his Robe Uncover'd more, so rose the Danite strong (9.1054-9)

This passage, suggested Newton, should have had a semi-colon after shame, for it is here personified (as it is again in line 1097): 'this shame is he who cover'd Adam and Eve with his robe; but this robe of his uncover'd them more: that is, tho' they were clothed with shame, yet they thereby more discover'd their nakedness.' A majority of editors have since accepted that reasoning and have emended accordingly.24 Fewer editors have been willing to accept Fenton' s emendation at 10.296-9, although many agree that it improves the sense:

131 Punctuation the rest his look Bound with Gorgonian rigor not to move, [;) And with Asphaltic slime; [,) broad as the Gate, Deep to the Roots of Hell the gather'd beach

Again, in the following passage editorial opinion is divided: And Fabl' d how the Serpent, whom they calld Ophion with Eurynome, the wideEncroaching Eve perhaps, had first the rule Of high Olympus (10.580-3)

Does wide-encroaching refer to Eve or to Eurynome? That is, should the comma be replaced, as Merritt Hughes suggests: 'since Eurynome means 'wide-encroaching,' punctuation with the comma immediately after the word rather than immediately before it (as in the early editions), seems justified.' 25 Sometimes the sparing use of the interrogation mark poses a problem. For example, did Milton intend 'and know'st for whom' (2.730) as a question or a statement? That is, should one retain the original semicolon or adopt the question mark introduced by subsequent editors? Did Milton intend a pun at 9.11: 'That brought into this World a world of woe'? Or should it be thus, as some have altered it: That brought into this world (a world of woe) Sin and her shadow Death

Very often only a slight change is required to clarify (or alter) the sense. At 6.316-17, for example, Together both with next to Almightie Arme, Uplifted imminent one stroke they aim' d

Wright and several other editors have removed the comma after Arme and placed it after imminent. And in the following passage many editors, including even such a conservative one as Alastair Fowler in his 1968 edition, have acknowledged that there are errors in punctuation and have emended:

132 The Text of Paradise Lost doe not believe Those rigid threats of Death; ye shall not Die: How should ye? by the Fruit? it gives you Life To Knowledge? By the Threatner, look on mee, Mee who have touch'd and tasted, yet both live, And life more perfet have attaind then Fate Meant mee (9.684-90)

Most editors have replaced the question mark after Knowledge with either a colon or a semicolon; Fowler chooses to replace it with a period. But all who make that change are convinced that a question mark should replace the comma after Threatner. There are many other similar instances where, even though one cannot say that the sense is hopelessly obscured, a heavier punctuation clarifies the meaning. William Aldis Wright, for example, in his 1903 edition, replaced the comma in this passage with a semicolon: Here matter new to gaze the Devil met Undazl'd, farr and wide his eye commands (3.613-14)

And the following are further examples of similar passages in which a majority of editors have replaced commas by either semicolons, colons, or periods: and birthright seis'd By younger Saturn, [:) he from mightier Jove His own and Rhea's Son like measure found;

(1.511-13)

In order came the grand infernal Peers, [;) Midst came thir mighty Paramount, and seemd To whom the Goblin full of wrauth reply'd, (:)

(2.507-8) (2.688)

thither to arrive I travel this profound, [.) direct my course; Directed, no mean recompense it brings (2.979-81) which ordain' d Thir freedom, [;) they themselves ordain' d thir fall .

(3.127-8)

The number of such examples could be multiplied, but it is not necessary to do so; we have passed the boundary of 'obvious error,' and the

133 Punctuation seemingly faulty punctuation does not obscure the sense or impede the rhythm. In a critical edition the editor would, no doubt, wish to make some improvements, but they need only be very few. And even should an editor decide not to emend the punctuation at all - to produce a facsimile text - the punctuation would not pose any problem for the intelligent reader. Whether the punctuation would be Milton's is impossible to say; but it is clearly just as impossible to 'restore' his punctuation as it is to 'restore' his spelling.

6

Editing Paradise Lost

Many readers of this study might still agree with B.A. Wright when he suggests that the text of Paradise Lost offers little challenge to the verbal emendator, but few could now agree that editing the poem is altogether as easy as he proposes: 'Verbally [Milton's] texts are very accurate; the few cruxes, such as Paradise Lost, i.703 and i.756, can be resolved by trusting to his own final corrections.' 1 What I have tried to show, in fact, is that one cannot be certain just which corrections are indeed Milton's own. As for the substantive variants, very few editors agree that it is a simple matter to decide which should be accepted into the text and which relegated to the textual apparatus. I have also shown that Wright, in his treatment of those variants, has contradicted his own argument: at l. 703, for example (founded-found out), he felt it necessary to defend his choice with a lengthy philological explanation. 2 I am not, therefore, creating an editorial mountain out of a textual molehill when I suggest that, unless they are content to produce a practical edition, editors of Paradise Lost - whether of a facsimile reprint or a critical definitive text - may expect to encounter challenges which demand nothing less than a thorough acquaintance with the authoritative texts, a great deal of critical acumen, and keen editorial judgment. A FACSIMILE REPRINT

Facsimile reprints or editions are, as Fredson Bowers has so clearly pointed out, intended 'to make available to scholars in completely trustworthy form the exact details of the text of a particular document, errors and all, to serve as a substitute in one's own study for the manuscript or book that may be preserved in some distant or inaccessible library.' 3

135 Editing Paradise Lost Surely, one might impetuously suggest (though the word 'trustworthy' will cause some to pause), the task involved in producing such a text is a safe and simple one. There are, one might argue, but two kinds, the type and the photographic: in the former, editorial decisions are seemingly limited to the choice of copy-text and the treatment of typographical details; in the latter only the first of these decisions applies. That, however, is too simplistic a view. The editor's task is not as straightforward as it may seem, for inherent in such decisions are many complex problems. The aim of the editor of a facsimile of Paradise Lost is to provide the reader with an 'original' copy of either the first or the second edition; yet rigidly (or photographically) reproducing a single copy of either edition, which (especially for the 1667 text) may be considerably different from any one of several other copies, merely isolates a single feature of the edition. Which copy, therefore, should be chosen as being most representative of the entire edition? Which, in other words, contains the largest number of corrected formes (described in Chapter l)? Are the reprinted Z and Vv Signatures of the 1667 edition more authoritative or less authoritative than the originals? Should the editor, confronted with that previous question, attempt a composite (or modest variorum) edition by reproducing a specific copy and also reproducing its variant formes? Or is it preferable to be even more ambitious than that and, in the interest of textual honesty, include both a scholarly introduction and an extensive textual apparatus? Clearly, then, in view of the several states and the reprinted gatherings of the 1667 edition, the question of 'best' copy is a very important one. Add to this the need for the facsimile editor to become familiar with the various methods of photographic reproduction, and one begins to appreciate that editing a reprint is not by any means a dull occupation. To illustrate the difference between a satisfactory and an unsatisfactory facsimile reproduction we need only compare the editions of Paradise Lost prepared by Harris Fletcher (194~) and the Scolar Press (1968). The former includes an elaborate textual introduction, a record of all variants, and reproductions of the variant formes. The latter is a composite copy of the wrong sort - composite by virtue of the fact that some of the pages of the copy being photographed were so poor that another copy was used in those instances. Although the substituted pages are identified, there is no account of the variant formes and no textual introduction. One realizes, of course, that the difference in price between the two is considerable and that it may be argued that the latter is, in a loose sense, a practical or popular edition, not primarily intended for

136 The Text of Paradise Lost scholarly use (in spite of the publisher's name). The fact remains, however, that students and even unknowing scholars will be misled into thinking that what they possess is a careful reproduction of a firstedition copy of Paradise Lost. Even where the photographic process is quite sophisticated and the scholarship exemplary, the facsimile will still pose a number of problems. The modern 'biblio-textual' student may be concerned not only with substantives and accidentals, but with such matters as type-face, irregularities in the printing (such as broken letters or slugs), and paper evidence (such as watermarks). While the photographic facsimile is indeed a superior document, quite obviously more valuable to the scholar than the type facsimile, it would be unwise to base firm conclusions about the matters just mentioned on such a text. The widely held belief that 'the camera does not lie,' states Arthur Brown, is itself a dangerous one: For the very method of producing [a facsimile) and its 'likeness' to the original lull him into a sense of false security, and put him off his guard against the multitude of tiny errors - the very things he ought to be interested in - which may creep in despite all the precautions of the photographer. It is no doubt unnecessary to warn Brown [John Russell Brown, whose article he is discussing) against the slight curve in the surface to be photographed, which may easily distort letters and spaces, particularly those near the margins; against badly inked letters and punctuation marks which assume a different form in the reproduction ... against any haphazard ink mark or fly spot in the original to which a reproduction may give a new lease of life. All these hazards are known to textual students, or should be, and many more besides.4

One of these, as already stated, is the inability of the camera to reproduce watermarks, a problem which Fletcher overcame by including an introductory chapter (with illustrations) on the watermarks in the 1667 edition. When one begins to examine reviews of Fletcher's facsimile editions of Paradise Lost, certainly the best of their kind, one can see that Arthur Brown's strictures are not as far-fetched as they might appear. W.W. Greg, for example, reviewing Fletcher's edition, remarked that 'the line reproduction is not pleasing' and that the job should have been done by collotype rather than by photo-offset. 5 It is intersting to note that Fredson Bowers, in his review of the facsimile edition of Henry V (edited by Greg), criticized the choice of copy, the absence of a list of press variants, the inferior technical quality ('lack of sharp focus,' 'tone of the

137 Editing Paradise Lost inking is unduly grey'}, and charged that 'insufficient care was exercised in the selection of his prints by the technical supervisor.' 6 Clearly, these are grounds on which even angels might fear to tread. But this is not to suggest that facsimile editions are not useful tools for literary and textual scholars; quite to the contrary. I merely intend to show that editing a facsimile (sometimes misleadingly called 'reprint') is not as simple and straightforward a task as it may seem at first glance. Collation of the authoritative originals, a knowledge of internal variants, and excellent editorial judgment are as essential here as they are when editing a critical definitive edition. To think otherwise, in fact, would be to undermine the value of such editions. A CRITICAL EDITION

Whereas the editor of a facsimile text aims at reproducing a single copy (the best representative of an edition) with no alteration in the substantives or the accidentals, the editor of a critical edition attempts to offer a definitive text based on a collation of all authoritative editions, with necessary corrections and emendations supported by reasoned argument and biblio-textual evidence. More explicitly, his task is, as Fredson Bowers states, to 'approximate as nearly as possible an inferential authorial fair copy, or other ultimately authoritative document.' 7 The theoretical methodology and the practical procedures necessary to achieve a successful approximation of an author's 'fair copy' have been comprehensively established in the editorial work and commentary of several prominent scholars, notably W.W. Greg, R.B. McKerrow, and Fredson Bowers, and latterly Vinton A. Dearing and G. Thomas Tanselle. 8 Modern editors cannot afford to be unaware of their work. There will, of course, be problems peculiar to each text (for which every editor is thankful), but the principles promoted by these scholars are the first consideration in any editorial undertaking. In the following discussion of the major challenges facing the editor of a critical edition of Paradise Lost - the choice of copy-text, the treatment of the accidentals, and the amount of emendation acceptable - that position will be firmly maintained; and my indebtedness to such seminal studies as Greg's 'The Rationale of Copy-Text' and to Fredson Bowers' invaluable remarks on eclectic texts, definitiveness, and many other textual matters will be very evident. The first step on the road towards a critical edition, acknowledged by all textual scholars, is the collation of the authoritative originals - those editions produced during an author's lifetime and over the printing of

138 The Text of Paradise Lost which he could have exercised some control. As far as Paradise Lost is concerned little need be added to what I have already said in Chapter 1, except that a collation of that text does not merely involve a parallel reading of the first and second editions but demands a thorough investigation of the many variant states within the first edition itself and of the manuscript of Book l. The textual matters of importance here, and which perhaps need further comment, are those steps farther down the editorial road which can be taken with confidence only when the collation has been done: establishing a copy-text, treating the accidentals, and emending the text.

Choosing a copy-text

In Chapter 1 of this study I argued that an uncompromising reliance on the universal authority of either the 1667 or the 1674 edition of Paradise Lost is totally unacceptable and unwarranted. One must, I suggested, accept W.W. Greg's proposition that 'the judgement of an editor, fallible as it must necessarily be, is likely to bring us closer to what the author wrote than the enforcement of an arbitrary rule.' 9 That is, as far as the substantive text is concerned, editorial eclecticism is absolutely essential to definitiveness; thus, it is necessary to apply the question of copy-text to the accidentals alone. And in this regard one can do no better than adopt the theory of copy-text proposed by Greg in 'The Rationale of Copy-Text,' in which he sought to restore eclecticism to respectability by urging a more scientific approach. 10 Greg's major thesis, now almost universally accepted, is that it is quite reasonable to distinguish between the authority of the substantive text ('those [readings] that affect the author's meaning or the essence of his expression') and the accidentals ('spelling, punctuation, word-division, and the like, affecting mainly its formal presentation'). The basic reason is that there is little likelihood of any printed book preserving the author's intentions, especially after the scribes, compositors, proofcorrectors, and printers have handled the accidentals (a proposition verified by my examination of the 1667 and 1674 editions in Chapter 1). Thus, it proves to be an impossible task to establish authorial intention for the accidentals, and to attempt an eclectic treatment would be logically impossible; the substantives, however, are not only by their nature more easily seen to be in error, but, since they were more faithfully transmitted, are more easily recovered. Therefore, Greg proposes, where a work exists in 'more than one substantive text of comparable authority,' as Paradise Lost does,

139 Editing Paradise Lost then although it will still be necessary to choose one of them as copy-text, and to follow it in accidentals, this copy-text can be allowed no over-riding or even preponderant authority so far as substantive readings are concerned. The choice between these, in cases of variation, will be determined partly by the opinion the editor may form respecting the nature of the copy from which each substantive edition was printed, which is a matter of external authority; partly by the intrinsic authority of the several texts as judged by the relative frequency of manifest errors therein; and partly by the editor's judgement of the intrinsic claims of individual readings to originality - in other words their intrinsic merit, so long as by 'merit' we mean the likelihood of their being what the author wrote rather than their appeal to the individual taste of the editor. 11

In my earlier examination of the substantive variants between the 1667 and 1674 editions of Paradise Lost - almost equally divided into three distinct groups ('superior Quarto,' 'superior Octavo,' and 'indifferent') - I tried to show that an eclectic treatment based on reasoned judgment must be the basis of editorial procedure, not slavish adherence to a single copy-text. 'The choice between substantive readings,' Greg contends, 'belongs to the general theory of textual criticism and lies altogether beyond the narrow principle of the copy-text ... The failure to make this distinction and to apply this principle has naturally led to too close and too general a reliance upon the text chosen as basis for an edition, and there has arisen what may be called the tyranny of the copy-text. ' 12 The result of such a 'tyranny' is evident in several modern editions of Paradise Lost. In Beeching's Oxford edition of The Poetical Works (1900) we find that his rigid adherence to his copy-text (the 1667) forced him to adopt faulty Quarto readings for six of the eight 'superior Octavo' ones; in two instances where the Quarto text is so hopelessly wrong that he saw no choice but to adopt the Octavo readings, Beeching did not apprise his readers of the fact (3.594 and 9.632), whereas for every other variant (which supported his reliance on the 1667 edition) he offered a footnote. Such deception stems, it seems, from an unwillingness to undermine a faith in the universal authority of the chosen copy-text. B.A. Wright's editorial treatment of the variants in the Everyman edition of the poems (1956) is hardly more honest than Beeching's. Having made an avowal of faith in the overriding superiority of the 1674 edition, yet bei11g confronted with the obvious superiority of the 1667 in thirteen instances, Wright adopts every Quarto reading but offers footnote explanations for only five of them. He does, for example, inform

140 The Text of Paradise Lost his readers that The at 4. 928 is the Quarto version, but when he adopts the Quarto readings at 10.550 and 11.427 (readings omitted from the Octavo) he neglects to note their origin. Clearly, as far as the substantives are concerned, too close a reliance on the copy-text has led to a great deal of uncritical editing. In treating the accidentals, however, the eclecticism so necessary for the substantives becomes unmanageable and results, if attempted, in a distortion of the authoritative text. One must, in fact, agree with James Holly Hanford when he states that editing Paradise Lost is not unduly difficult 'unless one wishes to confront the question of restoring Milton's own spelling and punctuation, in which case it becomes insoluble.' 13 It is, as I have argued earlier, impossible to prove that the accidentals of the Quarto text were carefully supervised by Milton; that those of the Octavo text were diligently revised by him (particularly that there was a prosodic system governing that revision); or that the Octavo text is superior to the Quarto. In other words, one could not hope to produce a definitive text for the accidentals. It is therefore advisable, both on the grounds of expediency and in the interest of fidelity, to choose a copytext and to reproduce its accidentals faithfully ('within reason,' as Greg says), correcting only where absolutely necessary. Again I must state that the reason for adhering to the accidentals of the copy-text is not that we should thereby hope to retain the author's intended spelling and punctuation, but that by doing so we are more likely to retain them than by any imposed system of restoration or by eclecticism. 'So long as there is any chance,' states Greg, 'of an edition preserving some trace, however faint, of the author's individuality, the critic will wish to follow it: and even when there is none, he will still prefer an orthography that has a period resemblance with the author's to one that reflects the linguistic habits of a later date.' 14 As far as Paradise Lost is concerned, and as I attempted to show in my discussion of the 'restored' texts of Darbishire and Wright, any tampering with the accidentals only confuses the issue of Miltonic spelling. The spelling of their editions is no more provably Milton's than is the spelling of the original editions, and it merely serves to remove the reader from the authoritative versions. It is only necessary, therefore, for an editor to choose a copy-text and faithfully reproduce its orthographic accidentals; corrections will be restricted to such manifest errors as fouud to found . 15 Supplied with an adequate textual introduction and critical apparatus, readers should be able to form their own opinions about Milton's intentions and certainly will more easily be able to do so with a faithful reproduction than with a

141 Editing Paradise Lost bastardized text. In other words, they will be nearer to understanding Milton's habits with a text which reproduces a copy-text than with one which leaves them puzzled by editorial restoration, with all its contradictions and inconsistencies (why shon and not shone?). Retention of the original spelling will, in fact, eliminate one of the most vexing problems which editors must face: to what extent should they normalize or modernize? Should they limit reform to those spellings which are considered merely archaic? Or should they extend their work to include all those which, if modernized, could have no significant adverse effect on the pronunciation or rhythm of the poem? If they should attempt to normalize or modernize as completely as possible (altering such spellings as perfet, highth, sovran, and voutsafe), there still seem to be a few peculiar spellings (ammiral and pennons) which ought not to be altered. And what of the elisions? One could, perhaps, modernize heav'n, but could one do the same with know'st without affecting the rhythm? Clearly, the matter of partial modernization must call for an explanation from the editor, for the reader is entitled to know to what extent the text is being interfered with. But, just as clearly, adherence to a single copy-text will not only avoid the need to interfere but will also reduce confusion for the reader/scholar. Having said that, however, the question still remains: which edition the 1667 or 1674 - should be chosen as the copy-text? Since neither can be proven more authoritative, the choice must be the result of editorial preference. Among previous editors, the preference has been equally divided, although in some instances contradiction has undermined that choice. Helen Darbishire, for example, in the introduction to her facsimile edition of the manuscript of Book 1, stated that an editor will 'base his text upon the second edition,' but when editing the Clarendon edition of The Poetical Works of John Milton she ignored her own advice and used the 1667 as her copy-text. B.A. Wright, we saw, adopted the 1674 as his copy-text and yet chose the 1667 versions for nearly two-thirds of the punctuation variants. An appeal to past editorial treatment, therefore, may not be all that helpful. Nor can the issue be easily resolved by an appeal to textual theory. An editor might, on the one hand, choose to follow the principle set forth by Greg and Bowers (and supported by many modern textual scholars) to the effect that he would be playing the correct odds when, as a general proposition, he retains the texture of the original edition .. . [For w]hen only printed texts are available, the odds for

142 The Text of Paradise Lost retaining the closest possible approximation to the author's own accidentals are predominantly in favor of the first edition set from an authoritative manuscript. If an editor chooses this as his basis, as Greg advises under most conditions, and thereupon incorporates in the texture those substantive revisions which in his judgment are authoritative, together with such conservative alteration of acci, dentals as seems necessary to avoid misreadings or more than momentary ambiguity, he may miss some few refinements; but he will in the long run produce a text which, more accurately than by any other method, comes as close as possible to the author's original and revised intentions. 16

On the other hand, despite the convincing nature of that argument, the distinctive nature of the second edition of Paradise Lost (especially its redivisioning into twelve books) and the fact that its accidentals do not differ greatly from the first may lead many editors, who might otherwise choose the first, to accept the second as the logical (not merely preferred) choice. In the final analysis, then, one could not seriously denounce an editor's choice of either the 1667 or the 1674 edition as his copy-text as long as that choice does not control his treatment of the substantive variants and as long as it is faithfully reproduced.

Emending the text When the editor of Paradise Lost has scrupulously collated the two authoritative editions (1667 and 1674), has isolated the three categories of substantive variants ('superior Quarto,' 'superior Octavo,' and 'indifferent'), has exercised judgment regarding the last of these (relegating rejected variants to the textual apparatus), and has chosen a copy-text to govern the accidentals, the task is almost at an end (the textual task, at least, for annotations are another matter). The chief remaining concern is emendation - to what extent are the authoritative texts faulty and in need of correction? The short answer to that question is, quite simply, very little. To be sure, there are instances in the text (but very few and of a minor nature) where both editions are almost certainly in error. At 6.484, Which, into hallow engins, long and round

the emendation to hollow first introduced in 1688 has been almost universally adopted ever since. At 7.588--90,

143 Editing Paradise Lost With his great Father (for he also went Invisible, yet staid (such priviledge Hath Omnipresence)

either the comma after Invisible should be a parenthesis, or the parenthesis before for should be a comma, an emendation which most editors observe. And at 10.989-90, Childless thou art, childless remaine: So Death shall be deceav'd his glut, and with us two

there seems to be little doubt about there being an error; the lines were first corrected by Hume in 1695, who placed So Death at the end of line 989, and that has also been accepted by almost every editor since, a notable exception being Fowler. There are, in addition, a few readings which, though one could not cite them as being obvious errors, look so much like compositorial lapses that emendation has been almost universally accepted: 3.592 4.592 7.321 7.451

metal for medal (introduced in 1720) whether for whither (1719) swelling for smelling (Bentley 1732) soul for foul (Joule) (Bentley 1732)

And finally, there are a number of other readings for which emendations have been proposed but have not been accepted by many subsequent editors: 1.756 Capitol for Capital (first suggested in 1688, adopted in 1691 and 1695, but only occasionally since, notably by Darbishire and Shawcross) 6.580 held, shone, and shook for stood (Bentley, Mitford, and Dyce pro-

pose these emendations respectively, indicating some dissatisfaction with the original reading, but no later support exists) 9.157 earthly for earthie (proposed by Fenton in 1730; has found support only in Fowler, who adopts it without comment) 9.1183 Woman for Women (suggested by Bentley; approved only by Brydges and Darbishire) One could continue citing suggested emendations (some of them quite plausible), especially from the editions of the nineteenth century; but

144 The Text of Paradise Lost most editors of Paradise Lost will no doubt make themselves aware of these, probably through the textual apparatus of such editions as that of William Aldis Wright, who carried out an intensive scrutiny of preceding texts. It is not my intention to cite every possible emendation an editor might consider, but merely to point out the need for careful collation and examination and to show that, while there are a few puzzling cruxes, nowhere is the text hopelessly obscured by error. To begin to alter, then, is to begin a task, knowing the wide range of editorial opinion, which may soon get out of hand and end in gross distortion. Modern textual analysis of Paradise Lost supports the view that the least emendation necessary is the best possible approach. 'When it becomes plain,' states Robert Adams in an excellent chapter on this very problem, that we cannot remove the wart without disfiguring the Miltonic nose, there are two things left to do. We can look at the wart and nothing but the wart and call what we see Milton. Or we can step back a little and, in the full knowledge that part of what we see is undistinguished wart, try to balance our talents for criticism and appreciation in order to understand that poem which, when the worst has been said against it, may claim against all challenge, 'with respect to design ... the first place, and with respect to performance, the second, among the productions of of the human mind.' The tribute need not be perfectly accurate to impress us; that it is not ridiculous is enough 17

In summary, then, the prospective editor of Paradise Lost who has carefully examined the bibliographical and textual state of the poem finds, as many editors have noted, that editing it is not an unduly demanding task: the authoritative texts can be quickly determined; the cruxes are few and the variants easily defined; the accidentals need not be tampered with and emendation is minimal. What is demanding, of course, is the work required to discover those facts - the painstaking bibliographical investigation and collation necessary to prove that 'reformed' texts do not bring us any closer to Milton's intentions than do facsimiles, that neither edition can be proven superior to the other, that the substantive variants should be treated eclectically, and that very little emendation is required. That, of course, is also true for many other early English texts, which makes editing something more than a 'safe and sane, and slightly dull occupation.' And it is something not always appreciated by the general reader.

Appendix

The following is a detailed description of the printing of the first edition of Paradise Lost (1667), based primarily on Harris F. Fletcher's collation in John Milton's Complete Poetical Works and on the textual apparatus in Helen Darbishire's The Poetical Works of John Milton, but augmented by my own investigation of numerous copies of the first edition. Of the forty-three gatherings (each gathering consisting of a single sheet, inner and outer formes, folded twice) which constitute the text, the following were printed as set without any changes or noticeable interruptions, and therefore contain no variant readings: A, B, E, F, I, K, M, N, P, T, V, X, Y, Aa, Bb, Dd, Ff, Gg, Hh, Ii, LI, Mm, Pp, Qq, Rr, Ss and Tt.

Signature C The outer forme was printed without interruption. The inner forme was halted early (there exists one copy with an uncorrected state) to correct a line numbering, straighten two pieces of type (1.563, 1.566), make a punctuation change (1.569), restore a capital (l.682), close up a word (out done-outdone, 1.696), and make a spelling change in the catchword on C4 recto (Equall' d-Equal' d). Signature D The outer forme was printed without interruption. The inner forme was halted once to make a change in the running title (D 3 verso and D4 recto) and three other changes: Barbaric (roman) is italicized (2.4), appeer-appear (2.15), and exasperat-exasperate (2.143).

146 Appendix

-Book 5.

Paradife loft.

: His danger, and from whom, what enemie 240 Late faro himfelf from Heaven, is plotting now The fall of others from like ftatc of blifs; By violence, no, for that fhall be withftood, But by deceit and lies; this let him know, 1Lean .wilfully traof~rcffing he pretend 1Surpr1fal, unadmomlht, uoforewarnd. So fpake th" Eternal Father~ and fulfilld All Juftice: nor delaid the winged Saint After his charge r~ceivd; but from a~oog Thoufand Celclhal Ardors, where he flood 2so Vaild with his gorgeous wings, up fpringing liJht .. Flew throu·gh the inidft of Heav•n;th"angelic quires On each band parting, to his fpecd gave way Through all tll' Empyrea1 road ; till at the Gate Of Heav'o arriv•d, the ~ate felf• opend wide On Jolden Hinges turning, as by work Div1oc tbefoY'ran Architcft had fram'd. + From hence, no cloud or, to obGrua his fight, • Starr iaterpofd, how ever fmall he fees, .. Not uoconforme to other fhioin$ Globes, 260 .EarthaodtheGard'o of God, with Cedars crownd Above all Hills. As when by night the Glafs Of G•lileo, lefs afi'ur'd , obferves lmagiod unds and l\.egiom in the Moon : Or Pilot from amidft the c1el•du oelo, or S••" firn appeermg kcnos A cloudy fpot. Down thither prone in flight He f~eds, and through the vaft Ethereal Skie S1iles between worlds 8c worlds, with fled die wing + Now on th~ polar windes, then with quick Fanne 270 Winoows the buxom Air; tiU within foare Of FIGURE 9 Examples of variants in the first edition, indicated by arrows above and in Figures 10 and 11. Q inner, state 1 Courtesy of the University of Alberta

147 Appendix

Paradife loft. I His danger,

and from whom , what enemie Late falln himfelf from Heaven, is plotting now The fall of others from like flate of blifs;By violence, no, for that {hall be withfiood, But by deceit and lies; this let him know, Leafi wilfully tranf~rcffing he pretend , Surprifali unadmomlbt, unforewarnd, So fpaketh' Eternal Father, andfu16lld All Juffice: nor delaid the winged Saint After his charge receivd; but from among Thoufand Ce]efiial Ardors, where he fiood 2 50 Vaild .with his gorgeous wings, up fpringing light 240

+ Flew through themidftofHeav'o;th'angelic~ires

+ + + 260

+ 170

On each h;md parting, to his fp_eed gave way Through all th• Empyreal roali; till at the Gate Of Heav•n arriv•d, the gatefelf.opend wide On ~olden Hinges turning, as by work Divine thefoy'ran Architca had fram'd. From hence, no cloud or, to obiru& bu fight, Surr interpos'd:l howeYer fmall he fees, -Not unconform to other fbiniog Globes, EarthandtheGard'o of God·, with Cedars crownd Above aU Hills. As when by night the Glafs Of G•lileo, lefs affur'd , obferves lmagind Lands and Regions in the Moon : Or Pilot from amidft the CJcl•du Delo, or S411101 firfi: appe~ring kenos A cloudy fpot. Down thither prone in fligl1t He fpceds, ~nd through the vafi: Ethereal Skie S 1iles between worlds 6c worlds, with fieddiewing Now on the polar windes, then with ~uick Fann Winnows the buxom Air; till within foarc Of

FIGURE 10 Q inner, state 2 Courtesy of the University of Alberta

148 Appendix

Paradife loft. Hisda11ger, and from whom, whatcncmie 240 Late fa Jin himfeJf from Heav'n , is plotting now : The fall of others from like ftate of blifs; i By violence, no, for that fhaJI be withfiood, But by deceit and lies; t•!lis Jet him know, , Leall: wilfully tranfgreffing he pretend SurprifaJ, unadmonifht, unforewarnd. j So fpakerh' Eternal Father, andfulfilld l All J11ll:ice: nor delaid the winged Saint / After his charge receivd; but from among i , Thoufand CeJefiiaJ Ardors, where he fiood 2 50 ! Vaild with his gorgeous wings, up fpringing Jig ht/ + Flew through the midft of Heav'n;th'angelic