Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T05:16:51.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chronology of Milton's Major Poems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

John T. Shawcross
John T. Shawcross*
Affiliation:
Newark College of Engineering, Newark 2, N.J.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The conclusion of Ants Oras as to the chronology of Milton's major poems, based on his important study of the blank vejse, is, I believe, in serious error. Examining strong pauses, both terminal and medial, the distribution of medial pauses over the pentameter line, run-on lines, feminine and masculine pauses, the distribution of polysyllables over the verse line, feminine endings, rhythmical expressions creating shifted stresses, syllabized “-ed” endings, and pyrrhic verse endings, Oras concludes that the traditional chronology for Paradise Lost (from Book I through Book XII), Paradise Regained (from Book I through Book IV), and Samson Agonistes is correct. As a prosodical study, the statistical data presented lead us to a greater understanding of the aforementioned verse techniques as used by Milton than we have heretofore known. Professor Oras' inferences of dated practice are, however, another matter.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 76 , Issue 4-Part1 , September 1961 , pp. 345 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Note 1 in page 345 South Atlantic Modern Language Association, Studies in Milton, ed. J. Max Patrick (Univ. of Florida Press, 1953), pp. 128–197.

Note 2 in page 345 Despite much rechecking of PR, I find that I frequently disagree with Oras' statistics for that poem. I have not checked figures for other works. Materials upon which my figures are based are appended. Terminal pauses indicated by punctuation stronger than a comma total, in my counting, 106 for PR i (an erratum corrects line 62); 119 for ii; 112 for ni; and 138 for iv, line 487 showing two states, one without punctuation and one with a semicolon. Oras gives 104, 115, 111, and 137. Medial pauses given in Tables 1, 3, 5, and 6 as 59, 57, 57, and 75 respectively for Books I-IV are given in Table 7 as 58, 57, 56, and 74; I find 59, 56, 57, and 78. If my count is accurate, percentages should be: Terminal Medial PR 65.5 34.5 ii 68.0 32.0 iii 66.3 33.7 i 64.2 35.8 iv 63.9 36.1

However, I use the statistics as printed in rearrangement of Oras' materials.

Note 3 in page 346 For example, in lines 1–75, strong terminal pauses seem certain in 23, 29, and 72, though the 1637 and 1645 editions both give only commas, the Trinity MS showing no punctuation. In these same lines strong medial pauses seem certain in 27, 36, and 50, though the 1637 and 1645 editions both give commas or no punctuation, the Trinity MS showing commas or, significantly, in line 36, a period. Modern editions generally use strong punctuation in all these Unes, terminally and medially.

Note 4 in page 346 Again there is a disagreement on absolute figures of run-on lines in PR between Oras' and my findings. What Oras apparently reports and what I have checked is the number of lines without terminal punctuation (see p. 137); my figures are: No. Percentage PR 923 44.6 ii 201 41.4 IV 270 42.3 iii 195 44.0 i 257 31.2

Note 5 in page 347 See n. 2 for differences of absolute figures for PR; nevertheless, there are further discrepancies in position of the pauses in i and rv. According to my figures, percentages should be: ii, 32.1a + 14.3m-f-53,6b; iii, 36.8a + 12.3m + S0.9b; i, 37.3a + 11.9m + 50.8b; iv, 46.1a + 15.4m + 38.5b; average, 38.8a + 13.6m + 47.6b.

Note 6 in page 347 See n. 2 for differences of absolute figures for PR; in II there are nineteen feminine pauses. Percentages should be revised to: iii, 40.4f + 59.6m; iv, 34.6f + 65.4m; ii, 33.9f + 66.1m; I, 27.1f + 72.9m; average, 33.6f + 66.4m.

Note 7 in page 347 Oras must not include such polysyllables as “testimony” (i.78) because of apparent elision of the final vowel sound with the following “of.” In order to arrive at his figures for extreme positions of polysyllables in PR, one must consider i.289 and iv.173 initial (which they are) but iii.58 near-initial (which it is not). In Table 10, m should be 13a :11b. His absolute figures for ii are 9i + 15m + 8t, but I find 8i + 16m + 8t. The percentages, therefore, should be 2S.0i + 50.0m + 25.0t.

Note 8 in page 348 It must be pointed out that Oras gives incorrect figures for PL vii-xii in n. 17; arithmetic computations are likewise questionable. On the basis of his conclusions as to the use of feminine endings, Oras accepts the erroneous spelling “sensuality,” Comus, 474, and the inserted “upon,” Comus, 547, set by the compositor of the 1673 Poems. Errors made by this compositor are frequent (e.g., lines 167–169 of Comus); only the change in the Nativity Ode (lines 143–144) and the alteration of “content” to “concent” in Solemn Music (line 6) show probable Miltonic alterations of the 1645 Poems.

Note 9 in page 349 Allan H. Gilbert, On the Composition of Paradise Lost (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1947), pp. 152–155.

Note 10 in page 349 See my unpublished dissertation, “Milton's Spelling: Its Biographical and Critical Implications,” New York Univ. (1958), p. 45.

Note 11 in page 349 During what is called the Middle Period (p. 175) one is omitted: “the tuskèd bear,” Psalm LXXX, 53. Note also the nonadjectival use in Psalm LXXXV, 4: “Returned Jacob back.”

Note 12 in page 349 William R. Parker, “The Date of Samson Agonistes,” PQ, xxviii (1949), 145–166, and “The Date of Samson Agonistes: A Postscript,” N&Q, v (1958), 201–202. See also Allan H. Gilbert, “Is Samson Agonistes Unfinished?” PQ, xxviii (1949), 98–106; and A.S.P. Woodhouse, “Samson Agonistes and Milton's Experience,” Trans, of the Royal Soc. of Canada, Third Ser., XLIII (1949), Sect, ii, 157–175.

Note 13 in page 349 Harris F. Fletcher in The Complete Poetical Work of John Milton (Boston, 1941), p. 442, has noted the indefi-niteness of the date of PR.

Note 14 in page 350 Since two kinds of endings cannot exist for the same line, a combination of feminine and pyrrhic endings is more significant. Such a combination places i last: iii, 137.7/1000 lines; iv, 106.4; ii, 94.7; I, 71.7; average, 101.9. My revised figures for terminal and medial pauses places i slightly before iv.

Note 15 in page 350 The combination of feminine and pyrrhic endings yields this order: x, 94.2; viii, 67.8; I, 66.4; xii, 55.9; iii, 52.5; vii, 46.8; ix, 44.6; xi, 41.2; v, 39.8; ii, 38.8; iv, 33.5; vi, 21.8; average, 49.0 The five books totalling more than the average are here discovered to be earlier than five with less than the average; ix and xi seem by this combination to be chronologically medial.

Note 16 in page 351 My figures for PR place PL ix also before PR iv in feminine pauses.

Note 17 in page 351 In my counting PR ii precedes PL x in feminine pauses.

Note 18 in page 351 Revised statistics almost equate PL vi and PR iv in feminine pauses.

Note 19 in page 351 My figures for PR place PL v and PR i close together, instead of the former earlier than the latter, in the position of medial pauses.

Note 201 in page 352 assign all lines not actually spoken to “narrative.” PR I.335, 337; ii.317, 319, 322, 323, 401; iii.l50; iv.560–61 contain both speech and narrative; all are counted as speech lines. However, if a pause or line end occurs after a non-speech phrase, it is considered in the statistics under narrative. In this section, of necessity, I report my own figures for PR.

Note 21 in page 353 The high number of terminal pauses in narrative, discussed later, make that prosodie test incommensurable for speech sections and the entire book; also the evidence of feminine endings is not fully significant because of the affinity of such endings for dramatic passages.

Note 22 in page 354 Oras counts a total of thirty-two feminine endings for iii; I count only thirty-one. His extra example lies in narrative; perhaps he has erroneously included “hav'n,” line 321, a monosyllable like those excepted on p. 161.