For charioteer we have charioter (P. L., VI. 390, Od. Fair Inf., 8); and, though in both cases the pronunciation charioteer will suit, and in the second there is a temptation to that pronunciation by the rhyme neer, it is not unlikely that charioter was the sound intended; for Milton uses the double e in mountaneer (Com. 426).—In the same line in which this last word occurs we have bandite for bandit, with a lengthened pronunciation of the second syllable.—Four times for landscape we have lantskip (L'All. 70, P. L., II. 491, IV. 153, V. 142). The t is insignificant and awkward; but the skip is to be kept.—Senteries for sentries occurs P. L., II. 412, and is to be kept. -We have both wreck and wrack in Milton,-wreck P. R., II. 228 and S. A. 1044; but more frequently wrack (so or as rack, shipwrackt, etc.) The second, where it occurs, ought to be kept, as a genuine old form.-Stupendious, though a solecism or vulgarism now, cannot always have been so; for Richardson gives instances of it from Howell, Henry More, and Barrow. Milton has the word but twice, and both times as stupendious (P. L., X. 351, S. A. 1627). -Terf or terfe for turf is one of the spellings of Milton that have escaped notice. It cannot be accidental, for it occurs wherever the word is used in the poetry,-i.e. four times in all. The pronunciation seems to have been terf or tirf. Voutsafe. This is one of the quaintest peculiarities of Milton's spelling. Three times in the poetry we have our present spelling vouchsafe (P. R., II. 210, Ps. LXXX. 14 and 30); but the word occurs seventeen times besides, and always as voutsafe, voutsaf'st, voutsafes, voutsaft, voutsaf'd, or voutsaft. Now, as the word is compounded of vouch and safe, and as vouchsafe, vouchsave, or the like, with the vouch fully preserved, was the usual spelling of Milton's predecessors and contemporaries, he must have had a reason for the elliptical form voutsafe. I believe it was his dislike to the sound ch, or to that sound combined with s.-Milton evidently made a study of that quality of style which Bentham called "pronunciability." His fine ear taught him not only to seek for musical effects and cadences at large, but also to be fastidious as to syllables, and to avoid harsh or difficult conjunctions of consonants, except when there might be a musical reason for harshness or difficulty. In the management of the letter s, the frequency of which in English is one of the faults of the speech, he will be found, I believe, most careful and skilful. More rarely, I think, than in Shakespeare will one word ending in s be found followed immediately in Milton by another word beginning with the same letter; or, if he does occasionally pen such a phrase as " Moab's sons," it will be difficult to find in him, I believe, such a harsher example as earth's substance, of which many writers would think nothing. The same delicacy of ear is even more apparent in his management of the sh sound. He has it often, of course, because it was often inevitable; but it may be noted that he rejects it in his verse when he conveniently can. He writes Basan for Bashan (P. L., I. 398), Sittim for Shittim (P. L., I. 413), Silo for Shiloh (S. A. 1674), Asdod for Ashdod (S. A. 981), etc. Still more, however, does he seem to have been wary of the compound sound ch as in church. Of his sensitiveness to this sound in excess there is a curious proof in his prose pamphlet entitled An Apology against a Pamphlet called A Modest Confutation, etc., where, having occasion to quote these lines from one of the Satires of his opponent, Bishop Hall, "Teach each hollow grove to sound his love, Wearying echo with one changeless word," he adds, ironically, "And so he well might, and all his auditory besides, with his teach each!" There can be little doubt, I think, that it was to avoid this teach each sound that he took the liberty of Miltonising the good old English word vouchsafe into voutsafe. There are some cases where, though there is no peculiarity in the spelling of Milton's texts, a difference of pronunciation is to be borne in mind. Such are his occasional differences from our present accentuation,—aspéct for áspect, surfáce for súrface, infámous for infamous, blasphemous for blásphemous, brigad for brigáde; and his occasional elongations of words, as when he makes three syllables of conscience, five of contemplation, etc. As the metre itself will direct the reader in such cases, it is hardly necessary for the printer to mark them. III. PECULIARITIES OF GRAMMATICAL INFLECTION. Such of these as need be noticed here distribute themselves, of course, among the parts of speech subject to inflection. These we shall take in this order,-Noun, Adjective (with Adverb), Verb, Pronoun. NOUN. Under the head of GENDER I have remarked nothing unusual 1; nor under the head of NUMBER anything more peculiar than the occasional spelling childern, already adverted to, and the occurrence once of the word shoon for shoes (Com. 635). There is a little more under CASE, as follows:— It has been already mentioned that the apostrophe in possessive cases is rare in Milton's text, but that occasionally, and chiefly in proper names, we do find our apostrophe in possessives, as in the examples already quoted,-" Gaza's frontier bounds," "Meander's margent," Neptune's mace," etc. On the other hand, as we have 99 66 seen, the apostrophe is sometimes inserted not as a possessive mark at all, but merely as a plural mark: hero's for heroes, myrtle's for myrtles, Gorgons and Hydra's, etc.-In modern English, practice varies as to the possessive singular of nouns already ending in s. We say the lass's beauty; but we hear also Mars' hill (as in the English Bible, Acts xvii. 22); while such forms as James' book, Burns' Poems, Dickens' Works, Lycurgus' Laws, Socrates' disciples, Aristophanes' comedies, are common in writing and in printing, even where the pronunciations of the persons using them may be James's book, Burns's Poems, etc. The better way in writing would be the regular one, James's book, Burns's Poems, Dickens's Works, etc., though euphony in the case of words of more than two syllables might advise avoiding the inflection altogether by saying "the laws of Lycurgus," etc. Milton has asses jaw (i.e. in our spelling, ass's jaw); but his general practice in such words is not to double the s: thus Nereus wrinkled look, Glaucus spell. The necessities of metre would naturally constrain to such forms. In a possessive followed by the word sake or the word side dislike to the double sibilant makes us sometimes drop the inflection. In addition to "for righteousness' sake" such phrases as "for thy name sake" and "for mercy sake are allowed to pass; bedside is normal, and river side nearly so. Milton's practice in this respect is rather interesting. He is generally regular: e.g. he has (we insert the apostrophe and spell as now) anger's sake, truth's sake, empire's sake, glory's sake, honour's sake, bellie's sake; but he has also goodness' sake (Ps. VI. 8), "for intermission sake" (S. A. 1629), and the line "And for his Maker's image sake exempt" (P. L., XI. 514). So, though he has brethren's side (Od. Pas. 21) and by mother's side (P. R., II. 136 and III. 154), he has forest side (P. L., I. 782), “by mossy fountain side” (P. R., II. 184), and thicket side (Com. 185). ADJECTIVE. The line in Lycidas "Bring the rathe primrose that forsaken dies" presents us with the rare positive of our word rather. The positive mickle for much occurs once (Com. 31).—In Milton, as in other writers of his time, adjectives of two syllables and more, which we generally compare now by the expletives more and most, received sometimes the regular inflection for comparison: e.g. famousest (S. A. 982), virtuousest (P. L., VIII. 550), exquisitest (P. R., II. 346). The curious double comparisons found in Shakespeare and others (more braver, less happier, most unkindest, etc.) are strange to Milton, unless chiefest is taken into the category.—It has already been noted that Milton does not use the word farther in his poetry, nor the word furthest, but only further and farthest, spelt so, or sometimes furder and fardest. The d instead of the th may be regarded as an alternative old inflection. VERB. 35), spred for etc. (see ante, p. Seven times in CONJUGATION.-Bin for been (see ante, p. spread, wraught, saught, etc., for wrought, sought, 36), may be regarded as mere varieties of spelling. the poetry we have the word wept as now; but once, whether intentionally or not, the form is weept (Ep. March. Winch. 56). The præterite of the verb eat occurs but four times (ĽAll. 102, P. L., IX. 781, P. R., I. 352 and II. 274), never as ate, but each time in the form eat. That the pronunciation corresponded to the spelling seems proved by the first occurrence, where eat rhymes to feat :— "With stories told of many a feat, How Faery Mab the junkets eat." In the past participles of those peculiar verbs which are themselves derived from Latin past participles, Milton, like Shakespeare and others, sometimes prefers the original Latin form to the elongated form with the ed suffix: e.g. "Who ever by consulting at thy shrine Return'd the wiser, or the more instruct?"-P. R., I. 439. "What I can do or offer is suspect."—P. R., II. 399. "Of pleasure situate in Hill and Dale.”—P. L., VI. 641. 66 Bright effluence of bright essence increate.”—P. L., III. 6. Mr. Abbott, in his Shakespearian Grammar, quoting similar instances from Shakespeare and Bacon, includes them under a more general law. Quoting from Dr. Morris, he observes that it was not uncommon in Early English to drop the suffix for the past tense and the past participle in verbs, whether Latin or Anglo-Saxon, ending already in the sound of d or t; and he gives, as examples from Shakespeare, acquit for acquitted, bloat for bloated, disjoint for disjointed, enshield for enshielded, graft for grafted, quit for quitted, taint for tainted, wed for wedded, waft for wafted, wet for wetted, whist for whisted (i.e. hushed). Instances of this kind are, I think, rarer in Milton; but we find uplift for uplifted (P. L., I. 193), yield standing probably for the past indicative yielded (S. A. 259), and (Od. Nat. 64) the Shakespearian whist for whisted: "The windes with wonder whist Smoothly the waters kist." The following are some other peculiarities in the conjugation of strong verbs, with references to passages :— Sung for sang; sprung for sprang; sunk for sank; and frore for frozen (P. L., II. 595); shaked for shaken (Od. F. Inf. 44); shook for shaken (P. L., VI. 219); stole for stolen (P. L., IV. 719); took for taken (Com. 558); mistook for mistaken (Arc. 4); strook for struck (P. L., II. 165 and other places). The Miltonic conjugations of sing and strike are especially interesting, and are discussed more minutely in the Notes to P. Z., III. 383 and P. L., II. 165. Mr. Abbott informs us that the old participial prefix y (standing for the Germam ge) is found only two or three times in Shakespeare, as in yclept, yclad, yslaked. In Spenser, with his studied archaism, it is frequent. Milton has it but rarely,―ychained (Od. Nat. 155), yclept (L'All. 12). See notes on these passages: also on rushyfringed (Com. 890), and star-ypointing (On Shak. 4). INFLECTION FOR PERSON AND MOOD.-Once (P. L., XI. 369) we have slepst for sleptst; where, if it is not a misprint, the t is omitted for ease of sound.—Milton had learnt to prefer the s inflection, originally Northern English, to the th inflection, more SouthEnglish, for the third person singular indicative. Thus he has loves, rather than loveth; brings, for bringeth; sees, for seeth; seems, for seemeth. Occasionally, however, he has the th form: e.g. singeth (L'All. 65), saith (Ps. II. 11), lieth (Ep. Hobs. II. 1), shew'th and indu'th (Sonnet II.) He has quoth twice (Lyc. 107 and Ep. Hobs. II. 17). Hath is incessant with him, while has is rather rare. Doth he is so far from avoiding that Todd's verbal index registers twenty-four occurrences of it against only one of does (Com. 223). He uses the verb be indicatively (e.g. Com. 12, “Yet some there be") as well as subjunctively (L'All. 132, "If Jonson's learned sock be on"), imperatively (P. L., X. 769, "Be it so "), and infinitively (P. L., X. 877, "longing to be seen "). PRONOUNS. Like Shakespeare and others of our older writers, Milton employs the nominative plural form ye occasionally for the objective you: e.g. Com. 216, “I see ye visibly," and 1020, "She can teach ye how to climb.”—The form thir, which he frequently substitutes for their, is a mere way of unemphatic spelling, and can hardly be regarded as commemorating the older hira and hir, the original possessives plural of the third personal pronoun, for which their came in by loan from the possessive plural of the demonstrative.-By far the most important inquiry, however, under the present head, relates |