these lines without any result, except to declare that "the present reading may be justified," but how they do not say. See p. xxxi. My reading is this:

He ended frowning, and his look denounced [proclaimed] Desperate revenge and battle dangerous

To no less than God!

The next passage will be found in Book II., 85-92:

lines

The event is feared: 'Should we again provoke
'Our stronger, some worse way his wrath may find
'To our destruction.' If there be in Hell
Fear to be worse destroyed, what can be worse
Than to dwell here . . . . where the scourge
Inexorable and the torturing fire

Galls us to defiance?

My emendations in these lines are the italicised words

with which compare the received reading

:

'Should we again provoke

'Our stronger, some worse way his wrath may find

'To our destruction, if there be in Hell

'Fear to be worse destroyed.' What can be worse
Than to dwell here . . . . when the scourge
Inexorably, and the torturing hour,
Calls us to penance ?

The defeated host had been driven long before to the doleful region where they were to do and were then doing penance, therefore they were not now being called to it. But the whole passionate argument of Moloch is an incitement to defiance, and to that

alone to assail the Almighty once more. Observe, too, the vicious blunders I have detected and corrected in the punctuation !

The

Most of my verbal emendations possess the same importance as these I here instance, and many of my alterations in the punctuation are not less important. Others I will here only call attention to briefly— viz., that which is either a geographical mutilation or an omission in line 285, Book IV. And observe the derangement of the opening lines of Book V., which I have reconstructed; and the rash belief of some perplexed editors, that a line is wanting at 473, Book III., which belief I show to be baseless, and have swept away. That, too, at line 815, Book II., is a veritable curiosity as a transmutation; and some instances in the punctuation reveal equal prodigies of jargon and absurdity. restoration of line 745, Book IV., to beauty and sense is alone a boon to the reader and to the Poem. The mutilations, indeed, are "so thick bestrown" that they cruelly mock the lofty genius which "soared above the Aonian mount." It may be remarked, that many, from their grossness, might well save Dr. Bentley in future from the ridicule which has been showered upon him because he suggested that they had been maliciously made. He certainly had the intellectual discernment to see some of them at least, but not, unfortunately, the poetic susceptibility needful to correct them. If others, however, had followed up his "scent," unaccompanied with his rashness, the

infliction of a corrupt text so long endured might sooner have been removed or diminished.

Strange to say, that in face of the evidence which exists as to the untrustworthiness of the early copies as guides and helps to determine the true text, and which has been presented so fully by Professor Masson himself, yet he and other editors still repose a faith and trust in them which amounts almost to infatuation. In his "Introduction" to his edition, p. 7, he says, "Among the numerous existing copies of the First edition no two are in all particulars exactly alike. They differ in their title-pages, in their dates, and in minute points throughout the text. . . . In the old days of leisurely printing it was quite common for the printer or author of a book to make additional corrections while the printing was in progress--of which corrections only part of the total impression we have the benefit. Then, as in the binding of the copies all the sheets having or not having the corrections so made were jumbled together, there was no end to the combinations of different states of sheets that might arise in copies all really belonging to one edition." And further, at p. 9: "There are the variations in the text of the poem arising from the indiscriminate binding together of sheets in the different states of correctness in which they were printed off. The variations of this class are of absolutely no moment. On the whole the text of any existing copy of the First edition is as perfect as that of any other." Again, at p. 11: "Very great care must have been bestowed

on the revising of the proofs, either by Milton himself or by some competent person who had undertaken to see the book through the press for him. It seems likely that Milton himself caused page after page to be read over slowly to him, and occasionally even the words to be spelt out." If so, his corrections were either not all attended to, or mutilations were made nevertheless, and which it was not within his power, arising from his blindness, to avert. "There are at all events certain systematic peculiarities of spelling which it seems most reasonable to attribute to Milton's instructions. Altogether, for a book printed in such circumstances, it is wonderfully accurate." (The italics are mine.) He repeats this too confiding trust in an emphatic manner in a note on line 257, Book I.; he says, "Were it safe to propose emendations (which it is not), one might suggest that Milton dictated albeit." He furnishes still more evidence such as is calculated to awaken the gravest doubt (though not in him, strange as it seems) as to the accuracy of the early copies; he tells us it is probable that "more than one copy in MS. was made." The poem was dictated "by any hand that happened to be near.' ." "In the one Book extant there are corrections by another hand, and the original writer cannot be identified."

What Professor Masson has written upon Dr. Bentley's attempt at emending the "Paradise Lost" it will be desirable to reproduce here, wherein it will be seen how keenly the Doctor gives utterance to his conviction that the Poem was extensively mutilated. On

account of Milton's blindness, writes the Professor (p. 25), "Dr. Bentley says, 'it necessarily follows that any errors in spelling, pointing, nay even of whole words of a like or near sound in pronunciation, are not to be charged upon the poet, but on the amanuensis.' With such errors Bentley thought the text, as printed in all previous editions, positively swarmed. But not only had the amanuensis or amanuenses of Milton been in fault, 'the friend or acquaintance, whoever he was, to whom Milton committed his copy and the overseeing of the press did so vilely execute that trust that "Paradise Lost" under his ignorance and audaciousness may be said to be twice lost.' Owing to the carelessness of this supposed editor and of the printer Simmons, the First edition, Bentley maintained, had been brought forth 'polluted with such monstrous faults as are beyond example in any other printed book.' In all such cases-which occur by hundreds-Bentley also offers the conjectural emendation or restoration. Only by looking into Bentley's edition, however, can an adequate idea be obtained of its utter monstrousness."

A few specimens of my restorations which I submitted, before publishing this edition, to some competent judges met with unqualified approval. Dr. R. F. Weymouth pronounced them as "at once and powerfully recommending themselves." The Rev. Francis Gell so highly estimated them as to write to me thus: "I have no doubt you will be able to let all England know that they have never yet read the real