"The bell strikes one. We take no note of time
Save by its loss, to give it then a tongue
Was wise in man."
Was Milton tame? Hear the "lost archangel" calling upon Hell to receive
its new possessor:--
"One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in _itself_
Can make a heav'n of hell,--a hell of heav'n.
What _matter_ where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be; all but less than he
Whom _thunder_ hath made _greater_? Here at least
We shall be free; the _Almighty_ hath not built
Here for his _envy_; will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign _secure_; and in my choice
To reign is worth _ambition_, though in hell:
_Better_ to reign in hell, than serve in heav'n!"
A great conjunction of little words! Are monosyllables passionless?
Listen to the widowed Constance:--
"Thou mayst, thou shalt! I will not go with thee!
I will _instruct_ my _sorrows_ to be proud;
For grief is proud, and makes his _owner_ stout;
To me, and to the state of my great grief,
Let kings _assemble_; for my grief's so great,
That no _supporter_ but the huge firm earth
Can hold it up: here I and _sorrow_ sit;
Here is my throne: bid kings come bow to it."
Six polysyllables only in eight lines!
The ingenuity of Pope's line is great, but the criticism false. We
applaud it only because we have never taken the trouble to think about
the matter, and take it for granted that all monosyllabic lines must
"creep" like that which he puts forward as a specimen. The very
frequency of monosyllables in the compositions of our language is one
grand cause of that frequency passing uncommented upon by the general
reader. The investigation prompted by the criticism will serve only to
show its unsoundness.