Shelley's Prometheus Unbound Free ebook download

Shelley's

Prometheus

Unbound

SHELLEY'S

Prometheus

Unbound

A

VARIORUM

EDITION

EDITED

BY

Lawrence

John

Zillman

19S9

University

of

Washington

Press

Second_{printing, with}corrections,1960

Library ofCongress CatalogCardNumber*50-90M

Preface

IT

WAS

EAULY

in

_my

work on

the_present

volume

that I read the

comment

of

_George

S. _{Hillard (1345) with respect} to the

1805

_Henry

James

Todd

edition _{of Spenser's works; "This} is

what

is _{technically called} a

variorum

edition, containing areprint ofall _{the labours of the previous} editors. , . .

There

isa_{great deal of}learnedrubbishin it;

much

troubleis often

wasted

in _elucidating

what

is _plain,

and

_really difficult _{points are frequently}

passed

by

insilence" _{(Hillard, Spenser*} I, v-vi).

It soon

became

evident _{that Shelley,} like_Spenser,

was not

without his tributeof "learnedrubbish,9 '

which

_may

have

led

_Douglas

Bush

to_suggest

that

"one

of the worst _things

about

_Shelley is the effect

he

has

on

his

admirers; nearly all of

them

are

reduced

to a

common

denominator, of

which

the

outward

evidence is _{perhaps a wild glitter} in the

_eye"

(My-thology, p.156)

But

inthe case of Pronmtlieus

Unbound*

at _{least, the}

judg-ment

of

Kenneth

Neil

Cameron

is, in themain, both true

and

_pertinent;

"The

divergence of [the views

on

Prometheus

Unbound]

results, it should be emphasized, not

from

critical _caprice

but

from

_genuine difficulty.

Pmmethem

Unbound

is _{unquestionably}

one

of the

most

_profound

and

subtle of _{the great English poems.}

And

difference

and

divergence in its interpretation are

notas

might

at first _{appear- leading us} farther

from

it

but

closer to it" _{("Shelley Scholarship/' p 100).}

Too

_frequently, however, the "difference

and

_{divergence" in} interpreta-tion available to thestudent are those of a

_{few major}

names

only,

and

to suggest, as does

Bennett Weaver,

that forcritical

comment

on

Prometheus

Unbound we must

"follow the

_way

of the

books

forthere are

few

articles

written

on

this

drama"

_{(Rom&ntic Poets, p. 187),} is to overlook a fertile

body

ofsmaller,

but

certainly

not

always minor, studiesor brief

comments

whose impact on

our understanding of the

poem,

and

of the

changing

attitudes

toward

it, is negligible only because they are in large part

in-accessible,

A

_{comprehensive variorum}

treatment of thefull

_range

ofthese writings

would

appearto

be

thecorrective tothissituation. For, _although

Matthew

Arnold

in

1888

_{could argue} that

_"Shelby

i not a classic,

various readingsaretobe

no

ted with earnest attention" ("Shelley*" p,206),

the

need

for such a treatment

was

evident to

Swinburne

some

_twenty

yearsearlier.

He

wrote:

Itisseldom thattheworkof ascholiastis <>noon wantedan inShell** y*n

<**

it hasbeen. Thefirstcollectededition ofhis workshad

_many

_gapnanderror**_patent

and _palpable to _any serious reader. Hia text is _ulntad) matter far debute mid comment, as though he were a classic _newly unearthed.

Or

tain _pawtgr?*

_l*gm

to be famous as crucial subjects for emendation; and the muster_{singer of} our

modem

poets shareswith his

own

masters andmodels the leant_{enviable proof}<*f

fame _{that givenby}corrupt readingsand diversecomme.utarieH {"Note*/*p.3

Today,

certainly, only the

most

prejudiced

would deny

the detnibiltty

of thefullest_{possiblelight}that can be

thrown

on a

_jmem

an_complex*

and

subtle,

and

significant as Prormtlieus

Unbound, even

though a part of that lightbe

from

sources

now

somewhat

dimmed

by

time,

A

final

word

shouldbesaid with_respect to the_{requirements of}nrlttrttoii

and

condensationin

variorum

_editing.

Some

au

thorn

_may

_{well object} that

their

work

has

_{been unhappily}

abbreviated,its _{general significance largely} lostin _{the segregation} of details. It is

my

_{hope, however, that, fHjweially}

inthe Introduction,afairindicationofthebroader_point** ofviewha*

IHWW

given,

and

that, if

much

_{of the supporting evidence haw}

been

_MixwHHortly

sacrificedto the

demands

_{of space}limitation, afairfttatomont of the attitude

_may

be

_{acknowledged,}

and

_{the desirability of}

_pewpi^ttve

for_tiny

one

_{interpretation}inthetotal_{pattern of}critical _thought

_may

be udmittm),

tAWRBNCK JOHN

ZItUIAtf

A

_{cknowledgments}

IT is

PLEASANT

to record hero

_my

thanks for _{the help so cheerfully given}

and

so essential to _{the completion} of this

_work;

and

at the

same

time

to

absolve all

concerned from any

share in such

_shortcomings

as the

work

may

evidence.

To

the

_many

on

the _{University of}

_Washington

_campus

who

have

borne

with

_me,

and,_{for special help, to Professors}A. R.

_Benham,

_{Charles Goggio,}

Linden Mander, and

thelate Curtis C. D. Vail; to Mrs.

Ruth

Kirk,

In-terlibrary

Loan

Librarian, for diligence in _{locating seemingly} inaccessible items; to the Research

Committee

of the

Graduate School

for

funds

in

support ofresearch;

and

to the

_{Agnes Anderson Research}

Fund

Committee

for _{a grant} in aid of_publication,

To

the Bodleian _Library; the

_Huntington

_Library,

San

Marino,, Cali-fornia _(for

MSS

HM

2176

and

HM

_2177);

and

the

Duke

University

Library, for permission to use microfilms

and

photostats of

manuscript

materials in their collections.

To

the

Keats

-Shelley

Memorial

Association for permission to

reproduce

Joseph Severn's

posthumous

portrait*

now

in the Keats-Shelley

Memorial

House

in

Rome*

To

the_{following holders ofcopyrighted}material;

_George

Allen

&

Unwin

Ltd. for J A*

K.

Thomson's The

Classical

_{Background of}

_EnglishLiterature;

Edward

Arnold

Ltd, for Oliver Elton's _Shelley;

The

Atlantic

_Monthly

for

Arthur Symons'

ShcUey; Joseph

Warren

Beach

for his

The

Concept

of

Nature in Ninetee.nth~Gertiury English Poetry; Ernest

Benn

Ltd, for the

Roger Ingpen-Waltar Peck

Julian Edition_{of Shelley's}

_Works;

Basil

Black-welt for

_Ralph

_{Houston's "Shelley}

and

_{the Principle} of Association**

and

for

William

R. Rutland's Swinburne,

a

Nineteenth

_Century

Hettene;

The

British Council for

_Stephen

_{Spender's Shelley; Calcutta University Press}

for

_Amiyakumar

Sen's Studies in

_Shdky;

_Cambridge

_{University Press} for

The Cambridge

History

of

EnglishLiterature

and

forS. J.

Mary

Suddard's

cedes'

"Two

Paths from

Plato: Shelley arid St.

Augutine";

Gwtto

&

Windus,

Ltd.,

and Oxford

University Press,

New

York, for Herbert JL C.

Grierson

and

J. C. Smith's

A

Critical History of Knglisti

/'win;

The

Clarendon

Press, Oxford, for

John

Bailey's

The

(smtinuity of letters* for

Marjory

Bald's Shelley's

Mental

Progress, for A.

M,

I). _{Ihi^hwls Shelln}

Poems

Published in 1820, for B. Rajan's

"The

Motivation of Shelley^

Prometheus

Unbound,"

for

Walter

Raleigh's

Some

Authors*

and

for

Archibald_Strong's Three Studies in Shelley;

Columbia

University Prrsn for

Edward

B. _Hungerford's Shores _{of Darkness;}

_Qmtempomry

Rnww

for

Elizabeth

Meldrum's

"The

Classical

_Background

of Shelley,"

Also to: Gerald

Duckworth

&

Co, Ltd. for _{Stopford Brooke's} Studies in Poetry;

Duke

UniversityPressfor

James

A, Notopoulow' 7%<* Plutonium ofShelley

and

for

Newman

I. White's

The

_{Unextinguislwl} Ifatrth;

Kdin-burgh

University Press for P. H. Butter's Shelley's Idols of thr C/nv;

Exposition Press Inc. for

Arthur

Wormhoudt's

The

Demon

/xwr; Kyrc

&

Spottiswoode Ltd. for Leslie Stephens*

Hours

in

a

Library:

Fa

her

mid

Faber

Ltd. for

Leone

Vivante's Englisli Poetry; K. JL Foglefor hin

"(mage

and

_{Imagelessness:}

A

Limited

_Reading

of

Prometheus

Unbound"; Gambit

St Co. Ltd.for

James

Cousin's

The

Work

Promethean; Dr. II

HaltsWhitc

for

W.

Hale-White and Amelia

H. _Sterling's translation of_Spinoxa* Kfhir;

George

G.

Harrap&

Co. Ltd.

and

Barnes

&

Noble

Inc. for A. K.

_KoilwayV

Godwin

and

the

_Age

_of

Transition;

Harvard

Univornity

Pnwn

for the Lorli

Classical _Library (see Bibliographyforindividual editors);

William

IIitin

mann

Ltd. forthe

Bonchurch

Edition of

The

_Qmtplete

Works

_of

_Al^rnon

Charles Swinburne;

Hough

ton Mifflin

_Company

forG. II*

GarJwV

*Sr/#^'W

Poems

_{of Percy Bysshe Shelley}

and

for

_{George WoodbetrryV}

_l*tiIiri<Ige

Edition of _{The Complete} Poetical

Works

_of

_{Percy /tyssfw Shelley;} Hutchin-son

&

Co. Ltd. for

Graham

_{Hough's The Romantic}

Pw*t$;

The

Journal

_of

Aesthetics

and

Art

Criticism for Charles (X Hoffman'* "Whtteltfsitcfit

Philosophy of

Nature and

Romantic

Poetry**; (J.

Wilson Knight

for hit!

The

ChristianRenaissance

and The

Starlit

_Dome;

Alfred A,

_Knopf

In*1 * for

Newman

I. White's _Shelley;

_Longmans

Green

&

Co.

Ltd ami

Koiwrt

Bridges' executrixfor

Robert

Bridges' The. _SpiritofAfrm;

The

Mac

miUttti

Company

for

Solomon

_{Gingerich's Essays} in, the

Kwnantir

hutn* for

Alfred

North Whitehead's

Science

and

the

Modern

JfWrf,

ami

for

WiHtnin

Butler Yeats's Essays;

Methuen

&

Co. Ltd. for 01

won

Ware}

_CnmplwlPH

Shelley

and

the Unromantics,for C. D. Ix)eock^s The.

PIMMS

_of

/Vmy

tivxithe Shelley,

and

for A. Glutton- Brock's Shelley the

Man

and

I/if

A**

mil! his Introduction to the

Locock

edition; Universityof

MimuMotit

fur

Ellsworth Barnard's _{Shelley's Religion (1937);}

The Modern

_Ixutgttaga

Association of

America

for K, N.

Cameron's

"The

Political_{SymtxtltMm of}

Prometheus

Unbound"

and

for Bennett

Weaver's

"Pwmrthcua Bound and

Prometheus

_Unbound";

_{University of}

North

Carolina

Frew

forCarl

Graho'*

millari

_Brown)

for J.

Macmillan Brown's The

Prometheus

Unbound

_of

Shelley:

A

Study,

Also to: _{Alfred Noycs,} Messrs.

Hodder

&

_{S tough}

ion Ltd.,

and

J. P.

Lippineott

(Company

for Alfred

No

_yes's

Some

_{Aspects of}

Modern

_Poetry;

The

Odyssey

Pressfor Ellsworth Barnard's _Shelley; Selected

_Poems,

_Essays*

and

letters;

Oxford

_University Press,

New

York, for

_Benjamin

Kurtz's

The

Pursuit

_of

Death;

A

_{Study of}

_Shells

_Poetry;

Oxford

_UniversityPress,

New

York,

and John Lane

The

_Bodley

Bead

Ltd, for the

John

IXSinclair translation of Dante's Divine

_{Comedy; Oxford}

_{University Press,}

_London,

for H. N. BrailsfonFs _Slwtt&y, Godtvin,

and

TheirCircle,

and

for the _poets

represented in the

Oxford Standard Authors

series; Princeton Univer-sityPressforCarlos Baker's Shelley's

Major

Poetry;

The

Fabric

of

a

Vision;

G. P*

Putnam's Sons

for Paul

Elmer

Mora's Shelburne. Essays, Seventh

Series (1910); Melvin

M.

Hader

for his _"Shelley's

_Theory

of Evil Mis-understood"; Sir Herbert

Read

for his _{"Shelley the Optimistic}

Phil-osopher";

Rinehart&

Company

Inc.for

K.

N.

Cameron's

Rinehart Edition of _{Shelky\*t Selected Poetry}

and

Prose;

_Routledge

&

_Kegan

Paul

Ltd, for

G.

Wilson

_Knight's f^ord _Byron; Christian Firtues

and

for F. A. Lea's

Shelley

and

the

Romantic

Revolution;

The

Society of

Authors

for

The

Col-lected

Works

_of

_George

Bermrd

_Shaw;

The

_{Viking Press} Inc. for

Edmund

Blunders

SfieUty.

Finally, aspecial

word

ofthanks for _patience

and

assistance far

_beyond

the call either _{of duty} or of marital

vows

to her to

whom

this

book

is

Contents

THE

PLAN OF

THIS EDITION

xvii

INTRODUCTION

3

EXPLANATORY

NOTE

115

TEXT

OF

PROMETHEUS

UNBOUND,

WITH

VARIANT READINGS

AND TEXTUAL

NOTES

117

CRITICAL

NOTES

302

APPENDIXES

A* _Shelley's Drafts of Prometheus

Unbound

631

B. Shelley*s Italian Translations ofPrometheus

Unbound

_Passages

677

(1 Mrs. _Shelley's

Note on

Prometheus

Unbound

Written

for

Her

Edition of

1839

682

D*

_{Contemporary Reviews}

689

The

Prometheus

_Storybefore_Shelley

723

F.

A

Basic

_Approach

to the _{"Representative}

Values"

in Prometheus

Unbound

732

G.

The Time Scheme

ofthe

Poem

741

II* _Shelley*s _Lyric Indentionin the

E

_Manuscript

744

BIBLIOGRAPHY

747

INDEX

767

Illustrations

facing Portrait _{of Shelley writing} Prometheus

Unbound

in the

Baths

of Caracalla

140

Bodleian

MS

_Shelley E.l Folio 18V,

opening

lines of

Act

I 141

Bodleian

MS

_Shelley Additionsc.4, Folio6, draftofII.iii.28-42 172

Debatable

_readings

from

Bodleian

MSS

_Shelley E.1, 2,

3

173

The

Plan

_of

This Edition

IT is

THE FUHFOSE

of the _present edition of Prometheus

Unbound

to _bring

togetherall of the

_important

_publishedmaterial,1 _textual

and

critical, that

can

in

_any

_significant

_way

assist thereader of the

_poem.

Of

_necessitythis

imposes

certain

problems

ofselection

on

theeditor, I

have

tried to choose

wisely

from

that extensive

body

of writing that has accrued to the

_poem

since its first _{publication in 1820,}

and

to correlate the material in

such

a

way

thatcritical

_{emphases and}

trends

_may

be discernible.

The

basic text is that of 1820,

and

it has

been reproduced

with verbal

exactness* It

wa

_necessary to decide

between

this _{relatively imperfect} text (printed in

_England

_{while Shelley}

was

in _Italy)

and

the

_manuscript

left

_by

the _poet*

_My

decision

was

based

on

_{the following} considerations,

mainly

historical: (1)

The

_manuscript

is

not

the

one

from which

_{the play}

was

_printed, but

was

_{significantly revised}

_by

_Shelleyafter

_Mary

had

made

the printer's

copy from

it, (2)

The

manuscript

itselfis_{imperfect, especially} in_punctuation,

and

itsliteral_reproduction as abasic textcould

have

little

more

than _{curiosity value*}

The

detailed descriptive

treatment

_possible in

ray textual notes

and

variant readings permitted a

much

fuller

and

more

adequate

presentation of this, Shelley's best

commentary

on

1820,

than

would

have been

_possible

had

a basetext

been

abstracted

from

it. ₍₃₎

The

full evidence for the _{debatable question ofShelley's "final" text} is before

the reader without the _{prejudice of}

an

assumed

_judgment

_through

ab-l

Kiptkm

have been

made

_onlyfor certain theses that have, in some significant way*amplifiedpublished portions of thestudies. _Every efforthas been

mad

toread

nil of the* references to the _poem written in _English, and those in _{foreign languages} that have been generally recognized a of inde{>emlent value (much of this material

k

largely a reworkingof English and American criticism)* Lack ofa comprehensive Shelley bibliography hat increased thepossibilityof oversight, butit ishoped thatno

work of_{importance between 1820 and 1955 has been}missed. Theexigencies of publi-cation_{have prevented}detailed treatment,inthe_bodyof thebook, of items thathave

appeared following the latter data, but all pertinent studies that have come to

my

attention before actual press timehave beenincluded (preceded byanasterisk) in the Bibliographyand wherefeambla,infootnotereferences.

xviii Plan of This

straction. (4) Mrs. Shelleyin 1839

made

relativelyslight useof the

manu-script for her edition; it did not

become

available to scholars until IH93,

and

was not used

ascorrectiveto acriticaledition until 1

Wk

₍₃₎

Histori-cally,

1820

(or that edition corrected slightly

by

Mrs. Shellry) rvpresrntcil the _point of _departure for

most

nineteenth-century editors.

Immediately below

thelines of text

on

each_{page, selected draft variants}

are _given (the drafts are reproduced fully in

Appendix

A), as we!! an de-tailed _{variant readings} to be

found

in the

K

_manuscript8

and

in

repre-sentative

_subsequent

editions of_importance.

Of

the

_many

edition* of the

poem

only a

few

hold serious interest for textual study, KdJtors

have

tended

to rest _heavily

on

a

_{few key}

editions,

and

the detailed variant

readings of the present

work

have

been limited largely to these, anil to suchothers as

have

sufficient_independentinterest _{to justify their}inclusion.

But

the_{history of the}text, especiallyin the latereleaseof the manuscript,

gives these editionsunusualsignificance,

and

I

have

therefore treated thorn

more

_fully than is _{customary, notably with respect} to _punctuation in the verse.

The

_{general characteristics of} other _{representative edition* are}

givenin the Introduction.

Below

these readings are such notes as

_may

throw

_light

on

textual

problems.

These

include Shelley's alterations of the

E

manuHcript, wdleeied draft readings, differences of opinion with respect to the

K

wading*,

conjectures, etc.

Here

also will be

found

such variant** in other than the

key

editions as do notfallinto the_pattern ofeditorial imitation*

To

avoid

an

_{unnecessarily}

awkward

_page

_makeup,

critical

not*

pertain-ing to interpretation ofspecific scenes

and

lines

have

been plueeit nt the

end

of the

_poem,

unlesssuch _{interpretation}

stems from

textual conniibrii-tions, in

which

case a cross referencewill direct to theTextual Note*, Trait-scriptions of draft passages* as well as the Italian translation

by Shelby,

have been

_{relegated to appendixes.}

The

Introduction deals with

more

general mattersofhistorical, textual,

and

critical interest

For all relevant _manuscripts, textual variants of

whatever

nature

have

been

_given,

_making

it_possiblefor thereader to_{reconstruct completely}

_any

of these items. For Mrs. _{Shelley's editions of}

1839

_{(inaftmuch OH} nht?

wa*

working

in_part atleast

from

_{Shelley's errata)}, all textual variant* for the

verse

and

thePreface

have

been indicated, aswell as

_any

cif

_importance

in the stage directions.

Minor

_stylistic differencesin thelatter

have

not

hmt

included. For the other _{principal editions} all essential variant*

have

been

noted.

It

must

_{be granted that} "essential"is a relative term,

and

there

_may

be

areader ofthis

book

to

whom

it is

_important

to

know

that

one

editor

u*w

single instead of double quotation marks, or _{spells labor,} labour, t

have

assumed

that

no

real _purpose

can

be served

_by

_{indicating at length}

_minh

2_Bodleian

_MSS

E.I, E.2, andE,3_{have formerly been}referred toas

B

(for !hc!l*tnn). butrecent_{acquisitionsbythe Library}

_make

_{aclearer distinction}

Plan of

matters of individual _{editorial style,}

_many

of

them

mannerisms.

For the

key

editions other than those of Mrs. _{Shelley, therefore, the following} items

have

been

omitted

or treated as indicated:

Typographicalerrors.

Obvious

_{typographical} errors

have

not

been

given

in _{the variant readings.}

_{These have}

included

_dropped

or _clearlyerroneous punctuation,

broken

type, failure to _{capitalize at beginnings of lines,} accidental _{hyphenation, spacing} failures, omission of closing quotation marks, transposed letters, _{misplaced apostrophes} or accents,

and

mis-spellings. In the latter instance, however, if the error has resulted in a different word, it has been included.

Type.

Type

i/.e, _style,

and

_spacing

have

not

been

noted, except in the

caseofitalics for _emphasis.

Quotation marks*

Some

editors

have used

_{single quotation}

marks,

some

double;

some

running

quotes, others quotes at the beginning

and end

of

the

_queued

_{passage only.}

These

differences

have

not

been

indicated, but,

where

quotation

marks

have

been supplied for _{passages not so}

marked

in

1820, thisfacthas been noted*

Spelling, Spelling variants

have

been

admitted

only (1)

when

the

move-ment

of theline has been altered _(as in the case of dieresis), (2)

when

a

change

in _{pronunciation has} resulted in altered assonance (as in chant,

chaunt)) or (3)

when some

special interest has attached to the variant*

The

principal types of spelling variationswill be indicated

by

thefollowing

list: aerial, aereal;aggrandisement, aggrandizement; amphisbenic,

amphis-hasnie;aye.,ay;bleat, blessed (where thelatteris_clearly

_pronounced

as

one

syllable); burthen, burden; cameleon, chameleon, camelion; candour, can-dor; cloak, eloke; desert, desart; development,

developement;

frenzying, phrerizying; gray* grey; gulph, gulf;

immoveably,

immovably;

learnt, learned; 'mid,

mid;

might'st _{mightst; 0,}

Oh;

oer, o*er; past, passed; rapt,

rapped; skiey, skyey; siren, _syren; tho, though, the'; veil, vail

Tides, Titlesreferredto in_Shelley'sPreface

have

in latereditions

some-times _{been given} in italics,

sometimes

in quotation

marks*

These

differ-ences

have

not

been

noted

Punctuation* In a

work

of_poetry* matters of

_{rhythm and}

phrasing are stronglyor subtlyinfluenced

by

ahadingsin _punctuation.

Because

of_this,

and

because of the influence of

W.

M.

Rossetti

and

the

E

_manuscript

in this_{respect, punctuationvariants (except forobvious typographicalerrors)} in the

_key

editions

have

_{been given fully} for the verse. For the Preface

and

_{the stage} directions _they

have

_{been given only w}ien}

_changed

_meaning

results* In certain instances^ clearly,

one

mark

of punctuation

may

be considered the equivalentof another,butithas

seemed

desirabletofurnish the exact evidence

_by

which

the reader can determine to his

own

satis-faction the_presenceor _{absence of shadings}in _emphasis.

xx

The

_{Plan of}

7Hv

til ion

Apostrophes

and

accents. Iftheline

movement

is clear, apostrophes

and

accents to indicate

_{nonpronounced}

or

_pronounced

syllables

have

not

hwn

given. Ifthe

movement

is debatable _{(as at IV.367), the} accent has

been

included.

Hyphens,

Hyphenation

has been indicated, as has use of

_compound

words,

inasmuch

as _{both frequently} result in _{modified emphasis.}

It _{should be repeated} that the

above

_exceptions

do

_{not apply} to the

manuscripts

or to Mrs. Shelley's editions of 1839.

The

former

have

been

compared

in detail,

and

the latter in detail for the verse

and

the Preface.

With

_respect to the critical material, admission or rejection has

been

determined

_by

the_degreeto

which

abetter_{understanding}of the

_poem

will

result. It is arare

work

on

_{Shelley that} does not at

some

_{point refer} to

Prometheus Unbound, but

too

seldom

is _{there a positive} contribution to

our understanding.

Mere

_{praise or censure, of course,}can he

found

in

_any

period

and

in

any

extreme, and, while

some

of the rhetorical efforts to

outdo

_{predecessors blaze brightly}

and

_{are delightful} to read, they offer

littleinthe

_way

of illumination,

and would

_requirean

un

justifiable

amount

of space

were

more

than a_{representative}

_sampling

included*

An

_exception

has

been made,

however, in the inclusion of the

_contemporary

reviews of

the first _edition,

which

hold a _{special interest}

and

are _{given fully,} insofar as _{they bear}

on

Prometheus

Unbound,

in

_Appendix

D

In the Introduction _{the principal trends} in critical _thinking

have

Imm

traced, toserveas

an

orientation forthe

more

detailed consideration?!

found

in the Critical Notes.

More

_{general subjects}

have

bean treated in the appendixes. Insofaraspracticable,however, opinion has boon

fuimmarizwi

in the Critical Notes, at the point

where

itwill be

most

_{pertinently useful}

to the reader. It is inevitable that over a _{period of time} the

ida

will _{recur, either independently} or _through the _flattery of imitation* 1

have

tried _{in these instances to give credit to} the first _{occurrence, or} to the first _reasonably full _development, of the idea,

Where

criticalreferencehas been

made

to a_possiblesourceor _analogue,

without quotationofthe_parallelmaterial, quotation has

been

supplied or,

where

this has

been

_{impracticable,}

summarized*

All _quotation*

from

classicalor

_major

modern

writers

have been

standardized

_by

aubtitutbiif

where

_{necessary, of}a_{single edition.}

Itis

_hoped

that thewider

and

more

immediate

usefulnessof the

work

_{will justify} the decision to _giveall_{foreign4anguage items in}

tion,

but

Iregret thatspacelimitations

have

_{prevented the}

_{supplementary}

Shelley's

Prometheus

Unbound

Introduction

THE

AIM

OF

this Introductionis twofold; (1) tooutline the present

body

of

knowledge

concerning the text of Prometheus

Unbound and

the

nature

of

the principal editions of the

poem;

(2) to

_survey

the broader outlines of critical_{opinion with respect} to _{the quality}

_{and meaning}

of the

_poem.

De-tailednotes

on

text

and

_{interpretation}will

be

found

elsewherein thebook.

TEXTUAL

CONSIDERATIONS

GENESIS

OF

THE TEXT

Shelley's early interest in the

Promethean

story will be considered in thesecond

_major

division of this Introduction,

Our

interest at this _point centers

on

a_journalentry

_by

Mrs._Shelley

under

dateof

_September

[5]-14, 1818:

"Mo

writes his

Drama

of 'Prometheus,' "

and on

a letter _of

Sep-tember

22, 1818,

from

Shelley, in

Padua,

to

_Mary,

_{at Este,} in

which he

asked

her to _{bring "the} sheets of

_{'Prometheus Unbound,' which}

_you

will

find

numbered

from one

to _twenty-six

on

the table of the _pavilion" (Julian, IX, 332),

l _This

is the first evidence

we

have

that the _poet

had

*In _{the present million} all _{prose (other} than thatfound as _prefaces ornotesin the Oxford Standard

Au

thorn Marianof the Poetical _IForh) follows the text of the Ingpen-IVckJulian Edition ofShulloy'sJforks(thedata ofthisletterin_givenas_?Septembcr22, but

Mr.

Shdky'Bjournal shown it tobein fact of thatdate). Short titles have

fre-quently

bem

employed incritical _{or biographical}references, for which full identifica-tioncan_cam'lybemade_byconsulting the Bibliography.

Mrs. _{Shelley, in} her note on Julianand Maddalo (note on the Poems of 1818 in Julian [III,21^1), wrote: "I Cappuoeini [at Kate] was avilla built on thesite of a Capuchin convent, dotnoliHhed when the _{French suppressed} religious houses; it was

Hituntedcm _{tha veryoverhanging}browof alowhillatthefoot of_{a rangeof higher ones.}

The house wascheerfulandpleasant; a vine-trellisedwalk* a pergola,asit is calledin Italian, led from the halkbor to a

summer

-house at the end of the _garden, which Shelley

made

his_study, andin _{which he began}tha Prometheus"

Other _{pertinent references} to, or probably to, the _composition of Prometheus

begun

the actual _composition of the

_{poem, and}

the _{sheets probably} a draft, are

not

extant.

That

he wrote

_steadily is indicated

_by

the next _pertinent letter,

dated

Este,

October

8, 1818, to

Thomas

Love

Peacock: "I

have

ben

_writing

and

indeed

have

_{just finished the}first actofa_lyrical

and

classical

_drama,

to be called

'Prometheus

Unbound'

" (IX, 336).

But

on

January

24, 1810,

from

_{Naples, Shelley could only repeat} to

Peacock

that the first act

wan

finished:

"At

_present I write little else but _poetry,

and

little of that.

My

1st act of

Prometheus

is _complete,

and

I think

_{you would}

likts it"

(X, 21).

The

failure to _progress as _rapidly as at first can be asoritwd to the distress _following the death of Clara _Shelley

_{on September}

_{24, 1818,}

and

the

_subsequent

_journey to

Rome

and

_Naples, with

_many

_aigh

_tawing

excursions to

_occupy

the time.

The

_{delay, however,}

was

_{only temporary,}

for

_by

_April6, 1819, the poet could write to

Peacock from

Rome:

f

*My

Prometheus

Unbound

is _{just finished,}

and

in a

month

or

two

I shall

wnd

it" _{(X, 4&).}2

That

the

drama

was not

sent as

_promptly

as intended is evident

from

another letter to

Peacock from

Livorno in _{July, 1819;}

"As

to Oilier, 1 don't

know

what

has been _{published, or}

what

has arrived at

hw

hatuk

My

Prometheus though

ready, I do not send till I

know

more** _{(X, 63)},

But

other considerations

_may

have

contributed to _{the delay.}

William

Shelley died

on June

7,

and

the poet

was

_deeply affected

_by

thelogsof

hw

child. _{Indeed, although}

_we

_know

_{thatPrometfwus}

_Unbound

_was

_"finfohwd**

by

April6,Shelleywroteto _Leigh

_Hunt

_from

_{Livornoaslate}at*

_Augtmt

_15:

"Though

surrounded

_by

_suffering

and

_{disquietude, and, latterly, almimt}

overcome

_by

_{our strange misfortune} I

have not

been idle.

My

ProraetlieiiH

is _{finished" (X, 68).}

Poem"

(December 18); "Finish _copying his _{Poem*' (December 19); "I painting}

*

Sfhelley] is_{writing apoemsothatthe}

Me

_artetake

upallour tiimT_{(toHunt,April}<i

1819);"ReadShelley's

Drama"

(April25);_"CopyShelley'aTromethniw'" 9xpt*!tnl*r iwr"1?]5

"

_R

l

ad

Trome

,

theus Unbound"* _(October 17, 1820 _{(the publiNhecl ptmm|);}

Would_{you have} the Goodness to orderat _yourStationers a

doom

plain bcmknlikr that the Prometheus was _{copied in" (to} Maria Gisborne, February or March UCJO [Abinger MSS, Reel6]).

Actually,"finished" would, atthis time, applyonlytothefirstthroeAnt*Iniwiiiiirh

as Act

IV

had_{not yet}been_projected, Edward _{Hungerford'a suggestion that}M

ShfHi*v

must_{have been punning on}thenames ofPrometheus andhi brother _Kplmethcu"

m

referring to Act IV as an _{"afterthought (Shorn of}

Darkn***, p, 192) in _attnuttivr,

but1 fcnano_{evidence that Shelleyusedtheword.}

^Charles and James Oilierwere_{Shelley's publishers. Apparently}

Shelley

!>

wroti*

of the

_poem

to _LeighHunt,or thelatterlearned of_it,forhe wrote to_Shelfey in this

same month: I _{long, by-the-by,} to see Prometheus hnnidf. I have no doubt v<ui

have handledhis weariedvirtue'_nobly. Itis_curious,butIhad _thought

Hub

_white

ago of writing a

poem

myself, entitled Prometheus Throw*!;

m

which I bttombfi to navedescribedhimas_{havinglatelytaken}

possession ofJupiter's seat. Butthu

mlmn

on every accountisin betterhands. I

am

_{rather the son ofoneof}

_Atl'

*

Shortly thereafter,

on September

6, the poet wrote Charles

and

James

Oilier:

_'"My

f

_{Prometheus/ which}

_{has been long finished,} is

now

_being

transcribed,

and

will soon be

forwarded

to

_you

_{for publication.} . . .

The

f

Prometheus

1

you

will be so

_good

_{as to print,} as _{usual" (X, 79).}

Ap-parently Shelley intended to forward the _manuscript,

_by

_way

of

John

Gisborne, to _England,

where

it

was

to be held

_by

Peacock, for

on

Septem-ber 21 the _{poet wrote the} latter: "I

have

sent

_you

_my

Trometheus,'

which

I do not wish to be sent to Oilier for _publication until I write to

that effect.

Mr.

Giaborne will _bring it" _{(X, 83).}

And

on

_September

27

he

wrote Leigh

Hunt;

UI

have

sent

_my

'Prometheus

Unbound'

to

Peacock

if

_you

ask

him

for it

he

will

show

it

_you"

_{(X, 87).}

But John

_{Giflhorne's plans}

were

_changed, arid

he

did

not

_go to

_England

until _{the following}

_May,

That

the Gisbornes

were

nevertheless interested

in the

matter

of the

_manuscript

is clear

from

a letter _{the poet}

wrote

to

Maria

Gisborne

from

Florence

on October

13 or 14 _{with respect} to _copies

of

The

Ce.nci_{being printed}in _{Italy, copies}

which

he wished

sentto

_England

"by

the next _ship. , . . If

Mr.

G. is returned

send

the 'Prometheus' with

them"

(X, 94).

And

he

confirmed this intent

_by

_writing to Charles

and

James

Oilier the _{next day:}

"The

'Prometheus* . , - will arrive with it

[The,

OndJ,

but in _MS.,

_{which you}

can _print

and

_publish in the season"

(X,95).

To Henry

Reveley (son of Mrs. Gisborne

by

a first _{marriage), the}

young

engineer with

whom

Shelley

had become

friendly* the poet

wrote

on

October

28; "Please to let the Bill _{of lading}

be

sent

where

the

box

should likewise be addressed Messrs, Oilier, Booksellers,

Vere

Street,

Bond

Street** _{(X, 100).}

But

a later letter _{suggests that Gisborne finally}

sent the

_shipment

(see below),

From

these letters it

seems

_{probable, as}

Martin

Freeman

_pointed out,

that

Peacock

did not _{actually receive the}

_manuscript

unless a

second

transcription

was

sent him,

and

did

not

see ituntil after the Olliers

had

it _{(Text, pp.2-3),}

On

November

2

the

_poem

was

in Shelley's

mind

as

he wrote from

Florence to _Leigh

Hunt;

"I

am

about

to _publish

more

_{serious things}

[than Pater Ball the Third] this winter" _(Julian,

X,

104);

and

that

he

was

anxiousfor

an

early

appearance

ofthe

work

is indicated

_by

another

letter

to

Hunt,

also in

November: "The

Prometheus

I wish to

be

_printed

and

to

come

out

_immediately

1 * (X, 131). In the

same

vein,

but

with the

mention

of "additions" (Act

IV

at _{least), the poet}

wrote

Charles Oilier

on December

15 _{(or 25),} at

about

the_{time that the ship}sailed for

_England

with the_{copies of}

The

Cenci

and

thefirstthree acts of

Prometheus

Unbound

below): f<

Let

Trometheus*

_{be printed}

without

delay*

You

wiE

receive

the additions,

which

Mrs* S, is

now

_{transcribing, in} a

few

_days* It

has

already

been

read to

many

persons" (X, 134),

But

first the

Gisbomes

"I

have

_{just finished}

an

additional act to 'Prometheus* which

Mary

in

now

transcribing,

and which

will be enclosed for

your

inspection before

it is transmitted to the Bookseller.

...

Be

_{kind enough,} an soon as

_you

have

read the

Prometheus,

to inclose it to 'Oilier

&

Co., Vert* Strret,

London'"

(X, 136).

Despite Shelley's desire for an early printing he

had

heard nothing

from

the Olliers

_{by March}

6, 1820,

when

he

wrote

them from

I*wa:

I do not hearthat_{you have}received "Promethean" and "Tim (lend"; I tbnr

fore think it safest to tell _you

how

and when to _get them if_{you have} not _yri

doneso.

Give the bill_{of lading} Mr. Gisbornc sent _you to a broker in _{the city*}

whom

you employto_{get the packages,}and to_pay the _{duty on} theunixmmi Inrnkn, The ship sailed in the middle of December, and will _assuredly have arriwl long beforenow.

"Prometheus Unbound," I must tell_you, ia

_my

favourite _jwrn; I _rhurgr

yw

f

therefore, specially topethimandfeedhimwithfineinkand good

papr

|X 148J,

Without

_{waiting for a reply} to this latter _{he wrote again} to Churltw

Oilier

on

March

13:

I

am

anxious tohear that_{you have} reeieved \$ic\ the parcel from leghorn, aiitf

to learn _{what you} are _doingwith the "Prometheus," Ifit can Ix* done without

great difficulty, I should be very glad that the revisedcheats might Im by the Post to

me

at _Leghorn. It _might he divided into four _{partition*, fm<im#}

me

fourorfivesheetsat_{once [X,}151].

It is _quite evident that _Shelley

was

concerned

about

the _{accuracy of} thetext. _{Distance, however,}

made

it_inexpedientfor _{the proofs to} be

mmt

to_him, so

he

seized_hopefully

on

the_{departure of} the Giftbornes

on

_May

2

to _give

him

an

advocate,

and

wrote (a till

from

Pisa) to Chariot Oilier

on

_May

14:

As to _{the printing of the "Prometheus,'*} I>e it as _you will. But,

m

thin _a*% 1

shall_{repose or}trust in_{yourcare respecting the correction of the}

_pww;

_enpednlly in the lyrical parts, where aminute error would be of

much

_{coiiAac{uem*.} Mr, Gisborne will reviseit; he heard itrecited, and will therefore more _readily anyerror.... I_oughtto_saythatIsend_{you poems}inafew_{poatft, to print at} tiir endof "Prometheus,'* betterfitted for that_purpose than any in _yourpaft*t*Hiort

[X, 167-168].

Having

thus reconciled himself to a situation

he

_{clearly disliked,}

Shelley sought reassurance

by

writing the Gisbornes

on

May

26:

Iwrite_youthus_early, becauseIhave determinedto_{acceptyour kind}offerabout the correction of Prometheus. The bookseller makes difficulties _{about nomling}

the proofs to _me, and to

whom

else can Iso well entrust what I

am

m

much

interestedin_{having done}well;andto

whom

wouldI_{prefer to}owetherecollection of an additional kindness don to me? I enclose _you two little _{papers of} cor-rectionsandadditions; Ido notthink_youwillfind_{anydifficulty ininterpolating}

theminto their_{properplaces [X,175]}.

train-scribing for

me

the little

_poems

to be _printed at the

end

of Prometheus; they will he sent in a _post or

two"

(X, 177).

And

shortly thereafter, in

June

_{or July,}4

_he

requested the Gisbornes to

send

"6

_copies of

Prometheus

(ifprinted)" (X, 184),again demonstratinghis_eagerness toseethevolume*

At about

this time also

he

learned that

Peacock

was

to assist in the

proofreading.

There

is

no

indication as to

what

had

occurred with _respect

to Peacock's _relationship to _{the project since} the time of theearlier

com-munication,

and

in the letter to

him

_{from Leghorn on}

_{July 12 Shelley} said _merely; trl

make

bold to write to

_{you on}

the

news

that

_you

are cor-recting

my

'Prometheus/

for

which

I _{return thanks,}

and

I

send

some

things

which

may

be

added"

(X, 186).6

Itis almostcertain that the

_poem

was

_publishedin

_{August, even}

_though

as early as July

7

Mrs* Shelley

wrote

to

Maria Gisborne

in

_England:

"I

hope you

will _bring

Prometheus

with

_you"

(Letters, I, 112);

and

even

though on

July

20

the poet, in _Pisa,

wrote

to

Thomas

Medwin;

"I

hear

it

is _{just printed,}

and

I _probablyshall _{receive copies}

_{from England}

before I see

_you

1 * (Julian, X, 192),

and on

July

27

to Keats: "I always tell Oilier

to

_{send you}

_copies of

_my

books.

'Prometheus

Unbound"

I

_imagine

_you

will receive _nearly at the

same

time with this letter" _{(X, 194).} Mrs.

Shelley's

would

have

been a natural request,

whether

or

not

they

had

received a report of publication,

and

Shelley's

comments

may

well

have

stemmed

from

_{the prepublieation}

announcement

of the

book

in the

London

Majg&im

for

June

(see

_Appendix

D, item I), It

can

be

assumed

that the

Gisbornes,

from

their close association with the

_poem,

would

be

on

the

alert for the

_appearance

of the volume.

On

_{August 3 Maria noted}

that

"Mr.

Fen wick

called _{yesterday evening with} the

books which

he

had

undertaken

to _procure for us" (Journals^ p, 41),

but

there is

no

_certainty

that the

_poem

was

_among

them. In _{her entry} for the

_{twenty-second}

she

wrote

that

Godwin

"has not seen the

Prometheus,

and

does

not

think

he

shall read it

_through"

_{(p. 45),}

and

the suggestion in this that she

had

seen it is _confirmed,

and

a

_mid-August

date at the latest established,

by

her letter to _{Mrs. Shelley}

on

_{the twenty-third, in}

which

she wrote:

"We

gave

[Mr, Gisborne's sister] a

copy

of the

Trometheus,' which

she

had

promised

to _study.

We

have

_{given her a} little _preparatory lecture,

and

read

some

_{part of}itwith her

n

_{(p.67). Leigh}

Hunt,

too,

might

be expected

to

watch

for the

_appearance

of the volume,

and he wrote

to _{Shelley, also}

on

_{the twenty-third;} **I

have

_just seen the

Prometheus"

_{(Correspondence,}

1, 158).

And

Horace Smith wrote

tothe poet

on

September

4: "I got

from

Oilier last

week

a

_copy

of the

Prometheus

Unbound"

_(Abinger

MSS,

Reel 14).*

4_Thedate

isuncertain because thelatteris torn.

*

Whether thweaddition*werecorrections or short_poemsisnotknown.

g

It

would

_appear,

however,

that _{the Shelleys did} not see the

book

until

October.

On

June

18 Mrs. Shelley wrote to

Maria

Gisborne (in

London)

:

"As

to the

books

_{you had}

better _{do nothing}

about

them[;]

we

are too

unsettled so do

not

send

them"

(Letters, I, 109);

and on

July 7, as

we

have

seen, she asked that

Maria

"bring

Prometheus

with you."

The

Gisbornes reached

Genoa

on October

3 but

went

directly to

Leghorn

without

_seeing their friends _{(White, Shelley,} II, 229). Mrs. Shelley

noted

their return in _{her journal} for

October

10,

and

the poet wrote

them

on

October

11: "If

_you

_happen

to

have

_brought a

_copy

of

Prometheus

send

it too" _{(Julian, X, 210).}

For October

16 Mrs. _{Shelley's journal carries}

the notation:

"Go

to

_{Leghorn"; and}

for the seventeenth:

"Read

Prome-theus

Unbound

_papers

&

Indicators" _(Abinger

_MSS,

Reel _10)*

The

poet's first extant reference to the

volume was on

November

10

when,

from

Pisa,

he wrote

to the Olliers _{with evident disappointment:} Mr. Gisborne hassent

me

a_copy of the "Prometheus," whichis _certainly

mot

beautifully printed. It is to _{be regretted that the} errors of the _press are so numerous,andin

_many

_{respects so destructive of the sense of aspecies}of_poetry which, I fear, even with _[without?] this _{disadvantage, very few} will understand

orlike. Ishallsend you the listoferrata in a _dayor two [Julian, X,219].

To

Peacock

he

did

not

reveal _{his feelings,}

but wrote on

?November

15 a

sentence that, in

view

of the foregoing, has an ironic note:

"Thank

_you

for

_your

kindnessin _correcting

_Trometheus/

which

I

am

afraid

_{gave you}

a _{great deal}oftrouble" _{(X, 222).}

It

was not

until

_January

20, 1821, that Shelley finally sent the errata

to the Olliers with the_following: "I

_{send you}

. . . the Errata of

'Prome-theus,'

which

I

_ought

to

have

sent _long

sincea

formidable list, as

you

willsee" _(X,232),7

Nor

did

he

_{quicklyforget the inaccuracies.}

On

May

_4,

inaletterto _Byron, it

_may

have been

eitherthe errors_{of the printing or}a

momentary

change

ofheart withrespect to _{the quality of the}

_poem

itself

thatled

him

to write:

"The

'Prometheus' is ... a _{very imperfect}

_poem"

(X,266);

and on June

8

he

was

again

outspoken

to Charles _Oilier, to

whom

he

wrote: "I shall

send

_[Adonais to] you, either _{printed at Pisa, or} tran-scribed insuch a

manner

asitshallbe difficultforthe reviser toleave

such

errors asassistthe_obscurityof the 'Prometheus'" _{(X, 273)},8

itis _{quitepossible}that the noticeitselfwaswrittenin_Augustfor the_Septemberissue*

The_{poet instructed}Oilier tosend_copiesof thebookto_{Hunt, Godwin, Hogg, Peacock,} Keats,

Thomas

Moore, Horace Smith, and Byron (Julian, X, 81). Godwin was, ap-parently, as good as his _word, for his _{diary entry ofSeptember 19}listed

_among

his reading:"PrometheusUnbound, Act1" _(AbingerMSS, Reel2), andI have foundno

evidence thathereturned to the _poem.

7_{Theletterwasmisdated}

1820.

8_Charles

D. Locock_interpreted this reference to transcriberandreviser asindicative of_Shelley's

own

_{opinion of the cause of theerrors (Edition, I,}

595-96). But mightit

THE

FIRST

EDITION

The

_foregoing section has traced the evidence relevant to the _writing,

publication,

and

first reaction of_Shelley to

what

he

considered his finest

poem.

The

copy from which

the printer

worked

is

not

extant (although

Mrs. Shelley

made

_every effort to_get all_manuscripts

from

Oilier after the

poet's death,

and

Peacock,early in 1823,

supposedly

sent allthe publisher

had

[see

Mary

Shelley, Letters, I, 195, 206, etc.]),

but

the

E

manuscript

and

such drafts of the

_poem

as

remain

to us will

be

examined

in their

proper place.

Here

the general characteristics of the edition of

1820

should

be

noted.

There were two

issues ofthis edition. In the first_{a typographical} error

on

the Contents

_{page gave}

Miscellaneous as Misellaneous. This

_{page was}

then reset, with the

word

spelled correctly, for the

second

issue.9

But

before thesecondissue

was

_printed, thed! ofwind!

_{dropped out}

in II.i.195, leaving:

Asia.

How

the notes sink

_upon

the

_{ebbing win}

This hiatus remains in the

_Huntington

_Library

_copy

of the _book,

but

in

the Library of _Congress

_copy

thed!has

been

written in

_by

hand.

10

The

_{book appeared}

as a

_demy-octavo

_{volume, with} leaves

_measuring

$%

by

8%

inches,

bound

in _{dark blue-gray}

_paper

_{boards, with white}

back

label _{reading: Prometheus/}

_Unbound/

9s.

There were

fourteen sheets of eight leaves each,

and

signatures [A] to0, with J omitted.

Each

signature

was

_repeated

on

the second leaf _{with a following}

_{2 (B B2;}

C

_{C2; etc.).}

Roman

numerals

were

_{assigned the pages preliminary} to the text of the

poem,

with thefirst to _{appear being}yiii,

and

the material

was

distributed

as follows: [i] the half-title:

PROMETHEUS UNBOUND/&C

&c;

[ii]

advertisements of

The

_Cenci,

The

Revolt

_of

Islam, Rosalind

and

Helen,

and

Alastor.

At

the

bottom

of the _page:

_Marchant,

Printer,

Ingram-Court,

Fenchurch-Street, London.; [iii] title _page:

PROMETHEUS

UNBOUND

/A LYRICAL

DRAMA/IN

FOUR ACTS/WITH

OTHER

POEMS/

by

PERCY

BYSSHE

SHELLEY/AUDisNE

ac,

AMPHIARAE, SUB

TEKRAM

Locockalsofeltthat"some_explanationis_{due, or atany}ratesome_hypothesiswhich

will_explain

how

_{the superior readings of}the_manuscriptbecameconvertedintoinferior readingsinthefirstedition, for themostpartuncorrectedin Mrs.Shelley's editions."

He

_{suggested three possibilities:} (1) printer's errors; (2) faulty transcriptionbyMrs. Shelley ("nearlyallthemistakes

made

aresuch as_mighteasily arise incopying [the] MS."),whose accuracyShelleywould "no douht" takeforgranted;and (3) Peacock's

errors in_{proofreading, or actual}alterationsonPeacock's responsibility(p.595).

9_{In the}

copyowned by

Thomas

Wise, apparently unique,bothleaveswerepresent, the canceled leafinits _{original position,} the cancel-leafinserted between signatures

A

and

B

(ShelleyLibrary,p. 56).

10_{It shouldbe noted also that the}

Library of Congress copyis _{incomplete, lacking}

pagesiandiiof signature_{A, and}thefinalleaf_(O8

) ofadvertisements. The Huntington

\Q

ABDiTE?/LONDON/C

AND

J.

OLLIER

VERE

STREET

BOND

STREET/1820;

[iv] blank; [v] as follows:

CONTENTS.

Page

Preface vii

PROMETHEUS

UNBOUND

1

MISELLANEOUS

POEMS

The

SensitivePlant 157

A

Vision ofthe

Sea

174

Ode

to

Heaven

182

An

Exhortation 186

Ode

to the

West

Wind

188

An

Ode,

written October, 1819 before the _Spaniards

had

recoveredtheir _Liberty 193

The

Cloud

196

To

a_Skylark

201

Ode

to _Liberty

207

[vi] blank; [vii]-xv Preface; [xvi] blank; [xvii] half-title:

PROMETHEUS

UNBOUND.;

[xviii]

DRAMATIS PERSONS;

[19]-153

PRO

ME-THEUS UNBOUND;

11

[154] blank; [155] half-title:

MISCELLANEOUS

POEMS.;

[156] blank; [157]-222 miscellaneous

_poems

as in

Contents

above

_(eachpageis

headed

with the titleof the

_poem

_thereon); [223-224]

advertisements of

works

_{recently published}

_by

the Olliers,

with

the

Marchant

_{imprint repeated} at the

bottom

of _[224] as

on

_page

[ii],12

Details ofthisfirsteditionwill_{be apparent}

from

the_presenttext,

which

is based

on

the

_Huntington

_Library

_copy

ofthefirstissue.

u

_The

play begins on page 19rather thanonpage 1 as the Contentsindicates, the printerhavingshiftedfrom

Roman

toArabic_numberingwithout_repeating. Inasmuch

as the other _page references in the Contents are correct, the Prometheus Unbound

reference_{would appear} tobeeither a _{typographical error or}an oversightin _checking paging.

I2_{In1823 theremainder}

sheetsof fourworks RosalindandHelen₍₁₈₁₉₎,Prometheus

Unbound_(1820;butcalledPrometheus Unmasked onthe inclusivetitle_page), Tlie Cenci (Second Edition, 1821), andHellas (1822) were boundinto a _single volume for the

Olliers,

W.

_{Simpkin, and}R. Marshall. Each _{of the separate}bookswas boundin, _just

as it _stood, with the original half-titles, title _{pages, advertisements,} etc.,retained.

In this_{composite volume Prometheus} Unboundwasof the second _issue, with Miscel-laneous_{correctly spelled.} Thomas Wisenoted(inthe1920's) that"duringrecent years nearlyevery available _copyhas been broken _{up, the} collective Half-titles and Titles