$15 00 S~ I I" I ! I f I i %. ' ^ i * ISMJJ^ h PROMETIJIU UNBOUND A I arior mn Edition EDITED BY lAW'RENCK JOHN 2ILLMA1N This volume brings together for the.1 time all the important textual and crl> material about Prometheus Unbound VP has appeared since the poem's puhlicati r 18^0. It is the result of more than seven of research and editing. Prometheus Unbound represents the mination of Shelley's development. It w&; own favorite poem, yet he realized tha problems of interpreting it would be m , ous and difficult. It was greeted in 18K clashing critical opinion: "What ... is the meaning of this tv physical rhapsody about the unbindin Prometheus? ... It is only nonsense, unmixed nonsense." "What grace there is in the flow of & words! What perfection of rhythm!" ". , . a production of magnificent po-!,, power." "Little else but absolute raving ... a Itnge of nonsense, cockney ism, poverty,1. »< pedantry." Shelbys early death prohibited any « tributioti to understanding he might h, itiade in the way of notes. Later critical' terptetatibn* and reviews, diverse in s,<,ti and cpftten^ Iwe been widely scattered''1!1 Often iwtfQettibte* collected these interpretations, B thje present b^ 821 65-^8087 Kansas city public library Kansas city, missouri Shelley's Prometheus Unbound A VARIORUM EDITION SHELLEY'S Prometheus Unbound A VARIORUM EDITION EDITED BY Lawrence John Zillman 19S9 University of Washington Press SEATTLE © Copyright 1959 by the University of Wanhington !*«*» Second printing, with corrections, 1960 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number* 50-90M PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMEfilCA JPor Xorwfce, tvho shared 1K8, fIJ.131 : for wtoon r«i<l noon 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 a reprint of all the labours of the previous editors. , . . There is a great deal of learned rubbish in it; much trouble is often wasted in elucidating what is plain, and really difficult points are frequently passed by in silence" (Hillard, Spenser* I, v-vi). It soon became evident that Shelley, like Spenser, was not without his tribute of "learned rubbish,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 in the case of Pronmtlieus Unbound* at least, the judg- ment of Kenneth Neil Cameron is, in the main, 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 not—as 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 the student are those of a few major names only, and to suggest, as does Bennett Weaver, that for critical comment on Prometheus Unbound we must "follow the way of the books— for there are few articles written on this drama" (Rom&ntic Poets, p. 187), is to overlook a fertile body of smaller, but certainly not always minor, studies or 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 the full range of these writings would appear to be the corrective to this situation. For, although vii viii Matthew Arnold in 1888 could argue that "Shelby i« not a classic, various readings are to be no ted with earnest attention" ("Shelley*" p, 206), the need for such a treatment was evident to Swinburne some twenty years earlier. He wrote: It is seldom that the work of a scholiast is «<> noon wanted an in Shell** y*n <•««** it has been. The first collected edition of his works had many gapn and error** 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 shares with his own masters and models the leant enviable proof <*f fame — that given by corrupt readings and diverse comme.utarieH {"Note*/* p. 3 Today, certainly, only the most prejudiced would deny the de«tnibiltty of the fullest possible light that can be thrown on a jmem an complex* and subtle, and significant as Prormtlieus Unbound, even though a part of that light be from sources now somewhat dimmed by time, A final word should be said with respect to the requirements of nrlttrttoii and condensation in variorum editing. Some au thorn may well object that their work has been unhappily abbreviated, its general significance largely lost in the segregation of details. It is my hope, however, that, fHjweially in the Introduction, a fair indication of the broader point** of view ha* IHWW given, and that, if much of the supporting evidence haw been MixwHHortly sacrificed to the demands of space limitation, a fair fttatomont of the attitude may be acknowledged, and the desirability of pewpi^ttve for tiny one interpretation in the total pattern of critical thought may be udmittm), tAWRBNCK JOHN ZItUIAtf University of Washington 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 the late 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 of research; 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 of copyrighted material; George Allen & Unwin Ltd. for J» A* K. Thomson's The Classical Background of English Literature; 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 English Literature and for S. J. Mary Suddard's Keats, Sfaetttty and Shakespeare; The Catholic World for Sister Anna Mer- • xx x Acknowlwlgrnents cedes' "Two Paths from Plato: Shelley arid St. Augu«tine"; 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 University Press for James A, Notopoulow' 7%<* Plutonium of Shelley 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 Fogle for 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 Bibliography for individual editors); William IIitin«« mann Ltd. for the Bonchurch Edition of The Qmtplete Works of Al^rnon Charles Swinburne; Hough ton Mifflin Company for G. II* GarJwV *Sr/#^'W Poems of Percy Bysshe Shelley and for George WoodbetrryV l«*ti«Iiri<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 Christian Renaissance and The Starlit Dome; Alfred A, Knopf In*1* for Newman I. White's Shelley; Longmans Green & Co. Ltd ami Koiwrt Bridges' executrix for Robert Bridges' The. Spirit of Afrm; 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; University of 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 for Carl Graho'* Prometheus Unbound: An Interpretation; Mrs. Viola Notanello (n<5« Mac* Acknowledgments xi 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 Press for 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 University Press, New York, and John Lane The Bodley Bead Ltd, for the John IX Sinclair translation of Dante's Divine Comedy; Oxford University Press, London, for H. N. BrailsfonFs Slwtt&y, Godtvin, and Their Circle, and for the poets represented in the Oxford Standard Authors series; Princeton Univer- sity Press for Carlos 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, a special word of thanks for patience and assistance far beyond the call either of duty or of marital vows to her to whom this book is dedicated. 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 of Prometheus Unbound Passages 677 (1 Mrs. Shelley's Note on Prometheus Unbound Written for Her Edition of 1839 682 D* Contemporary Reviews 689 £ The Prometheus Story before Shelley 723 F. A Basic Approach to the "Representative Values" in Prometheus Unbound 732 G. The Time Scheme of the Poem 741 II* Shelley *s Lyric Indention in the E Manuscript 744 BIBLIOGRAPHY 747 INDEX 767 xiu 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 Additions c.4, Folio 6, draft of II.iii.28-42 172 Debatable readings from Bodleian MSS Shelley E.1, 2, 3 173 xv The Plan of This Edition IT is THE FUHFOSE of the present edition of Prometheus Unbound to bring together all of the important published material,1 textual and critical, that can in any significant way assist the reader of the poem. Of necessity this imposes certain problems of selection on the editor, 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 that critical 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 Shelley after Mary had made the printer's copy from it, (2) The manuscript itself is imperfect, especially in punctuation, and its literal reproduction as a basic text could 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 base text been abstracted from it. (3) The full evidence for the debatable question of Shelley's "final" text is before the reader without the prejudice of an assumed judgment through ab- lKi«»ptkm« have been made only for certain theses that have, in some significant way* amplified published portions of the studies. Every effort has been mad© to read 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 reworking of English and American criticism)* Lack of a comprehensive Shelley bibliography hat increased the possibility of oversight, but it is hoped that no work of importance between 1820 and 1955 has been missed. The exigencies of publi- cation have prevented detailed treatment, in the body of the book, of items that have appeared following the latter data, but all pertinent studies that have come to my attention before actual press time have been included (preceded by an asterisk) in the Bibliography and» where feambla, in footnote references. ami xviii The. Plan of This straction. (4) Mrs. Shelley in 1839 made relatively slight use of the manu- script for her edition; it did not become available to scholars until IH93, and was not used as corrective to a critical edition 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 the lines 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 such others as have sufficient independent interest to justify their inclusion. But the history of the text, especially in the late release of the manuscript, gives these editions unusual significance, 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 given in 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 not fall into the pattern of editorial imitation* To avoid an unnecessarily awkward page makeup, critical not«* pertain- ing to interpretation of specific scenes and lines have been plueeit nt the end of the poem, unless such interpretation stems from textual conniibrii- tions, in which case a cross reference will direct to the Textual 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 matters of historical, textual, and critical interest For all relevant manuscripts, textual variants of whatever nature have been given, making it possible for the reader to reconstruct completely any of these items. For Mrs. Shelley's editions of 1839 (inaftmuch OH nht? wa* working in part at least from Shelley's errata) , all textual variant* for the verse and the Preface have been indicated, as well as any cif importance in the stage directions. Minor stylistic differences in the latter 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 a reader of this 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 2Bodleian MSS E.I, E.2, and E,3 have formerly been referred to as B (for !h»c!l*tnn). but recent acquisitions by the Library make a clearer distinction neeesmtry* The. Plan of This Kditwn xix 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: Typographical errors. Obvious typographical errors have not been given in the variant readings. These have included dropped or clearly erroneous 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 case of italics 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, this fact has been noted* Spelling, Spelling variants have been admitted only (1) when the move- ment of the line 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 variations will be indicated by the following list: aerial, aereal; aggrandisement, aggrandizement; amphisbenic, amphis- hasnie; aye., ay; bleat, blessed (where the latter is 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's t» mightst; 0, Oh; oer, o*er; past, passed; rapt, rapped; skiey, skyey; siren, syren; tho, though, the'; veil, vail Tides, Titles referred to in Shelley's Preface have in later editions 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 strongly or subtly influenced by ahadings in punctuation. Because of this, and because of the influence of W. M. Rossetti and the E manuscript in this respect, punctuation variants (except for obvious typographical errors) 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 equivalent of another, but it has seemed desirable to furnish the exact evidence by which the reader can determine to his own satis- faction the presence or absence of shadings in emphasis. Capitals. Inasmuch as capitals are frequently used to suggest personifi- cation, for emphasis, etc,, these variants have been admitted. xx The Plan of 7Hv til it ion Apostrophes and accents. If the line movement is clear, apostrophes and accents to indicate nonpronounced or pronounced syllables have not hwn given. If the 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 degree to which a better understanding of the poem will result. It is a rare 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 little in the way of illumination, and would require an 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, to serve as an orientation for the more detailed consideration?! found in the Critical Notes. More general subjects have bean treated in the appendixes. Insofar as practicable, however, opinion has boon fuimmarizwi in the Critical Notes, at the point where it will be most pertinently useful to the reader. It is inevitable that over a period of time the id«a« 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 critical reference has been made to a possible source or analogue, without quotation of the parallel material, quotation has been supplied or, where this has been impracticable, summarized* All quotation* from classical or major modern writers have been standardized by aubtitutbiif where necessary, of a single edition. It is hoped that the wider and more immediate usefulness of the work will justify the decision to give all foreign4anguage items in tion, but I regret that space limitations have prevented the supplementary inclusion of the original texts for this rather large body of material Shelley's Prometheus Unbound A VARIORUM EDITION Introduction THE AIM OF this Introduction is twofold; (1) to outline 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- tailed notes on text and interpretation will be found elsewhere in the book. TEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS GENESIS OF THE TEXT Shelley's early interest in the Promethean story will be considered in the second major division of this Introduction, Our interest at this point centers on a journal entry by Mrs. Shelley under date of 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 that found as prefaces or notes in the Oxford Standard Au thorn Marian of the Poetical IForh) follows the text of the Ingpen- IVck Julian Edition of Shulloy's Jforks (the data of this letter in given as ?Septembcr 22, but Mr«. Shdky'B journal shown it to be in fact of that date). Short titles have fre- quently bem employed in critical or biographical references, for which full identifica- tion can cam'ly be made by consulting the Bibliography. Mrs. Shelley, in her note on Julian and Maddalo (note on the Poems of 1818 in Julian [III, 21^1), wrote: "I Cappuoeini [at Kate] was a villa built on the site of a Capuchin convent, dotnoliHhed when the French suppressed religious houses; it was Hitunted cm tha very overhanging brow of a low hill at the foot of a range of higher ones. The house was cheerful and pleasant; a vine-trellised walk* a pergola, as it is called in Italian, led from the halkbor to a summer -house at the end of the garden, which Shelley made his study, and in which he began tha Prometheus" Other pertinent references to, or probably to, the composition of Prometheus Un- bound m given in Mr». Shelley's journal and letters are as follows: "Shelley writes'* (September 15, 1818 f Abmger MSS, Reel 10] ; September [22] -24) ; "Write out Shelley's 4 Inlnxluctiwi 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 be«n writing— and indeed have just finished the first act of a 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 April 6, 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 the logs of hw child. Indeed, although we know that Prometfwus Unbound was "finfohwd** by April 6, Shelley wrote to Leigh Hunt from Livorno as late 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 a poem so that the Me arte take up all our tiimT (to Hunt, April <i 1819); "Read Shelley's Drama" (April 25); "Copy Shelley'a Tromethniw' " 9x»pt*!tnl*r iwr"1?]5 "Rlad Trome,theus Unbound"* (October 17, 1820 (the publiNhecl ptmm|); Would you have the Goodness to order at your Stationers a doom plain bcmkn likr that the Prometheus was copied in" (to Maria Gisborne, February or March UCJO [Abinger MSS, Reel 6]). Actually, "finished" would, at this time, apply only to the first throe Ant* Iniwiiiiirh as Act IV had not yet been projected, Edward Hungerford'a suggestion that MShf Hi* v must have been punning on the names of Prometheus and hi» brother Kplme»thc»u»" m referring to Act IV as an "afterthought0 (Shorn of Darkn***, p, 192) in attnuttivr, but 1 fcna no evidence that Shelley used the word. ^Charles and James Oilier were Shelley's publishers. Apparently Shelley «!«> wroti* of the poem to Leigh Hunt, or the latter learned of it, for he wrote to Shelfey in this same month: I long, by-the-by, to see Prometheus hnnidf. I have no doubt v<ui have handled his wearied virtue' nobly. It is curious, but I had thought « Hub white ago of writing a poem myself, entitled Prometheus Throw*!; m which I bttombfi to nave described him as having lately taken possession of Jupiter's seat. But thu mlmn on every account is in better hands. I am rather the son of one of Atl«'» * than of Atlas himself' (Correspondence, 1, 132), Introduction 5 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 Prometheus1 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 sent to 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 it until 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 anxious for an early appearance of the work is indicated by another letter to Hunt, also in November: "The Prometheus I wish to be printed and to come out immediately1* (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 the first three 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 wore to see the "additions." To them Shelley wrote on December 23: 6 Intmluction "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 hear that 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 done so. Give the bill of lading Mr. Gisbornc sent you to a broker in the city* whom you employ to get the packages, and to pay the duty on the unixmmi Inrnkn, The ship sailed in the middle of December, and will assuredly have arriwl long before now. "Prometheus Unbound," I must tell you, ia my favourite jwrn; I rhurgr y«wf therefore, specially to pet him and feed him with fine ink and good papr |X» 148J, Without waiting for a reply to this latter he wrote again to Churltw Oilier on March 13 : I am anxious to hear that you have reeieved \$ic\ the parcel from leghorn, aiitf to learn what you are doing with the "Prometheus," If it can Ix* done without great difficulty, I should be very glad that the revised cheats might Im by the Post to me at Leghorn.— It might he divided into four partition*, f«m<im# me four or five sheets at once [X, 151]. It is quite evident that Shelley was concerned about the accuracy of •the text. Distance, however, made it inexpedient for 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 your care respecting the correction of the pww; enpednlly in the lyrical parts, where a minute error would be of much coiiAac{uem*». Mr, Gisborne will revise it; he heard it recited, and will therefore more readily any error. ... I ought to say that I send you poems in a few poatft, to print at tiir end of "Prometheus,'* better fitted for that purpose than any in your paft*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: I write you thus early, because I have determined to accept your kind offer about the correction of Prometheus. The bookseller makes difficulties about nomling the proofs to me, and to whom else can I so well entrust what I am m much interested in having done well; and to whom would I prefer to owe the recollection of an additional kindness don© to me? I enclose you two little papers of cor- rections and additions; — I do not think you will find any difficulty in interpolating them into their proper places [X, 175] . The poems that were to complete the volume were ready about May 30, for on that date the poet wrote Charles Oilier; "Mrs. Shelley ia now train- Introduction 7 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 (if printed)" (X, 184), again demonstrating his eagerness to see the volume* 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 the earlier 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 It is almost certain that the poem was published in 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 probably shall receive copies from England before I see you1* (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 it with hern (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 to the poet on September 4: "I got from Oilier last week a copy of the Prometheus Unbound" (Abinger MSS, Reel 14).* 4 The date is uncertain because the latter is torn. * Whether thwe addition* were corrections or short poems is not known. *The I^ndon Magazine for September, in a notice of the book, postponed considera- tion until October bacauwe it had *fjiist come out this month" (see Appendix D), hut g Intrduction 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 has sent me a copy of the "Prometheus," which is certainly mo«t beautifully printed. It is to be regretted that the errors of the press are so numerous, and in many respects so destructive of the sense of a species of poetry which, I fear, even with [without?] this disadvantage, very few will understand or like. I shall send you the list of errata in a day or 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 kindness in correcting Trometheus/ which I am afraid gave you a great deal of trouble" (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 since—a formidable list, as you will see" (X, 232) ,7 Nor did he quickly forget the inaccuracies. On May 4, in a letter to Byron, it may have been either the errors of the printing or a momentary change of heart with respect to the quality of the poem itself that led 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 in such a manner as it shall be difficult for the reviser to leave such errors as assist the obscurity of the 'Prometheus' " (X, 273) ,8 it is quite possible that the notice itself was written in August for the September issue* The poet instructed Oilier to send copies of the book to 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 of September 19 listed among his reading: "Prometheus Unbound, Act 1" (Abinger MSS, Reel 2), and I have found no evidence that he returned to the poem. 7The letter was misdated 1820. 8Charles D. Locock interpreted this reference to transcriber and reviser as indicative of Shelley's own opinion of the cause of the errors (Edition, I, 595-96). But might it rather be that Oilier had attempted to justify the errors by pleading poorly written or poorly proofread copy? Introduction 9 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 all the 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 of this 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 the second issue was printed, the d! of wind! 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 the d! 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] to 0, 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 the first 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 a«c, AMPHIARAE, SUB TEKRAM Locock also felt that "some explanation is due, or at any rate some hypothesis which will explain how the superior readings of the manuscript became converted into inferior readings in the first edition, for the most part uncorrected in Mrs. Shelley's editions." He suggested three possibilities: (1) printer's errors; (2) faulty transcription by Mrs. Shelley ("nearly all the mistakes made are such as might easily arise in copying [the] MS."), whose accuracy Shelley would "no douht" take for granted; and (3) Peacock's errors in proofreading, or actual alterations on Peacock's responsibility (p. 595). 9In the copy owned by Thomas Wise, apparently unique, both leaves were present, the canceled leaf in its original position, the cancel-leaf inserted between signatures A and B (Shelley Library, p. 56). 10It should be noted also that the Library of Congress copy is incomplete, lacking pages i and ii of signature A, and the final leaf (O8) of advertisements. The Huntington Library copies are complete. \Q Introduction 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 Sensitive Plant 157 A Vision of the Sea 174 Ode to Heaven 182 An Exhortation 186 Ode to the West Wind 188 An Ode, written October, 1819 before the Spaniards had recovered their 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 (each page is headed with the title of 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 of this first edition will be apparent from the present text, which is based on the Huntington Library copy of the first issue. uThe play begins on page 19 rather than on page 1 as the Contents indicates, the printer having shifted from Roman to Arabic numbering without repeating. Inasmuch as the other page references in the Contents are correct, the Prometheus Unbound reference would appear to be either a typographical error or an oversight in checking paging. I2In 1823 the remainder sheets of four works — Rosalind and Helen (1819) , Prometheus Unbound (1820; but called Prometheus Unmasked on the inclusive title page), Tlie Cenci (Second Edition, 1821), and Hellas (1822) — were bound into a single volume for the Olliers, W. Simpkin, and R. Marshall. Each of the separate books was bound in, just as it stood, with the original half-titles, title pages, advertisements, etc., retained. In this composite volume Prometheus Unbound was of the second issue, with Miscel- laneous correctly spelled. Thomas Wise noted (in the 1920's) that "during recent years nearly every available copy has been broken up, the collective Half-titles and Titles have been sacrificed, and the three first editions have been separately bound, . . , This is the reason why the first editions of Prometheus Unbound, Rosalind and Helen^ and Hellas are invariably in modern bindings" (Shelley Library, 1924, pp. 69-70). Introduction 11 EDITIONS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIKST Any hope that a corrected edition of the poem would be forthcoming within a reasonable time was finally lost when, after the poet's death, Sir Timothy Shelley forbade Mrs. Shelley, on penalty of revocation of allow- ance, to publish any of the poet's works while the baronet lived. Possibly it was this proscription that prevented her cooperation with A. and W. Galignani in the projected Paris edition of the works of Shelley in 1826. In any event, nothing more came of the proposal until, in 1829, they under- took a new project, to comprise the poetical works of Coleridge, Shelley, and Keats in one volume. For this Mrs. Shelley drew a pencil sketch of the poet, from which an unsatisfactory engraving was made.13 The Galignanis used the published editions of Shelley's poems as basis for their text. That they received editorial assistance from Mrs, Shelley is clear from her letter to Cyrus Redding (who assisted the Galignanis) in ?January, 1829: "I send you the Errata of the Prometheus [the Adonais, and Hellas]" (Letters, II, 10). The extent of these (or of the Galignanis' use thereof) is suggested by the following comparison: in addition to the consistent use of the apostrophe to indicate an unpronounced syllable, the Galignanis made ninety-two punctuation changes in the text of Prometheus Unbound, all except eighteen of which are to be found in Mrs. Shelley's edition of 1839. With respect to verbal changes, the two agreed in the consistent spelling through and in the use of a for an before h; but of other changes from 1820 Mrs. Shelley in her edition made twenty-eight, of which only five are found in the Galignani edition.14 In addition to the Galignani edition of the poems there were several pirated issues both in England and in America,15 in none of which was any attempt made at critical determination of the text. Their value lies in evidence of continuing interest in Shelley's writings, although, as Newman Ivey White noted, "The first growth of Shelley's fame owed a noticeable debt to the accidental factor of his connection with Byron" (Shelley, II, 399) . It might be further pointed out that in a number of the editions of the period 1829 to 1838 the poet had also to share the company of Cole- ridge and Keats, for the Galignani combined edition set the pattern. By 1839 Mrs. Shelley had completed the edition of the poet's work on which she had been engaged for several years, and it appeared, published by Edward Moxon, in four small volumes. In a second one-volume quarto edition certain corrections necessary to the first 1839 edition were made. 13See Walter Peck, Shelley, II, 440-41. The Early Collected Editions of Shelley's Poems, by C. H. Taylor, Jr., appeared too late for consideration here. It throws fresh light on editions to 1839, and offers evidence that Mrs. Shelley in 1839 used the Galignani edition as printer's copy for her second volume, including Prometheus Unbound, making her changes and corrections on the proofs. 14See M. variant readings at 1.637, 733; ILii.53, 71; II.iv.100. 15See N. I. White, Shdky, II, 394-99. 12 Introduction For the first time since 1820 it was possible to bring to Prometheus Unbound the textual corrections desired by Shelley, and in her note to the poem Mrs. Shelley stated: "I may mention, for the information of the more critical reader, that the verbal alterations in this edition of Prometheus are made from a list of errata, written by Shelley himself (see Appendix C). It is clear, however, from study of the variant readings, that Mrs. Shelley's text for the poem might not have been completely satisfactory to the wishes of the poet, for in the E manuscript copy, on which Shelley ap- pears to have worked even after the poem was published, there are some 150 readings (exclusive of punctuation differences, in which E is faulty) that differ from both the 1820 and the 1839 editions. It must be assumed, from the evident care with which the poet revised his work, that the errata and emendations there given represented Shelley's own final word on his dissatisfaction with the first edition. The conclusion dictated by this circumstance is that Mrs. Shelley did not make full use of the materials available to her with respect to this poem. Charles D. Locock, indeed, asked: May we suppose that Mrs. Shelley never made use of [the "formidable list" of errata] at all? that what she did use was a. preliminary list, — the list which Shelley "hoped to despatch in a day or two" (November 10, 1820) — not the "formidable list" . . . which may in the course of nine [sic] years have been mislaid? Failing this hypothesis, we can only assume that Shelley's "formidable list" was not nearly so formidable as it might have been" [Edition, I, 5961. Nevertheless, credit must not be withheld for the work Mrs, Shelley did. Possibly William Michael Rossetti's comment in the Preface to his 1870 edition is most pertinent: Mrs. Shelley brought deep affection and unmeasured enthusiasm to the task of editing her husband's works. But ill health and the pain of reminiscence cur- tailed her editorial labours: besides which, to judge from the result, you would say that Mrs. Shelley was not one of the persons to whom the gift of consistent accuracy has been imparted; for even this too is a gift in its way, not wholly to be improvised for the occasion [Edition, I, xii]. The first effect of Mrs. Shelley's work appears to have been on the pirated edition of Charles Daly, originally published in 1836. In 1839 there appeared "A New Edition, Revised and Corrected, by G, Cuning- ham." The work (which omitted Shelley's Preface) was clearly dependent on both of Mrs. Shelley's editions, and the haste with which it was brought out to appear in the same year with hers is evidenced by the many typo- graphical errors and the general carelessness present in the text. Mrs. Shelley's influence was strong also on the first American edition of Shelley's poems, the work of G. G. Foster, published in Philadelphia in 1845. The publisher took occasion to advise the reader that "it has been carefully edited— so much we have a right to say," although he did not feel "called upon to assume the responsibility" for Foster's extravagant Introduction 13 estimate of the poet in the memoir (Edition, p. 5). Foster acknowledged his dependence on Mrs. Shelley's edition, and reproduced her notes to the poems. Indeed, one might expect a reasonably literal faithfulness to her work in view of a statement made when Poe suggested that Foster make a word change in The Indian Serenade. Foster wrote: "But I have not felt at liberty to change the text sanctioned by Mrs. Shelley — whom I regard as the evangelist of her transfigured lord" (p. 20). Actually, however, Foster was not as faithful to Mrs. Shelley's verbal usage as his answer to Poe would suggest, although some of his differences may have been the result of accident;16 and his complete independence in his use of punctuation and capitalization in Prometheus Unbound was second only to that of W. M. Rossetti. Indeed, the two agreed at so many points that one must wonder whether there was not more than coincidence in Rossetti's apparent use of the American work. Of course, coincidence alone can account for frequent agreement between Foster and the E manuscript, but the number of occurrences is interesting. Foster's text, the pirated texts, and those of Mrs. Shelley continued to be reissued in England and America, and translations appeared in Italy, France, and Germany during the next decades,17 but it was not until 1870 that another carefully prepared edition was offered, by William Michael Rossetti. Rossetti's editorial aims were acceptably modest: to correct "absolutely wrong" grammar, rime, and meter, and to emend conjecturally only as "a stop-gap expedient against a patent and formidable blunder," or when the conjecture was "convincing in a very high degree indeed" (Edition, I, xv-xvii). His practice with respect to Prometheus Unbound^ however, was not so restrained, especially in the matter of punctuation, in which his changes were more extreme even than those of Foster. Like Foster, how- ever, he frequently hit upon the pointing Shelley himself used in the manu- script; and Rossetti's verbal conjectures and emendations showed imagin- ative insight, even when they were not supported, as they frequently were, by the later evidence in Shelley's hand. l6See Fs variant readings at 1.54, 386, 449, 539, 716; ILL164; II.iv.165; II.v.77; IILi.6; III.ui.131; III.iv.58; IV.184, 399. With respect to punctuation, Foster was generally erratic and, like Shelley in E, used many dashes. He used fewer capitals than did Mrs. Shelley, consistently used while for whilst, and normally spelled veil, vail. 17See Julia Power, Shelby in America, passim; and White, Shelley, II, 639-41. The more important translations of Shelley's poetry that have included all or parts of Prometheus Unbound have been those in German by Julius Seyht (1844), Adolf Strodt- mann (1866), Helene Richter (1887), and Arturo Graf (1896); in Italian by G. Aglio (1853), Enrico Giacohini (1890), Mario Rapisardi (1892), Giuliano Bonazzi (1892), Ettore Sanfelice (1894), Carlo Faccioli (1902), Adolfo de Bosis (1922), and R. Piccoli (1924); in French by Felix Rabbe (1885-1887), Tola Dorian (1912), A. H. Koszul (1929), Maurice Castelain (1931), and Louis Cazamian (1942); in Hebrew by Moishe Blaichman (1953); in Braille (National Institute for the blind, London, 1922). 14 Introduction It was at this point that the influence of the E manuscript of the poem first became evident, for Miss Mathilde Blind checked certain (but only a few) of Rossetti's emendations against it in her review of his edition, in the Westminster Review for July, 1870. Rossetti, of course, did not have access to the manuscript, and he gave no evidence of knowledge of its existence in his Preface or notes.18 He was, however, quick to profit from Miss Blind's corrections, and he incorporated them in his 1878 revised edition.19 Following Rossetti's first edition, two others appeared that leaned heavily on his work. Miss Blind herself edited a selection of the poems (1872) in which she included Acts I and IV of Prometheus Unbound; and William B. Scott in 1873 brought out the poetical works, including all of the drama except the Preface. Both of these editions incorporated the changes suggested in Miss Blind's review of Rossetti, but otherwise (except for a few minor changes in punctuation or capitalization) they were in effect reproductions of the Rossetti text. Quite different, however, was Richard Herne Shepherd's 1874 text ("now first given from the author's original editions"). Despite Rossetti's state- ment that "Mr. Shepherd is just as ready (tho' not so prolific) with con- jectural emendations as I was — Wart' Silenus . . . (which I am sure is wrong) — and another 'Passionless, NOT yet free from guilt and pain,' wh. seems to me the grossest and silliest misconception of the whole purport of the poem" (Garnett, Letters, p. 46), Shepherd was, if compared with Rossetti, manifestly restrained in his text. Indeed, the emendations re- ferred to by Rossetti were not incorporated in the 1874 edition, most of the changes there having to do with punctuation, in which considerable refinement on the earlier editions was evidenced. Actually it was to the "original editions" that he turned, and, except as to punctuation,20 his Prometheus Unbound followed the 1820 text almost slavishly at times. The principal value of his work was to be found in the correction of the extremes to which Rossetti had gone, although this must remain a ques- tionable value in view of the opposite extreme sought by Shepherd. Harry Buxton Forman's impressive and influential edition of the poetical works first appeared in four volumes in 1876, with a reissue, containing Mrs. Shelley's notes, in 1882. He followed Mrs. Shelley in correcting obvious errors in the 1820 edition, and he profited from Miss Blind's article, but unfortunately he did not have access to the E manuscript itself 18Richard Garnett's examination of Shelley's notebooks in 1862 likewise resulted in no mention of E, and it is probable that he did not see it. He described the "extremely confused state of these books, and the equal difficulty of deciphering and connecting their contents" (Relics, p. xi), which would be true of the draft materials, but not of K. 19See R2 variant readings or conjectures at 1.244, 345, 774; ILi.122: II.ii.50, 53, 87; IILii.22; IV.95, 387. 20E.g., at 1.619; II.ii.38, 50, 93; II.iv.100; II.v.54; III.i.5, 20, 69; IILii,39; HI.iii.55, 102; III.iv.121; IV.208, 274, 282, 355, 575. Shepherd also employed, as had Galignani, *d to indicate the unpronounced syllable. Introduction 15 and so continued or initiated a number of errors, some almost certainly typographical.21 It will be noted in the variant readings that Forman was conservative in following Shelley's first edition (and this was an important corrective to Rossetti), and his changes, notes, and conjectures evidenced critical restraint in the absence of the as yet unavailable manuscript. Possibly the knowledge, through Miss Blind's article, that such a manu- script existed contributed to this quality in his work. In the Introduction to his edition of 1890, Edward Dowden acknow- ledged his indebtedness to both Rossetti and Forman, and commented: Mr. Forman's annotated edition is unquestionably that to which appeal must be made in any question of doubt on any point of Shelley scholarship. But perhaps if Mr. Rossetti modified the text of the early editions somewhat too freely, Mr. Forman has sometimes been over-conservative of peculiarities of spelling and obvious errors of punctuation. When these cloud the sense, it seems permissible to make a correction in an edition designed for general use [Edition, p. xxxv] . In attempting to strike a compromise between the two extremes, however, Dowden was not always successful, and he frequently held more closely to the 1820 edition than was desirable or justifiable in view of Mrs. Shelley's emendations (see 1.106, 619; IV.559). His general tendency was toward a conservatism little less stringent than that of Forman, from whom he adopted a number of readings, including two Forman errors (at 1.519 and IV.355). It is possible that at points of agreement with Rossetti some of the Dowden readings were taken from that edition, or were independent, but the evidence would suggest a greater dependence on Forman. The year 1892 marked the centenary of Shelley's birth, and was the occasion for several items of importance. Forman's conservative point of view, continued in his new five-volume edition, was followed also by George Edward Woodberry in his Centenary Edition (and, in 1901, in his Cambridge Edition, in which his critical notes are to be found), although Woodberry appears to have been influenced more than was Forman by Rossetti's punctuation changes.22 The Centenary Edition, however, ad- mirable as it was, was scarcely as complete as would be suggested by Woodberry's statement that he gave "all the variations, line for line, with complete notes" (Power, Shelley in America, p. 179). But he did give for the first time a description and collation of the 1820 edition, and indicated much more completely than had Forman the principal variants, conject- ures, and emendations (mainly verbal) in the editions of Mrs. Shelley, Rossetti, Forman, and Dowden, as well as noting the corrections to 21See especially 1.519, 774 (after Blind); II.iii.34; II.iv.100; TI.v.76; III.i.13; III.ii.34; IV.355. A new five-volume edition in 1892 contained a few refinements in punctuation, corrected born to borne (1.733), and significantly modified the punctuation at II.i.155 and ILii.22-23. Otherwise he retained his 1876 text. 220n his own part he substituted many semicolons for the colons of 1820. For verbal influence from Forman see 1.774 and II.v.76. ^g Introduction Rossetti made by Miss Blind through her use of the "incomplete MS." (Centenary Edition, II, 426). Unfortunately, the variant readings for Prometheus Unbound were in error in several instances (probably the result of faulty proofreading), and incomplete in others, thus vitiating (lie authority of Woodberry's work. The centenary year, 1892, also saw the publication of the first English language edition of Prometheus Unbound as a separate item in the edition of Vida Scudder. (There had been a separate German translation of the poem in 1876, and separate Italian and Danish translations appeared in 1892.) This was also the first "student's edition," provided with an ex- cellent body of critical and interpretative notes but with little contribution to the establishment of the text. Miss Scudder herself indicated that she followed Forman's text "except in two or three instances" (Edition, iv). This was not strictly true, for actually she followed or agreed with Rossetti in a number of punctuation choices and, possibly through typographical error, introduced four verbal alterations of her own.23 William J. Alexander's edition of a selection of the poet's work was published in 1898. In this, Alexander noted that he followed Forman for his text, and, except for minor matters of punctuation and spelling, and one verbal difference (at III.i.13), he did so. In the same year, also, a separate edition of the poem by G. Lowes Dickinson proved less dependent on any one predecessor. Rossetti, Forman, and Wbodberry appear to have influenced the text, but Dickinson initiated several readings, some of them possibly typographical errors.24 In the meantime the E manuscript had been presented to the Bodleian Library by Lady Jane Shelley and had been made available to scholars in 1893. Following its examination and description by Zupitza-Schick (to be considered below), and the publication of Charles D. Locock's An Examin- ation of the Shelley Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (1903), the first editorial use made of the findings was that of Thomas Hutchinson in 1904. Hutchinson's edition was well received and quickly became the most in- fluential after Forman; yet it was an edition that, in certain details, left much to be desired. Although Hutchinson wrote in his note on Prometheus 23At 1.112 (possibly after Scott), 172; III.iii.142; IV.383. At 1,338 both halves of the divided line were numbered separately, an error that altered the numbering to the end of the act. The numbers have been corrected for the present edition. Since 1892, and with increasing frequency during the past two or three decades, selections of Shelley's poems, many times including Prometheus Unbound, have been published either as individual volumes or in anthologies of poetry, primarily for class- room use. Inasmuch as the compilers of such selections have been satisfied to adopt their texts with but minor changes from earlier editors (usually Forman or Hutchinson), their textual variants—with the exception of those in, Grabo and Freeman's Tlte Reader's Shelley (see below, p. 19)— have not been considered for the present edition, although any original interpretative notes have been given due attention. 24See Textual Notes at 1.104; II.iii.47; II.iv.47; III.iv.150; IV.3, 552, Introduction 17 Unbound: "Our text is that of 1820, modified by ed. 1839, and by the Bodleian fair copy" (Edition, p. 200), it is evident from the variant read- ings that he adhered closely to the text of Forman, whose work he praised in his general Preface.25 Hutchinson did, however, introduce for the first time some of the readings of E that had been recorded in Locock's Examin- ation (he made no mention of the work of Zupitza-Schick), and his work thus assumed an important position in the textual history of the poem at the turn of the century. In the following year, 1905, a beautiful library edition of Shelley's poems was edited by Nathan Haskell Dole, most of whose readings followed Forman;26 and in 1907 Andr<§ Henri Koszul, who edited the poetical works for the Everyman's Library, acknowledged, in his Introduction, the use of Locock's Examination but did not mention Hutchinson, whose text he clearly followed in many details not mutually ascribable to Locock, as well as in some errors initiated by Hutchinson.27 This popular edition has been widely read but, fortunately perhaps, not widely imitated by other editors. In 1908 the most complete use of the E manuscript readings to that date was made by Richard Ackermann in his separate edition of the poem. Ackermann's text incorporated the principal findings of Zupitza-Schick, which, as we shall see below, were reported in much fuller detail than were those in Locock's Examination. As a result, he gave more of the E readings than did Hutchinson, although not as many (especially with respect to punctuation) as Locock was to give in his 1911 edition. Ackermann's use of E was necessarily incomplete, however, since he did not work directly from it, but a comparison of his readings will reveal the advance he made on Hutchinson. Shortly thereafter, in 1910, two "reprintings" of the 1820 volume ap- peared. One of these, with no editor named, was published by Henry Frowde, London, The other was edited, with excellent notes and a brief life of Shelley, by Arthur M. D. Hughes. An examination of the texts reveals that actually, insofar as material common to both books is con- cerned (the Frowde had no notes or memoir), the two were printed from the same plates. The Frowde contained a portrait of Shelley not found in Hughes, and a note stating that the 1820 volume "contains many errors, which it would have been pointless to reproduce. The present text is 25E.g., he continued Forman readings unsupported by his cited sources (1.519; ILiv.125; II.v.76; ni.ii.34; IV.355). He also continued a verbal error of Miss Scudder (1.112), although this may have been coincidence, and introduced two of his own (II.L200; IV.435) which influenced later editors. 26Dole continued Forman's errors (notably at 1.519; II.iv.125; II.v.76; IV.355), introduced two of his own (II.iv.80 and ni.iii.75), and accented the edfor pronounced end syllables. 27For KoszuTs own changes see Textual Notes at 1.10, 309, 637, 724; II.i.192; II.iv.39; III.iii.36, 77; HI.iv.106; IV.264, 403, 445. 18 Introduction therefore composite." Hughes, in his notes, acknowledged existence of the manuscript and previous editions of the poems, but stated that "except in one or two instances I have adopted the corrections made by jfffutchin- son]" (Edition, p. 162). Actually, his text (and therefore the Frowde also), except for some five or six minor differences in punctuation and the cor- rection of rapped to rapt at L527, reproduced that of Hutchinson. In 1911 appeared the important edition of Shelley's poetical works from the hand of Charles D. Locock, the first editor to bring the results of a personal study of the manuscript to his text of Prometheus Unbound. In his Examination (1903), Locock had suggested that a manuscript reading should be given precedence over the printed texts if it ce(l) gives sense instead of nonsense, or (2) is metrically more correct, or (3) is manifestly superior in sense and sound, or (4) is likely to be misread, or (5) is likely to be misprinted" (Examination, p. 1). In the main, this would indeed seem to be the basis for such readings and punctuation as he admitted, although he was probably unnecessarily influenced by the manuscript in his incon- sistent use of capitals and in the frequency with which he employed dashes. As to verbal variations, Locock found in the manuscript 13628 that differed from both the 1820 and Mrs. Shelley's editions, and he wrote: "Forty-nine of these 136 variants seem to me so superior to the readings of the printed texts, that it is inconceivable that Shelley (who never altered for the worse) could deliberately have abandoned them. I have introduced them, accordingly, into the present text" (Edition, I, 595). Locock's edition also offered the reader the most significant body of textual and interpretative notes to that date, and these were especially full and penetrating with respect to Prometheus Unbound. Following Locock, the next edition of importance was that of Charles H. Herford, with Lyrical Poems published in 1918 and Dramatic Poems in 1922. Herford acknowledged that his text was based on that of Hutchinson and, except in minor details (principally of punctuation) he, like Koszul and Hughes before him, followed that editor closely, with the result that his work added little of interest to the textual history of the poem. Nor did the handsome ten-volume Julian Edition of the complete works, edited by Roger Ingpen and Walter E. Peck (Volume II, containing Prometheus Unbound, appeared in 1927), give the definitive treatment of the poem that was expected. Although the editors offered a nice balance with respect to the 1820 text, the changes made by Mrs. Shelley, and some of the readings of the manuscript as given by Locock, and gave for the first time some sixty lines of early drafts from manuscripts then in the possession of Sir John C. Shelley-Rolls, there was no independent examina- 28Martin Freeman found "more than 150" (Text, p. 9). The discrepancy was probably the result of differences in reading, or possibly of Freeman's inclusion in his count of such slight differences as checked, checked, which Locock (who did not list his readings in full) may have treated as punctuation rather than as verbal changes. Introduction 19 tion of the E manuscript, and the Ingpen-Peck text was no more exact or final than were several others that preceded it. Indeed, there were several inexcusable errors, typographical or of reference, and frequent failure in the notes to distinguish between the two issues of the first edition and the two 1839 editions of Mrs. Shelley. Because of the general importance of the Julian Edition, however, and to indicate the nature of the editorial policy at the time, full variant treatment has been given in the present work, but obvious errors or misprints in the notes have been passed over silently. From the foregoing survey of the textual history of Prometheus Unbound it will be clear that no serious evaluation of the relationship between the manuscript copy and the accepted editions had been made since the work of Ackermann and Locock, both of whose editions, as we have seen, were deficient in certain respects. To the problem of re-evaluation, and to the determination of a more nearly definitive text, Martin Joseph Freeman addressed himself in A Text of Shelley's Prometheus Unbound, a disserta- tion submitted for the doctoral degree at the University of Chicago in 1934. As part of his thesis Freeman transcribed afresh the manuscript materials, related his readings to earlier transcriptions and selected editions, and made his final text the basis of the poem as published in The Reader's Shelley (1942), edited in collaboration with Carl Grabo. The Freeman text was kept extremely close to the manuscript readings, as might be expected in the light of his statement that "the manuscript readings should, except in those instances where it appears more reasonable to suppose that the poet made even later changes, take precedence over the First Edition" (Text, p. 38). But Freeman's text demonstrated that there is a point beyond which fidelity to the manuscript should not go. It must be remembered that Shelley was clearly not attempting a printer's copy. He was frequently inconsistent in punctuation and capitalization, and to carry these inconsistencies into a text that is not in itself a trans- cription of the manuscript is to misinterpret editorial responsibility.29 With respect to word changes the matter is different: certainly the final changes made by the poet should take precedence over a first edition or 29The promise of Freeman's full transcriptions of the manuscripts to one faced with deciphering Shelley's handwriting, as was the present editor, proved illusory. Many errors remained in the transcription, and, while some of these were defensibly debatable readings, others represented omission of words or figures clearly present in the manu- script, obvious misreadings, many typographical errors, and frequent failure to indicate deletions. As a result it has been necessary to re transcribe the manuscript materials in their entirety. Yet I would be remiss did I not acknowledge the help available in Freeman's work, for in combination with the transcriptions of Zupitza-Schick and Locock it has many times confirmed my own tentative readings or forced me into further consideration of questionable passages. See Textual Notes for the principal errors and also the frequently excellent conjectures of Freeman. 20 Introduction any subsequent edition that did not have the manuscript in its final form as a check-copy. Here the only problems are the determination of what were actually the "final changes," and the extent to which a given editor is more successful than his predecessors in transcribing difficult handwriting. In the present instance Freeman differed from Ackermann and Locock in eleven readings (at Preface 98; 1.35, 208-9, 253; II.iii.38; III.i.3; III.iv.114, 151, 165; IV.165, 171). But four of these changes (Preface 98; III.iv.151; IV.165, 171) were without manuscript authority, even in Freeman's trans- cription; three were choices in debatable readings (II.iii.38; III.iv.114, 165) ; and one (1.208-9) resulted in a tetrameter questionably defended by Free- man. The three remaining adoptions had all been noted and rejected by Locock. Moreover, there are several uncanceled Shelley readings (notably some of the stage directions) not adopted by Freeman, presumably on the assumption that they did not represent final changes. THE MANUSCRIPT MATERIALS As has been noted above, the most important item of the Prometheus Unbound manuscript materials was presented to the Bodleian Library by Lady Jane Shelley, and became available to scholars in 1893. Of the four notebooks in which this material is to be found, MSS Shelley E.I, E.2, and E.330 contain, in Shelley's hand, a copy of all but ten lines of the poem (eight of which are in- a notebook, to be described below, in the Huntington Library). The fourth notebook, MS Shelley D.I, contains the poet's translations into Italian, probably as an exercise, of II.v.48-71 and IV.1-82 (see Appendix B) . Generally speaking, and certainly so in comparison with most of the extant drafts, these notebooks are reasonably legible to one who is willing to acquaint himself with Shelley's handwriting. There are, however, certain transcriptional difficulties that should be noted. It is, for example, frequently difficult or impossible to distinguish small and capital letters c, e, 7?i, 7i, o, and 5, or to determine whether a small or a capital letter was written first when Shelley alters one by overwriting with the other; the loop on small e is often suppressed or missing, leading to confusion with i in those instances where he fails to dot the i, or to place the dot correctly over it — a situation that is made more difficult by his own confusion with 30 These notebooks differ slightly in size and number of leaves. E.I has 46 leaves, 5% by 8H inches; E.2 has 43 leaves, S1A by S1A inches; E.3 has 38 leaves, 5M by 8M inches; and D.I has 156 leaves, 6M by 8% inches. Locock gave the E notebooks as all 5% by 8 Ys inches (Examination, p. 28). The back cover of E.I and the front cover of E.3 are missing, a circumstance that led Julius Zupitza to question whether these notebooks might originally have been one, cut down the back binding. Joseph Schick, however, pointed out that the half -covers and ornamentation do not match in such a way as to justify this assumption, and that the evidence of E.2, which continues directly from E.I, would argue against it. The slight difference in page size should also be noted. Introduction 21 respect to ei and ie (he clearly writes thier at times, as well as viel, weild> and ivierd) ; se frequently looks like a poorly written e; the final re (where, there) are occasionally indistinguishable from n; there are many irrelevant ink splatters which may be confused with punctuation, as may an occa- sional pen movement at word ends; hyphens are sometimes reduced to dots; and dashes differ widely in length. As to punctuation, Miss Blind was scarcely correct when in her review of Rossetti she wrote that the E manuscript was "always carefully punctu- ated." Except for the question mark, which is usually present, punctua- tion is frequently omitted at line ends. Within the lines Shelley is more (but certainly not "always") careful, although many times the dash is substituted for more exact marking, and ambiguity through altered punctuation often plagues the reader. All such difficulties have been treated either in the Variant Readings or in the Textual Notes of the present edition, as have Shelley's misspellings and other orthographic idiosyncrasies. Except for general dates supplied by the letters, there is no way to determine with any certainty when the different parts of E were written, or when the additions and changes were made in it;31 nor can one state finally what was its relationship to the 1820 edition. Freeman went so far as to state it as his opinion that it was "the only fair copy of the poem ever made by Shelley," holding that "the evident care with which it was made; the fact that it contains all of the poem but ten lines; the fact that it contains all of the preface — everything, except in a few instances, most carefully written, as Shelley's writing goes — lend support to this view" (Text, pp. 37-38), Locock, however, in general agreement with Zupitza- Schick, thought it an "intermediate draft" and probably the first fair copy made by the poet (Examination, p. 29). Conclusions with respect to many of the problems relative to the manu- script must remain tentative, especially in view of the manner in which the poet used the notebooks, but the more general evidence relative to Prometheus Unbound may be summarized here (for matters of detail see the Textual Notes).32 81Little can be learned from the appearance of the manuscript. Shelley changed pens, or sharpened the pen being used, frequently. At other times a pencil was used. At times, also, the ink grew weak and was apparently changed or renewed. But whether or not there was a time lapse between these changes cannot he determined. Freeman attempted to reconstruct the progress of the writing, noting the lines at which pens were changed, etc., and speculating on the degree to which such evidence might in- dicate early or late changes and additions. But he recognized that, heyond a few reasonable conjectures (listed in the Textual Notes of the present edition), "neither Shelley's numbering of the lines nor variation in handwriting permits safe con- jecture" (Text, pp. 23-31). 82There is in these, as in the other Shelley notebooks, material not related to Prome- theus Unbound, This includes, for E.I, E.2, and E.3, an Italian street address; a line, 22 Introduction Shelley started to copy the play not, as might be expected, at the be- ginning of the first notebook (E.I) but on page 18r, where he placed the title, subtitle, and dramatis personae. He then proceeded to 18V for Act I and copied this act (to line 498) on the verso pages, leaving the recto pages blank for corrections and additions to the text. Apparently, therefore, pages lr to 17V were originally left blank, possibly with the intention of reserving the space for a preface to be added later. Act I, beginning with line 499, was then continued immediately in the second notebook (E.2), and the foregoing procedure of verso pages for the text, recto for corrections and additions was followed. This act was com- pleted on page 20V, with Act II following on 21V and continuing to the end of the book (page 43V, line II.iv.74). Again Shelley continued directly into the next notebook (E.3), with the next line of Act II starting on page lv and ending on 10V. Act III followed on llv and was completed on 36V. "climb from /cAijua£ a [lall] ladder"; two lines of Greek (identified by Zupitza-Schick as from Philoktet 387-88) ; pencil and pen sketches of trees, towers, a bridge, a head, a harp, sailboats, and at E.3 39r a full-page and more detailed pencil and ink drawing of a view across large shore rocks to a small island of rock, flanked by two sailboats and topped with trees, and with a cave in the rock; many mathematical computations other than those pertinent to his Prometheus Unbound line count; three lines not in Shelley's hand and signed "Clare"; a list, also not in Shelley's hand, of eight of the longer poems; a penciled copy, plus one stanza in ink, of the Invocation to Misery; a copy, in ink, of the Ode to Heaven; and a translation of slightly less than half of Plato's Ion. In addition, there are two fragments possibly written with Prometheus Unbound in mind. For the first, see Textual Notes at II.iii.98. The second, on E.2 23r inverted, was thought by Kroder (I believe correctly) to be pertinent rather to The Mask of Anarchy. I treads: screams When a Nation [cries] aloud Like an eagle from the cloud When a [When the right] Watch the look askance & cold — See neglect, & falsehood fold. Since the Ion fragment is scattered through notebook E.I much as is Act IV, it might be questioned whether it was not written in before that act. Several circum- stances argue against this: The translation starts on page 16V and, after carrying irregularly to the end of the book, finishes on the (inverted) two pages lv and lr, and the paste-down immediately preceding the opening of Act IV. Had Act IV not already been written in, there would have been no reason for not placing the Ion on the blank pages used for that act. Secondly, on 36*, at the top of which the final line of Act IV is written, the Ion picks up below the line (and the act count written under it), with an ample spacing that would not have been present had the translation been written first. And, finally, by the time the poet wrote in the Ion he was willing to use pages opposite Act I on which additions or corrections to the act had been made, even at times writing the translation over these changes. He had skipped these pages when copying in Act IV, Introduction 23 With the original three-act version of the play thus completed (except for certain changes and additions that may have been added at any time later), Shelley probably turned to his Preface. At first this consisted only of the opening four paragraphs of the final version. It will be recalled that pages 1 to 17V of notebook E.I had been left blank. The four paragraphs were copied on pages 14r, 14V, 15r, 15V, and 16r, which still left three pages blank before the title page. It is possible that Shelley misjudged the space that would be needed, but equally possible that he purposely left space for later addition to the Preface. In any event, before the final five paragraphs were written, under circumstances to be described below, other material was assigned to these blank pages, and the balance of the Preface was written in notebook E.3. The first three acts of the poem were, according to Shelley, finished by April 6, 1819, and Act IV at least by December (see above, pp. 4-6). When Shelley copied this final act into the notebook is not known, but it was almost certainly the next major item to be included in E.I. Using only completely blank pages for the lines, the poet wrote the first verses of Act IV on page 2r. At this point he abandoned his previous procedure and wrote on both recto and verso pages to the bottom of 13V, which brought him (at IV.427) to the Preface. He then skipped over the blank pages 16r, 17r, and 17V, probably still to reserve them for possible later addition to the Preface, and continued Act IV on the blank recto pages opposite Act I. Pages 19r and 20r were skipped because they contained corrections or additions to the first act; and 21r, although blank except for one word at the bottom, was also skipped. Shelley then continued Act IV on 22r, skipped 23r and 24r because they were not completely blank, and resumed on 25r. Pages 26r and 27r had been used for additions, so Act IV was carried to 28r and through the recto pages to 31r. Pages 32r and 33r had Act I changes, and Act IV was completed on 34r and 35r, except for one line at the top of 36r. Between this time and the time of Shelley's decision to add to the Preface, all pages of notebook E.I were used for other writings (the pages apparently reserved for addition to the Preface were given to the opening of the Ion translation). Possibly the poet had determined to let the four paragraphs stand without addition, since they commented adequately on the subject matter of the poem, its relationship to the Greek models, and the circumstances under which it was written. But the last five paragraphs, with their strong defense against the charge of imitation, were called forth by an attack against Shelley in a review of The Revolt of Islam published in the Quarterly Review for April, 1819. In this review, after commenting on resemblances to Southey, the writer (John Taylor Coleridge) stated: [Shelley] draws largely on the rich stores of another mountain poet, to whose religious mind it must be matter, we think, of perpetual sorrow to see the phil- osophy which comes pure and holy from his pen, degraded and perverted, as it 24 Introduction continually is, by this miserable crew of atheists or pantheists, who have just sense enough to abuse its terms, but neither heart nor principle to comprehend its import, or follow its application [pp. 461-62]. This review did not reach Shelley until October, and it was almost certainly at that time that he wrote his answer: the final five paragraphs of the Prometheus Unbound Preface. Shelley thought, erroneously, that Southey had written the article, and so declared in a letter from Florence to the Olliers dated October 15, 1819. He added: The only remark worth notice in this piece is the assertion that I imitate Wordsworth. It may as well be said that Lord Byron imitates Wordsworth, or that Wordsworth imitates Lord Byron, both being great poets, and deriving from the new springs of thought and feeling, which the great events of our age have exposed to view, a similar tone of sentiment, . imagery, and expression. A certain similarity all the best writers of any particular age inevitably are marked with, from the spirit of that age acting on all. This I had explained in my preface [to The Revolt of Islam], which the writer was too disingenuous to advert to [Julian, X, 95-96]. The pertinent sentences from that earlier preface were as follows: I have avoided, as I have said before, the imitation of any contemporary style. But there must be a resemblance, which does not depend upon their own will, between all the writers of any particular age. They cannot escape from sub- jection to a common influence which arises out of an infinite combination of circumstances belonging to the times in which they live; though each is in a degree the author of the very influence by which his being is thus pervaded. . . . And this [the influence of the age] is an influence which neither the meanest scribbler nor the sublimest genius of any era can escape; and which I have not attempted to escape. Urged on by the challenge of the review, Shelley restated his position for inclusion in the Preface to the new poem. Having made a rough draft of the new material (see Appendix A) for all but the last paragraph (which was worked up in E.3), Shelley, if we may judge by the pen and ink used, copied it almost immediately into E.3 (Freeman, Text, p. 23). For this purpose he turned the notebook upside down and began writing on page 38r, continuing on 38r, 37V, 36r, 35r, 32r, 3'lr, and 30r. The skipped pages had already been used for the text of Act III or for additions thereto. Shortly after the E manuscript became available to scholars in 1893, Julius Zupitza made a careful study of the notebooks. He took as his com- parative text that of Forman, and indicated the differences to be found in the manuscript. He also described the manuscript in some detail, gave the canceled readings and the alterations made by Shelley as he worked over the lines, and, although his work was not complete in every detail, he of- fered the first nearly full picture of the nature of the manuscript and its contents. Before his materials were ready for publication, however, Zupitza died, and Joseph Schick worked the data into final form, adding Introduction 25 comments of his own and, after checking earlier editions against the manuscript in respect to certain of the debated readings, indicating whether support or refutation was to be found in Shelley's hand. The results ("Zu Shelleys Prometheus Unbound") were published in three articles in 1899. One may disagree with some of the Zupitza-Schick readings, and point out some of the omissions and errors, but all who work with textual matters in Shelley's poem must acknowledge a debt for the care and skill with which this preliminary work was done. In such matters, involving chirographical difficulties, approximation to the truth can come only through re threading of the maze by many minds, with each later transcriber resting heavily on the work of those who have gone before. So it was that Locock, in his Examination (1903), acknowledged that he had compared his work with that of Zupitza-Schick, and his readings were usually in general agreement with those of the German scholars (differences and conjectures will be treated in the Textual Notes of the present edition). But his aim was much less inclusive than theirs, and he attempted no de- tailed analysis of the variant readings. Also, while he admitted the im- portance of variations in punctuation, he did not list them but instead in- vited scholars to write him with respect to questions in this field. This must be considered a serious lack in his work, for, although Shelley was frequently faulty in his punctuation, any light that can be thrown on his phrasing is of importance. As might be expected, however, the fact of Locock's publication in English gave such readings as he discussed con- siderable weight, especially when they appeared in the widely influential edition of Hutchinson in the following year, and in Locock's own edition in 1911. No further work of note was done on the manuscript until, as we have seen above, Martin J. Freeman sought to establish a more exact text for the poem as his doctoral dissertation in 1934. The manuscript materials next in importance to those just described are to be found in the early drafts that occupy parts of two notebooks presented to Richard Garnett by Lady Jane Shelley and, through later sales to W. K. Bixby and Henry E. Huntington, now housed in the Huntington Library. These notebooks, catalogued as Huntington MSS 2176 and 2177, contain, in addition to much material not pertinent to Prometheus Unbound., drafts of parts of the latter poem in handwriting that confirms Trelawny's description of Shelley's poem, With a Guitar, to Jane: "It was a frightful scrawl; words smeared out with his finger, and one upon the other, over and over in tiers, and all run together in most admired disorder; it might have been taken for a sketch of a marsh overgrown with bulrushes, and the blots for wild ducks."38 Compared with these pages, the E copy is 83Quoted in Zupitza-Schick ("Prometheus," Archiv, GUI, 310). Compare also Mrs. Shelley's statement with respect to Posthumous Poems (in her note on Poems 26 Introduction indeed "fair," and after Harry Buxton Forman had transcribed and edited the draft notebooks for the Bibliophile Society of Boston (1911) he was justly praised by "HHH," who wrote the Preface and who offered the following comment: The task of deciphering the contents of these Note Books seemed impossible; it could be accomplished only by one thoroughly familiar with Shelley's hand- writing, and with an intimate acquaintance with practically his entire works, as well as a knowledge of his habits and characteristics, and the methods he em- ployed in constructing his work. Shelley adopted no systematic order of paging in these books — sometimes he would write in the front, then in the back, then with the book bottom side up, and frequently he wrote up and down the pages length- wise after having written across them — and never any too plainly. Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and English are all mixed up together, and lines in one language often appear written directly or diagonally across other lines written in another language. . . . Fragments of poems here and there all through the books had to be puzzled out and transcribed, and then fitted together with their related parts, wherever they might be found. . . . Imagine one coming across a disconnected passage and, after disentangling it from the confused mass of crisscross lines, being able to identify it as the five hundred and ninety-first line of Prometheus Unbound [Note Books, pp. xi-xii] !34 Huntington MS 2176 contains the following draft lines for Act IV of Prometheus Unbound: 185-93, 319-27, 370-423, 431-36, 444-48, 457-70, 481-92, 500-16, 519-23, and 529-38. These lines are not, of course, given in the order indicated, as the above comment makes clear, and their complex development and paging will be evident if the transcription in the present edition is consulted (see Appendix A). Huntington MS 2177 contains less Prometheus Unbound material Four of the five final paragraphs of the Preface are in draft (the fifth appears to have been worked up originally in Bodleian E.3 at the time these four were copied therein), as is the "Song of the Spirits" (the "Down, down" lyric at II.iii.54-98), and an earlier draft of IV.397-99. Some speculation has been offered as to the order in which the stanzas of the "Song of Spirits" were written (the notebook order is iii, ii, i, iv, v), but Shelley's habit of using pages or parts of pages without regard for textual continuity must rule out any certainty on this problem. Other manuscript material in the form of drafts bearing on Prometheus Unbound remained in the possession of Sir John Shelley-Rolls until 1946, of 1822) : "Did anyone see the papers from which I drew that volume, the wonder would be how any eyes or patience were capable of extracting it from so confused a mass, interlined and broken into fragments, so that the sense could only be deciphered and joined by guesses which might seem rather intuitive than founded on reasoning." Of these two notebooks, HM 2176 has 56 leaves, 4 by 5M inches, and HM 2177 has 94 leaves, 3 5A by 5 Y* inches. 34The line number was apparently hypothetical, as there is no draft for line 591 of any act in these notebooks. Introduction 27 when his collection of Shelleyana was presented to the Bodleian Library.35 Previously, however, six passages (involving fifty-two text lines) had been transcribed for the Julian Edition of the works (see 1.766, 772-79; II.i.133- 40; II.ii.2, 5-23, 41-56), and two additional passages (twenty -six lines con- jectured to be for Prometheus Unbound) had been included in the Shelley - Rolls-Ingpen Verse and Prose (1934). In each instance only a somewhat faulty abstract of the passage was given, with no indication of the changes made by the poet in working out his drafts. Unfortunately, the gift of Shelley-Rolls has not yet been indexed or fully described (leaving one the anticipation of later discoveries), but, through the courtesy and diligence of the Keeper of Western Manuscripts at the Bodleian Library, the two passages given in Verse and Prose and three of the passages given by Ingpen-Peck have been identified (MS Shelley adds, e.12) and photostated for my independent examination, thus permitting a complete transcrip- tion for the first time. In addition, my attention was directed by the Keeper of Western Manuscripts to another draft fragment (II.iii.28-42, in MS Shelley adds, c.4) and a part of the Preface (in MS Shelley adds. e.ll), photostats of which were supplied to me for first transcription (see Appendix A). The final item of manuscript remains is a rough draft of IV.327-31, written on the verso of page 16 (Shelley's numbering) of a manuscript of The Mask of Anarchy. The manuscript was reprinted in facsimile by the Shelley Society (with an introduction by H. B. Forman) in 1887, and I have worked from this facsimile for the transcription in Appendix A. CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS36 GENESIS OF SHELLEY'S INTEREST IN THE THEME Evidence of Shelley's interest in the Promethean theme is of two types: his direct references to or use of the myth, and expressions in his work that reflect the ideas inherent in the myth. Of the former, the first item of possible significance is the letter written to Clio Rickman on December 24, 88 For a description of these materials see Neville Rogers' "The Shelley-Rolls Gift lo the Bodleian Library," TLS, July 27, August 3, and August 10, 1951. 36In this part of the Introduction only the fairly general trends in critical opinion have been indicated, with more specific references to acts, scenes, or lines reserved for the Critical Notes. Here, also, no attempt has been made to list all of the pertinent critical comments (which could result only in tiresome duplication), but frequent quotation rather than mere summary has been used in order that something of the spirit of the criticism might be communicated. A topical rather than a purely chronological approach has seemed most meaningful and has been employed, although within each subsection a chronological listing of items has been approximated, with such deviations as unity of thought has dictated. Since chronology is of importance in such a survey, however, dates have been included in either the text or the references, in order that the reader may at all times be oriented in the midst of what will frequently be unfamiliar names. 28 Introduction 1812, in which he ordered, among other books, a copy of Aeschylus, with the direction that it should be an "original and translation, if possible, united" (Julian, IX, 35-36). It may, of course, be assumed that Shelley knew the myth as such from his earlier studies, and in 1813 he made use of it in a manner strangely different from that to be found in Prometheus Unbound. In a note to Queen Mab VIII.211-12 (incorporated also into A Vindication of Natural Diet, 1813), he followed the interpretation found in John Frank Newton's Return to Nature; or, A Defence of the Vegetable Regimen (London, 1811), in which Prometheus was made responsible for the ills of the world because he taught the use of animal food. In view of the varied interpretations to be given later to Shelley's poem, it is inter- esting to note his own emphasis at this time, and his awareness of the uncertainties of allegorical interpretation: The story of Prometheus is one likewise which, although universally admitted to he allegorical, has never been satisfactorily explained. Prometheus stole fire from heaven, and was chained for this crime to Mount Caucasus, where a vulture continually devoured his liver, that grew to meet its hunger. Hesoid says thai, before the time of Prometheus, mankind were exempt from suffering; that they enjoyed a vigorous youth, and that death, when at length it came, approached like sleep, and gently closed their eyes. . . . How plain a language is spoken by all this! Prometheus (who represents the human race) effected some great change in the condition of his nature, and applied fire to culinary purposes; thus inventing an expedient for screening from his disgust the horrors of the shambles. From this moment his vitals were devoured by the vulture of disease. It consumed his being in every shape of its loathsome and infinite variety, inducing the soul-quelling sinkings of premature and violent death. All vice rose from the ruin of healthful innocence. Tyranny, superstition, commerce, and inequality were then first known, when reason vainly attempted to guide the wanderings of exacerbated passion. Shelley then quoted further from Newton to show that "Jupiter, and the rest of the gods, foreseeing the consequences of these inventions, were amused or irritated at the short-sighted devices of the newly -formed creature, and left him to experience the sad effects of them." As Douglas Bush remarked: "No one could predict Prometheus Unbound from Shelley's interpretation" of the myth in this note (Mythology, 1937, p. 133). It is clear that by 1816 the Aeschylean play was of active interest to the poet. Mrs. Shelley's list of his reading included it for the year, and Thomas Medwin recorded that in the same year the poet translated it for Byron at Lake Geneva (Shelley, p. 161); even as, in 1820, he was to make an oral translation for Medwin, "reading it as fluently as if written in French or Italian," and his words "often flowed on line after line in blank verse, into which very harmonious prose resolves itself naturally" (pp. 242-43). It is, of course, not surprising that by 1820 Shelley had thus completely mastered the text. In March, 1818, Shelley recorded the passage of Les Echelles in Savoy, on the journey to Italy, and called upon Aeschylus for comparison: "The Introduction 29 scene is like that described in the Prometheus of ^Eschylus. Vast rifts and caverns in the granite precipices, wintry mountains with ice and snow above; the loud sounds of unseen waters within the caverns, and walls of toppling rocks, only to be scaled as he described, by the winged chariot of the ocean nymphs" (Julian, IX, 293.)37 And later in the same year, after completing Act I of the drama, he wrote to Thomas Love Peacock on October 8 asking "what there is in Cicero about a drama supposed to have been written by /Eschylus under this title [Prometheus Unbound}" (IX, 336. See Appendix E for the Cicero passage). Carlos Baker called Prometheus Unbound "Shelley's first successful at- tempt to synthesize the ideas which he had handled (separately or con- fusedly) in the works of his apprentice period5' (Shelley's Major Poetry, 1948, p. 6), and the "internal evidence" of Shelley's interest in the Prome- thean theme is to be found in related ideas used in these earlier efforts. Many echoes will be found recorded in the Critical Notes of the present edition, but here we may observe some of the broader aspects of the prob- lem, such as the relevance, noted by N. I. White, of the letter of October 18, 1811, to Elizabeth Hitchener: "I have long been convinced of the eventual omnipotence of mind over matter; adequacy of motive is sufficient to anything, and my golden age is when the present potence will become omnipotence Will it not be the task of human reason, human powers?" (Shelley, I, 195; Julian, VIII, 160). A wide range of early prose and poetry has been marshaled to show the anticipations of thought in Prometheus Unbound,™ but by far the larger 370n her return to England in 1823, Mrs. Shelley passed this scene once more and wrote to Leigh Hunt, on August 1, that the "dark high precipices towering above gave S[helley] the idea of his Prometheus" (Letters, I, 23940). 88Typical comments: Gliasta and The Wandering Jew: "The angel choruses of Prome- theus Unbound stumbled through the measures of [these pieces] before they learned to dance to the music of the spheres" (E. S. Bates, "Mad Shelley," 1929, p. 140); The Necessity of Atheism: "[The] attitude of protest and rebellion [gives way] to a positive faith in man's capacity for self -emancipation from himself by the strength of his own spiritual nature, which is akin to the universal soul of intellectual beauty and love" (J. S. Thomson, "Unbinding of Prometheus," 1945, p. 10); Alastor: "[The] massive feeling for the Earth [is] a true forerunner of the mighty Earth -song Prome- theus" (G. W. Knight, Starlit Dome, 1941, p. 207); The Assassins: "[It] breathes that spirit of domestic peace and general brotherhood founded on love, which was developed afterwards in the 'Prometheus Unbound' " (Mrs. Shelley, Preface, 1839, p. x) ; Essay on Christianity: "[A] kind of prose gloss on Prometheus Unbound" (0. Elton, Shelley, 1912, p. 74) ; Rosalind and Helen: indicative of Shelley's interest in the victory of the Good (H. Druskowitz, Shelley, 1884, p. 252) ; Frankenstein (assuming Shelley's collaboration): similar in the theme of "victorious pantheism" (A. Delrieu, "Po&tes modernes," 1843, p. 197) ; Julian and Maddalo: like Prometheus Unbound a projection of Shelley's own tragedy, with the "hysterical agony of the madman" idealized into the "god-like agony of Prometheus, with less emphasis upon personal, and more upon vicarious suffering," but with both showing evil overcome by the practice of will 30 Introduction numbers of such comparisons have been those relating to Queen Mob and The Revolt of Islam, with Carl Grabo noting that both poems (and The Wandering Jew) were like Prometheus Unbound in theme: "the rebel and heretic defying tyranny, whether secular or divine, and, though suffering torments, remaining master of his soul and in his steadfastness giving assur- ance of the tyrant's ultimate overthrow" (Newton among Poets, 1930, p. 28). With respect to Queen Mab, three points of view have prevailed. The first has held that Prometheus Unbound was very close to Queen Mob in theme. Thus Delrieu felt that the "insolent spinozism" of the Queen Mob notes was now given in abstract form fTo&tes modernes," 1843, p. 186); (B. Kurtz, Introduction, 1933, pp. xlii-xliii; Pursuit of Death, 1933, pp. 145, 150) ; A Philosophical View of Reform: "The main historical action is the same . . . namely a symbolic depiction of the age from the French Revolution to the establishment of the tyranny of the Quadruple Alliance and a projection of that age into the future" (K. N. Cameron, Edition, 1951, p. xxi); The Witch of Atlas (although written after the drama): "[The] best preface to the study of Prometheus,'" for it is identical in "philosophy, symbolism, and imagery," since it and The Cloud "were fashioned from poetic materials rejected in the shaping of Prometheus . . . because they did not suit the theme and scope of that grave and profound poem" (C. Grabo, Meaning of the Witch, 1935, pp. vii, 21, 108). The most extensive single effort to trace the pre -Promethean ideas in Shelley's works, however, has been that recently undertaken by Bennett Weaver, who pointed out that "up until the writing of Prometheus Unbound the mass of Shelley's prose is greater than that of his poetry, and the main tendency of his thinking in the prose is toward the principles celebrated in the drama." He noted that as early as 1812 An Address to the Irish People and Proposals for an Association contained six of the "most important concepts" that eventuated in Prometheus Unbound: (1) tyranny, power, and evil; (2) virtue and wisdom as true power; (3) love as the solution; (4) need for succor for man; (5) the self-destruction of despotic power; and (6) the eventual triumph of good. Moreover, these ideas continued to dominate the prose, especially A Letter to Lord Ellenborough, A Vindication of Natural Diet, A Refutation of Deism, Tlie Assassins, Essay on Christianity, A Proposal for Putting the Reform to the Vote, An Address on the Death of the Princess Charlotte, and Speculations on Morals ("Pre-Promethean Prose," 1948, passim) . Weaver also traced, with particular emphasis on the reflection of Shelley's own personality in his characters, the earlier interest in the theme as found in three longer poems : Prince Athanase, Rosalind and Helen, and Julian and Maddalo. In these Weaver found such Promethean concepts as (1) acquaintance with suffering and grief; (2) love of fellow men and the desire to save them; (3) calm, steadfast invincibility; and (4) tyranny that will destroy itself and be lost in eternity ("Pre-Promethean Poems," 1950, passim). This investigation was extended in another article ("First Beginnings," 1953). With particular reference to the juvenilia, which he considered "too long neglected," Weaver traced, among other ideas, the concepts of eternity; aloneness deepening into madness (the madness not applicable to Prometheus, of course) ; the deeper love; and, especially, social sympathy and indignation against tyranny. Specific comparisons will be found in the Critical Notes. Weaver's essay, Prometheus Unbound, regrettably appeared too late for detailed inclusion in the present work. It is a wisely written study of the poem, offering a balanced, tempered reading illuminated by many fresh insights and mature judgments. Introduction 31 and William Michael Rossetti found the argument in the two poems to be the same: "the power of man, too truly and too bitterly proved in the past and in the present, to turn his earth into an approximate hell; and his power likewise, if he so wills it, by a gradual but energetic change of spirit, to turn his earth into an approximate heaven" ("Prometheus as Poem," 1887, p. 144). Paul Elmer More stated flatly: "Prometheus is only Queen Mob writ large" ("Shelley," 1910, p. 14) ; and while Joseph Barrell would not go this far he did feel that the "essential Shelley" was fundamentally emotional rather than intellectual, and that at the end of both poems he returned to this emotionalism (Shelley and Thought, 1947, p. 158). The second point of view, more widespread, has recognized advances made in Prometheus Unbound on the ideas of Queen Mob. Thus Medwin, in discussing Shelley's attitude toward materialism, but without naming the earlier poem, wrote: A sufficient answer to the eloquent, but specious reasoning of Mirabeau, the Materialism of the Systeme de la Nature, so unanswerable to the mere matter-of- fact mind, is given in Shelley's Prometheus Unbound. It is the best practical refutation of the maxim, that "there is nothing in the intellect, that was not first in the senses," and of all the sorrowful deductions therefrom [Shelley, 1847, p. 431]. Thornton Hunt stated this view clearly in finding "a more distinct present- ment of the original ideas [of Queen Mob and The Revolt of Islam], coupled with a much more measured suggestion for acting on them, and a far less bitter allusion to the obstacles; while the charity and love are more all- embracing and apparent than ever" ("Shelley," 1863, p. 201). This position was amplified by John Todhunter: Queen Mob is chiefly interesting as being the forerunner of Prometheus Unbound, containing as it does the first rough sketch of the philosophy which, purified and perfected, is embodied in the great lyrical drama in a mythical form. There, however, we find some glimpses of an evolution -theory which are not discernible in the juvenile poem [Study, 1880, p. 4.6] . George Gordon wrote: "The new world of the Prometheus ... is far from the Arcadia of Queen Mob, and farther still from anything which men can hope for within a time worth measuring. The passion for reform is lost in the rapturous contemplation not merely of the world made better, but of a better world" (Shelley and the Oppressors, 1923, p. 11). Carl Grabo stressed the difference between the materialistic and deterministic phase of Shelley's scientific thought in the earlier poem, and the reconciliation of science with Piatonism in the later work (Newton among Poets, 1930, p. xi), and Grabo stated: " Prometheus Unbound is the work of a poet who has ceased to be a reformer and has become a philosopher" (Interpretation, 1935, p. 8).39 89Carlos Baker, in a study that appeared too late for detailed inclusion in the present work ("Bottom of the Night," 1957), found Prometheus Unbound "the key poem in the development of [Shelley's] humanism," which was the "second of his way -stations" (the first: philosophical materialism [materialistic Necessity]) (p. 195). 32 Introduction The third point of view has been concerned with the changes from Queen Mob to be found in the lyrical drama. Thus Grabo pointed out thai Shelley reversed his earlier idea that mind is but a function of matter, and in Prometheus Unbound the will became free (Interpretation, 1935, p. 168); and N. I. White noted several important differences in the two poems: (1) vegetarianism and the evils of marriage are not mentioned in Prome- theus Unbound; (2) Christ, an imposter in Queen Mob, is given sympathetic treatment in the later poem; (3) evil becomes "a subtle perversion of thought" rather than an external phenomenon, as in Queen Mob; (4) free- dom of the will, denied in Queen Mab, becomes "the one quality that bulwarks humanity against an eternity of oppression"; and (5) the neces- sity of Queen Mab is replaced by love in Prometheus Unbound (Shelley, 1940, II, 125-26). Comparisons with The Revolt of Islam have been in much the same vein. Leigh Hunt, on first reading Prometheus Unbound, wrote to Shelley on August 23, 1820: "What noble things in it! What grand lines and affection- ate thoughts! But it is liable to some of the objections against the Revolt of Islam" (Correspondence, I, 158). Mrs. Shelley, in her note to Prometheus Unbound, compared Laon to the "more idealized" Prometheus, and de- scribed Shelley's favorite subject as "the image of One warring with the Evil Principle, oppressed not only by it, but by all — even the good, who were deluded into considering evil a necessary portion of humanity; a victim full of fortitude and hope and the spirit of triumph emanating from a reliance on the ultimate omnipotence of Good" (see Appendix C). John Addington Symonds suggested that Prometheus and Jupiter "give the form of personality to Shelley's Ormuzd-Ahrirnan dualism already ex- pressed in the first canto of [The Revolt of Islam]; but instead of being represented on the theatre of human life, the strife is now removed into the region of abstractions, vivified by mythopoetry" (Shelley, 1878, pp. 121-22). Stopford Brooke wrote that in the earlier poem "there is no artistic fusion of the poetry which aims at giving a high pleasure with that which aims at awakening man to his duties. That fusion was made in the Prometheus Unbound" (Edition, 1882, p. xv); but he noted also that the subject in both poems "is at root the same," and "the things opposed are the same, the doctrine is the same, but the whole method of approaching his idea and fulfilling its form is changed, and all the questions are brought into that artistic representation which stirs around them inspiring and enduring emotion" (p. xxvi). Brooke also held that, had Shelley remained in Eng- land, "I do not think he would have worked on this matter in the ideal way of Prometheus Unbound, because continual contact with the reigning theology would have driven his easily wrought anger into direct violence [as in The Revolt of Islam]" ("Thoughts on Shelley," 1880, p. 126). Carlos Baker noted that in The Revolt of Islam Shelley adopted from Peacock's Ahrimanes the idea that the world was governed by a Necessity Introduction 33 which dwelt apart, '"ready, if the world were ready, to usher in a new order." The plan of Prometheus Unbound, Baker held, was similar; but, "where the revolution failed in Islam, having been superinduced by out- ward action, that in Prometheus Unbound, having involved and taken place in man's whole mental constitution, must succeed" (Shelley's Major Poetry, 1948, pp. 101-2). And finally, Kenneth Neil Cameron commented: His object in writing Prometheus Unbound was the same as his object had been the previous year in writing The Revolt of Islam: "[Gloom] and misanthropy have become the characteristics of the age in which we live, the solace of a disappoint- ment that unconsciously finds relief only in the wilful exaggeration of its own despair. . . . But mankind appear to me to be emerging from their trance. I am aware, methinks, of a slow, gradual, silent change. In that belief I have composed the following Poem" (Shelley's Preface) [Edition, 1951, p. xxii]. TRENDS IN CRITICAL OPINION Hie first expressions of critical opinion with respect to Prometheus Un- bound came from the poet himself. After completing Act I he was almost apologetic as he wrote to Peacock on January 24, 1819: I consider Poetry very subordinate to moral and political science, and if I were well, certainly I should aspire to the latter; for I can conceive a great work, embodying the discoveries of all ages, and harmonising the contending creeds by which man- kind have been ruled. Far from me is such an attempt, and I shall be content, by exercising my fancy, to amuse myself, and perhaps some others, and cast what weight I can into the right scale of that balance, which the Giant of Arthegall holds40 [Julian, X, 21]. As the work progressed there were some twenty evaluations of the drama by the poet, encompassing four general areas of consideration. Most frequently Shelley stated without hesitation that the poem was his favorite, superior to his other work, and would please the person to whom the letter was addressed. Typical was his statement to the Olliers on October 15, 1819, that it was "a poem in my best style, whatever that may amount to," and that "It is the most perfect of my productions" (X, 95); and his comment to Trelawny: "If that is not durable poetry, tried by the severest test, I do not know what is. It is a lofty subject, not inadequately treated, and should not perish with me" (Trelawny, Records, 4t)Peacock explained the reference as follows: "The allusion is to the Fairy Queen book v, canto 3. The Giant has scales, in which he professes to weigh right and wrong, and rectify the physical and moral evils which result from inequality of condition. Shelley once pointed out this passage to me, observing, cArtegall argues with the Giant; the Giant has the best of the argument; Artegall's iron man knocks him over into the sea and drowns him. This is the usual way in which power deals with opinion.' I said, 'That was not the lesson which Spenser intended to convey.' Terhaps not,' he said; 'it is the lesson which he conveys to me. I am of the Giant's faction.' In the same feeling, with respect to Thomson's Castle of Indolence, he held that the Enchanter in the first canto was a true philanthropist, and the Knight of Arts and Industry in the second an oligarchical imposter overthrowing truth by power" (Letters, p. 319). 34 Introduction 1878, I, xv). Again to Trelawny he said: "It is original; and cost me severe mental labour. Authors, like mothers, prefer the children who have given them most trouble" (p. 118) .41 The originality of the poem, noted in the preceding quotation, was par- ticularly stressed by the poet on four different occasions. To Peacock, April 6, 1819, he wrote: "It is a drama with characters and mechanism of a kind yet unattempted" (Julian, X, 48); to the Olliers on September 6 he called it "perhaps less an imitation of anything that has gone before it" (X, 79); in greater detail, to Medwin on July 20, 1820, he described it as a composition of a totally different character [from The Cenci]* I do not know if it be wise to affect variety in compositions, or whether the attempt to excel in many ways does not debar from excellence in one particular kind. "Prometheus Unbound," is in the merest spirit of ideal Poetry, and not, as the name would indicate, a mere imitation of the Greek drama, or indeed if I have been successful, is it an imitation of anything [X, 191-92] ; and in a letter of July 27, telling Keats to expect a copy of Prometheus Unbound, Shelley wrote: "In poetry I have sought to avoid system and mannerism" (X, 194). Shelley was also aware that the poem was of such character and quality that it could not be popular. He wrote the Olliers on March 6, 1820, that, teif I may judge by its merits, the Trometheus' cannot sell beyond twenty copies" (X, 148) ; to Medwin on April 16: "Not that [the poems in the 1820 volume] will sell; they are the reverse, in this respect, of the razors in 'Peter Pindar,' A man like me can in fact only be a poet by dint of stinting him- self of meat and drink to pay his printer's bill — that is, he can only print poems on this condition" (X, 157); and to Hunt on May 26: ccit is written only for the elect" (X, 171). In November he was happy that Claire Clairmont liked the poem: "My verses please so few persons that I make much of the encouragement of the few, whose judgment (if I were to listen to Vanity, the familiar spirit of our race) I should say with Shakspeare and Plato 'outweighed a whole theatre of others' " (X, 226). On February 16, 1821, he wrote the Olliers again: "For Trometheus' I expect and desire no great sale" (X, 237). And as late as January 26, 1822, in a letter to John Gisborne, he declared that "Prometheus was never intended for more than 5 or 6 persons" (X, 354). It would appear, however, that he was sufficiently human to hope, for on February 22, 1821, he wrote to Charles Oilier: "Pray tell me how the Trometheus Unbound' was received" (X, 244).42 41See also Julian, X, 48, 79, 87, 131, 135, 148, 155, 157, 168, 171, 319. 42The number of copies printed for Oilier is not known, making it difficult to estimate sales, but as a possible comparison there were, according to F. L. Jones, five hundred copies of Posthumous Poems printed (Mary Shelley, Letters, I, 264n). On January 11, 1822, John Gisborne wrote to Shelley: "I cannot help thinking that the Prometheus must have had a more extensive sale than you are aware of. I have been reading the quarterly review upon it, and taking it for granted that the reviewers know their Introduction 35 Finally, Shelley was conscious of the possible obscurities with which the poem was soon to be charged. In dedicating The Cenci to Leigh Hunt he wrote: "Those writings which I have hitherto published, have been little else than visions which impersonate my own apprehensions of the beautiful and the just. . . . [They] are dreams of what ought to be, or may be" (Dedication of The Cenci). 43 Even more to the point, Trelawny reported Shelley to have said: Mine is a life of failures. Peacock says my poetry is composed of day-dreams and night-mares. . . . Jefferson Hogg says all poetry is inverted sense, and consequently nonsense. Every man should attempt to do something. Poetry was the rage of the day, and I racked my imagination to be a poet. I wrote, and the critics de- nounced me as a mischievous visionary, and my friends said that I had mistaken my vocation, that my poetry was mere rhapsody of words; that I was soaring in the blue regions of the air, disconnected from all human sympathy [Records, 1878,1,135-36]. With respect to Prometheus Unbound itself Shelley wrote the Olliers on November 10, 1820, regretting that the errors of the press were so numer- ous, tcand in many respects so destructive of the sense of a species of poetry which, I fear, even with [without?] this disadvantage, very few will understand or like" (X, 219) ; and again to Charles Oilier, on June 8, 1821, he told of his intention to print or transcribe Adonais "in such a manner business, their criticisms may be considered much more ample and elaborate than they would have been on a work of very limited circulation. I believe very many of their readers will admit the charge of unintelligibility on most of the passages which they quote. La schiera dei sciocchi e infinita! ['The company of the stupid is infinite!']'' (Abinger MSS, Reel 14). Another item in the Abinger MSS (Reel 16) is in error. It is an index of several letters written by Leigh Hunt, the subject of one of which to Shelley (dated April 6, 1820, before publication of the poem) is given as follows: "The Prome- theus Unbound 1st Edition nearly exhausted." The letter, while not in the collection, nor in the editions, is given in Shelley and Mary (II, 489) and shows the reference to be to The Cenci. The final bit of evidence, found in a letter from Charles Oilier to Mrs. Shelley, dated November 17, 1823, offers little positive information. In it he advised her that he had sent to John Hunt (who was to publish Posthumous Poems), at her request, "such copies of Mr. Shelley's works as remained in my possession," including twelve copies of Prometheus Unbound in "quires." He noted also, however, that "the unsold stock of those [works] which were printed at our sole expense were disposed of in the general sale of our property; but, as I thought that, when you came to England, you might like to have a copy or two of each, I reserved some few for that purpose"; and that "the sale, in every instance, of Mr. Shelley's works has been very confined" (Abinger MSS, Reel 15). If a possible edition of five hundred is assumed, twelve re- mainders would indeed be a respectably small number, but that the twelve copies of Prometheus Unbound sent to Hunt may well have been only those "reserved" is sug- gested by the fact that exactly the same number of copies of Hellas, Rosalind and Helen, and The Cenci, in quires, were among the items listed for Hunt (ibid.). 43Later, Charles Middle ton in a unique (and surely unwarranted) statement, linked Prometheus Unbound and The Cenci as follows: "In these the lifeblood of reality circulates more freely [than in the earlier works]" (Shettey, 1858, II, 166). 36 Introduction as it shall be difficult for the reviser to leave such errors as assist the ob- scurity of the Trometheus' " (X, 273). On May 4 of this year he had written to Byron, possibly with respect to the printer's errors (see above, p. 8) but, in view of the transposed quo- tation from Horace's Art of Poetry (lines 39-40), more likely in a moment of uncertainty: "The Trometheus' is ... a very imperfect poem. I begin to learn, 'quid valeant humeri, quid ferre recusent' ['what your shoulders refuse, and what they are able to bear']" (X, 266). And Trelawny re- ported that Shelley had told him: "My friends say my Trometheus' is too wild, ideal, and perplexed with imagery. It may be so" (Records, 1878, 1, 118). With the publication of the poem there began the growth of that forest of criticism which it is frequently difficult to see because of the trees of prejudice, special pleading, and sheer obtuseness with which it is planted. Perhaps, in surveying the lavish growth, it will be most helpful to blaze six trails that will lead to the major areas of consideration accorded to the poem. If it is kept in mind that there is abundant overlapping, it may be said that these areas have been concerned primarily with (1) the general response to the "poetry" — the lyrics, descriptions, originality; (2) the ob- scurity, wordiness, and intangibility of the poem; (3) the dramatic tech- niques; (4) the versecraft; (5) the relationships to earlier writers; and (6) the political, religious, moral, and scientific ideas. ON THE GENERAL POETIC QUALITY OF THE POEM Extreme — even violent — as have been the attacks on Shelley's opinions, they have, with rare exceptions, been balanced by praise for the lyrical and poetic beauty of the poem. "Unsettled, irregular, but magnificent," was the 1820 prepublication judgment of the London Magazine (see Appendix D, item I); and in the same year Horace Smith, although he preferred The Cenci, wrote Shelley on September 4 that Prometheus Un- bound was "a most original, grand, & occasionally sublime work, evincing, in my opinion, a higher order of talent than any of your previous produc- tions [But] tho' I have no doubt it will be more admired than anything you have written, I question whether it will be so much read as the Cerici" (Abinger MSS, Reel 14). To this an early reviewer added "stupendous," "gigantic outlines," "innumerable sweetnesses," and "a vast wilderness of beauties" (London-Critical Magazine, 1820; see Appendix D, item IV); and Edmund Blunden (in Rogers, Keats, Shelley, p. 53) has noted that "At Oxford in 1822 [T. L] Beddoes wrote in a blank leaf of Prometheus Un< bound": Write it in gold — A spirit of the sun, An intellect ablaze with heavenly thoughts, A soul with all the dews of pathos shining, Introduction 37 Odorous with love, and sweet to silent woe With the dark glories of concentrate song, Was sphered in mortal earth. Angelic sounds, Alive with panting thoughts, sunned the dim world. The bright creations of an human heart Wrought magic in the bosoms of mankind. A flooding summer burst on poetry; Of which the crowning sun, the night of beauty, The dancing showers, the birds whose anthems wild Note after note unbind the enchanted leaves Of breaking buds, eve, and the flow of dawn, Were centred and condensed in his one name As in a providence — and that was SHELLEY. Such expressions, often accompanying predominantly adverse criticism on the ideas expressed in the poem, were not uncommon in the decades that followed. Later, in a general defense of the poet, R. A. Holland asked: But where else will you find such cosmic might of imagination condensing diffuses! nebulae of mind into a world of dream with landscapes clear as ever delighted eye of flesh yet so phantasmal, it seems, the jar of a sunbeam would dissolve them . . , such flights of speculation exploring height above height the remotest firmaments of mystery without a tiresome strain or dull droop of wing ["Soul of Shelley," 1876, pp. 155-56]; while George Barnett Smith ranked the poem "beneath the inspirations of Dante and those few spirits of the same sublime calibre, but only beneath these— to no inferior level can it be relegated" (Shelley, 1877, p. 204) ; and J. A. Syinonds believed that cca genuine liking for Prometheus Unbound may be reckoned the touch-stone of a man's capacity for understanding lyric poetry," and found in it "melody more purged of mortal dross than any other poet's ear has caught, while listening to his own heart's song, or to the rhythms of the world" (Shelley, 1878, p. 124). Probably the most lavish praise of the century came from John Tod- hunter, who became almost breathless in wordy adoration of the poem and reached his climax by writing: It is to all other lyrical poems what the Ninth Symphony is to all other sym- phonies; and more than this, for Shelley has here outsoared himself more un- questionably than Beethoven in his last great orchestral work. Prometheus Unbound is the supreme English poem of the nineteenth century, and must finally rank beside King Lear, being as unrivalled in its own sphere, which can scarcely be called a lower, though an immensely narrower one. Adequately to speak of this great work, criticism should become poetry (Study, 1880, p. 134) ; and he added that, after reading the poem, "We return to the everyday world, from which we have been rapt away on the wings of passion, that "outlaw of Time and Space,' with a shock, to feel ourselves once more the prisoners of mortality" (p. 183). Edward Dowden was more temperate but found in the poem "radiant song," with music that "sounds like the voice of the quickening April winds" (Shelley, 1886, II, 264). 38 Introduction Such descriptions set the pattern for later praise,44 with the recent judgment of George Cowling typical: As a drama, even for the study, it is nothing. As a contribution to political science it is worthless. As a work of moral philosophy it is as vain as Shelley's own principles. Yet what magnificent blank verse! And what swift and beautiful songs! The imagery of the poem is a rainbow. In fact, the poem itself is a mirage; and a mirage is beyond condemnation. It may be unsubstantial, even illusion, but it is radiant, beautiful and iridescent [Shelley, 1936, p. 64] . But the devil's advocate was not without his phrasemakers, even with respect to the poetry, which an early reviewer found "wild and rhapsodical declamation," with Shelley no poet because neither lines nor images were retained by the reader (Dublin Magazine, 1820; see Appendix D, item VI). William Hazlitt, too, denied him the rank of poet, dismissing him as "a sophist, a theorist, a controversial writer in verse," and commenting on his "rhapsodies of words" and his "gaudy, flimsy, allegorical pictures on gauze, on the cobwebs of his own brain," together with a "mixture of fanatic zeal and poetical licentiousness" ("Table Talk," 1821; see Appen- dix D, item IX). Hazlitt also wrote: "The author of Prometheus Un- bound . . . has a fire in his eye, a fever in his blood, a maggot in his brain, a hectic flutter in his speech, which mark out the philosophic fanatic" (Works, VI, 148). To this the 1821 Quarterly Review added that "the rhythm of the verse is often harsh and unmusical; and both the ear and the understanding are disgusted by new and uncouth words, and by the awkward, and intricate construction of the sentences" (see Appendix D, item X). Twenty years later Emerson, without speaking of Prometheus Unbound in particular, agreed: "Shelley is never a poet. His mind is uniformly imitative; all his poems composite. A fine English scholar he is, with taste, ear, and memory; but imagination, the original authentic fire of the bard, he has not" (Journals, 1839, V, 344). And in the following year an anonymous writer found it "singular" that the poet should have been "contented with choral songs so loose in their structure, inexpressive, and not seldom unmelodious" (British Review^ 1840, p. 113); while George Gilfillan, admitting beauties "of a rare order," felt the poem was written too fast, in a state of overexcitement, and twenty years too soon, and that "its lyrics have more flow of sound than beauty of image or depth of sentiment" ("Prometheus," 1855, pp. 431-32). Rabbe, Francis Thompson, Salt, Wbodberry, J. M. Brown, Dawson, Payne, Brooke, More, 0. Elton, Glut ton -Brock, R. M. Smith, Lynd, Monroe, Ullman, and others. From these, two statements may be chosen: Stopford Brooke compared the poem to "a lyric written in a larger world than ours, on a mighty scale, for a universal music, by a great Archangel; by Raphael who in his glory still compassionates the earth" ("Lyrics of Shelley," 1907, p. 164); and Harriet Monroe wrote: "Shelley is at home in the heaven of heavens; the Prometheus soars like livid flame, and its choruses reach a celestial height of lyric exaltation. Whether spirits or echoes or furies speak, they speak with eternity behind and before them, reveal to us birthless and deathless minds" ("Shelley," 1922, p. 212)j Introduction 39 During the latter half of the century there was less opposition to the poetic quality of the poem, but with increasing admiration in the late decades it was perhaps inevitable that it would be revived. William Trent closed the century by objecting to the c 'extravagant" praise accorded the drama, and argued that "there are more false notes struck in the Prome- theus than in the rest of Shelley's poems taken together .... [The poem is] little more than a series of wonderful phantasmagoria flashed forth upon the curtain of the reader's mind by a very unsteady hand" ("Apropos of Shelley," 1899, pp. 86-87). This view was not unrelated to that of George R. Elliott some twenty years later: "[Shelley] was deficient in the artistic instinct of following an emotion through, into its full specific nature: this means that he lacked poetic spontaneity. He was animated by a quick, vague affectionateness" ("How Poetic Is Shelley's Poetry?" 1922, p. 317). To these charges was added that of monotony when Frank R. Leavis wrote that "the elusive imagery, the high-pitched emotions, the tone and move- ment, the ardours, ecstasies and despairs are too much the same all through" ("Shelley's Imagery," 1934, p. 278). And Louis MacNeice, in his turn, held that as the Romantic poets "preached or prophesied from an anarchist position their message failed to fuse with their poetry and we are left with message on the one hand and (usually) fantasy on the other," as witness that "very unsatisfactory work, Prometheus Unbound'" (Modern Poetry, 1938, pp. 3-4). MacNeice added: "Shelley was an inferior poet because he did not qualify his dogmas with observation. . . . Enthusiasm such as Shelley's is a great asset to a poet, but is the better if tempered with Reason and observation of fact" (p. 202). ON THE OBSCURITIES IN THE POEM As might be expected, and as the poet anticipated, charges of obscurity and intangibility were frequently leveled against the poem, although, as N. I. White has pointed out, "among the numerous passages analysed as absurd" occur most of those illustrating "Shelley's attempts to refine and extend the meaning of poetic expression" (Shelley, 1940, II, 131). Maria Gisborne noted in her journal for August 22, 1820, that William Godwin did not think he would read the drama through, "for he hates to read books that are full of obscurities and puzzles" (Journal, p. 45). To the reviewer in the Literary Gazette of 1820 it was "little else but absolute raving," "stupid trash," and "utter nonsense," and his reference to the "dramatis impersonae" represented an early reaction to the abstractness of the characters. In this review, also, appeared for the first time the pun on the title: ecno one can ever think him worth binding."45 The Monthly 45See Appendix D, item II for this review, and item XI for the versified appearance of the pun in John Butt. Charles Lamb's penchant for punning led Benjamin Kurtz into an interesting error when he stated that Lamb "found Prometheus Unbound just 40 Introduction Review for 1821 also found "pure unmixed nonsense" and "Manichean absurdities" (see Appendix D, item VII); Leigh Hunt on March 1, 1821, wrote Shelley that in his planned review he "did not expect to be able to make so abstract and odi-profanum a poem at all recommendable to readers in general" (Correspondence, I, 163) ; and the Quarterly Review in the same year was more detailed, holding that there might be differences of opinion and taste as to the poetry, but "the cpiestion of meaning, or no meaning, is a matter of fact on which common sense ... is adequate to decide"; that the poetry was "in general a mere jumble of words and heterogeneous ideas, connected by slight and accidental associations"; that the descrip- tions were in "language which is to be taken partly in a metaphorical meaning, and partly in no meaning at all"; that the poem had the same appeal to readers that the "incoherences of an itinerant Methodist preach- er" had for his congregation; and, finally, that the poetry was "drivelling prose run mad" (see Appendix D, item X) . Similar charges of obscurity occurred down to the end of the century, after which the critical efforts that had been made to clarify the more obscure parts of the poem began to bear fruit, and attention was given to other matters. Objections were raised also to the wordiness and hidden meaning of the poem. George Gilfillan wrote: "It is crushed under a load of thick allegori- cal darkness" (Sketches, 1845, p. 115); and, "The thought is frequently drowned in a diarrhoea of words; its dialogue is heavy and prolix" ("Prome- theus," 1855, p. 432). James Russell Lowell thought the poem represented Shelley "at his worst period, before his unwieldy abundance of incoherent words and images . . . had been compressed in the stricter molds of thought and study" (Complete Writings, 1867, II, 109) ; John M. Robertson wrote a capital story . . . and nothing else" (Pursuit of Death, 1933, p. 159). Lamb wrote lo Bernard Barton in August, 1824: "The Trometheus,' unbound, is a capital story. The literal rogue! What if you had ordered 'Elfrida' in sheets! she'd have been sent up I warrant you. ... I can no more understand Shelley than you can. His poetry is 'thin sown with profit or delight' " (Lamb, Works, p. 884). A friend of Barton had written a bookseller for a copy of Shelley's poem and was told that the work was not to be ob- tained "in sheets" (p. 1073). Apparently Barton passed the "capital story" (and the pun) on to Lamb. Later, Medwin credited Campbell with originating the quip (Shelley, 1847, p, 358). He described him as "a literary man, who has without a tythe of [Shelley's] genius obtained a hundredfold more reputation, [and who] with a sneer said to me— -* Prome- theus Unbound, It is well named. Who would bind it?' " (p. 214). Forman questioned Campbell as the originator of the story and noted its appearance in John Butt and "in a little volume of miscellanies in verse and prose called Sweepings of Parnassus (1830)" under the pseudonym of "Steropes." Forman added that some lines to "Steropes" were written in his copy of Sweepings, the pertinent few being "Prometheus yet remains Unbound / Whene'er in virgin state 'tis found, / Because, in bibliopolic hoards, /'Tis worth its weight of gold in boards,—/ Since Shelley's lovers love to see / That tome of master-minstrelsy/just as the folk beheld it first /When on a thankless world it burst" (Medwin, Shelley, p. 215). Rossetti identified the John Butt author as Theodore Hooke (Edition, 1870, I, cxxiii). Introduction 41 in such phrases as "luminous fog," "diffuse and fantastic digression," "falsetto declamation and rhyming verbiage," and "sound and fury, signifying nothing" ("Shelley and Poetry," 1884, pp. 224-26) ; and Andrew Lang rested in understatement: "I do not mean that everyone could pass an examination in the plot of 'Prometheus Unbound' " ("Letters," p. 8). Associated with these objections to the poem was that to the intangibility of character or scene. Keats, after reading The Cenci and in anticipation of the copy of Prometheus Unbound that Shelley had asked be sent to him, wrote in August, 1820, that Shelley "might curb your magnanimity, and be more of an artist, and load every rift of your subject with ore. ... I am in expectation of Prometheus every day. Could I have my own wish effected, you would have it still in manuscript, or be but now putting an end to the second act" (Letters, p. 507). Horace Smith, in a letter to Shelley on September 4, 1820, preferred The Cenci "because it contains a deep & sustained human interest, of which we feel a want in the other. Prometheus himself certainly touches us nearly, but we see very little of him after his liberation" (Abinger MSS, Reel 14). Shelley himself was aware of this difficulty and wrote to John Gisborne on October 22, 1821: "As to real flesh and blood, you know that I do not deal in those articles" (Julian, X, 333). J. A. Symonds felt that the main figures, sketched "on a scale of surpassing magnificence," had been reduced in their filling-in "too much to the level of earthly life," descending to the love story of Prometheus and Asia: "In other words, he does not sustain the visionary and primeval dignity of these incarnated abstractions; nor, on the other hand, has he so elaborated their characters in detail as to give them the substantiality of persons. There is therefore something vague and hollow in both figures" (Shelley, 1878, pp. 123-24); and George Calvert noted: "The figures, beam- ing with poetry, are not pulse-thridded bodies, but shining incarnations of principles and essences in the semblance of bodies. . . . Prometheus deals in elemental forces, in ideal forms, in voices more than in speakers, in humanized beams of light" (Coleridge, Shelley, Goethe, 1880, pp. 216, 218). John C. Shairp considered "the powers, and processes, and personified abstractions . . . ludicrously inadequate [to the reform idea], as irrational as it would be to try to build a solid house out of shadows and moon- beams"; and though he admitted that "the high ideal imparts to the poem something of its own elevation," he felt that the material of the lyrics was "fantastic, not substantial truth," and that they did not "deal with per- manent emotions which belong to all men and are for all time, but appeal rather to minds in a particular stage of culture, and that not a healthy stage" ("Lyric Poet," 1881, pp. 209-12). Francis Palgrave thought that "strokes of genuine natural description" were rare "amidst its vague unreal splendour, which too often sinks into what is hardly above prosaic verbiage/' although he admitted that at times Shelley "rises with a bird- like bound into his characteristic aerial beauty" (Landscape in Poetry \ 42 Introduction 1897, p. 222) ; Irving Babbitt held that "what is found in this play is the exact opposite of imaginative concentration on the human law. The imagination wanders irresponsibly in a region quite outside of normal human experience" (Rousseau and Romanticism, 1919, p. 359); while to Levi Lind the Phantasms, Spirits, Echoes, "and other sprites who wheel about [Prometheus'] head are the wild creations of a romantic imagination akin to that which brought forth Puck himself," and the Phantasms "are parts of Shelley's nursery apocrypha" ("Shelley Reappraised," 1935, p. 420). Most recently, Donald Davie has commented: "Shelley goes as far as poetry can go, while it uses intelligible language, in cutting the hawsers which tie his fancies to the ground" ("Shelley's Urbanity," 1953, p. 133) .46 To these objections and charges, the answers of more friendly critics were varied. Some placed the responsibility on the reader. Typical of these were Allan Cunningham, who called the poem a story "which some resolve not to understand" (History, 1834, p. 101); the Massachusetts Quarterly, which accused the critics of being either "too indolent to give [the] great masters the study required for their appreciation, or so obstin- ately wedded to old models that they are incapable of understanding the new" (1849, p. 419) ; R. A. Holland, who suggested that what appears its author's mysticism may be the student's mistiness of appre- hension. . . . Poetry has other offices than amusement. Her noblest work is to elevate, to make the goal of the past the starting point of the future, to remove the ideals of the race further and further onward and aloft. . . . And such a poem, though it springs with the steepness of a crag into the region of clouds, is Prome- theus Unbound ["Soul of Shelley," 1876, pp. 160-61] ; and Rossetti, whose answer to those who found the poem unreadable was direct and blunt: Though you cannot read Prometheus Unbound, I can. I have read it, and do read it, and this with ever -increasing admiration, wonder, and insight into its depth of beauty. Therefore it is a poem written, if not for you and yours, still for me and mine, and I am quite justified in regarding it as a masterpiece ["Prometheus as Poem," 1887, p. 173]. Edward W. Edmunds held that the poem was "a meaningless rhapsody" to those who tested it with the intellect, but not to those who "are com- 46Sirmlar views have been held by D. Moir: "unsubstantial and wiredrawn," "shadows of power, rather than power itself" (Sketches, 1887, p. 227); J. Slater; "dreamy, exag- gerated ideal stuff" ("Prometheus," 1884, p. 395); A. Symons: "a cloudy procession of phantoms, seen in a divine hallucination" ("Shelley," 1907, p. 350); W. J. Courthope; "images . . . appear for a moment with outlines as clear as Alpine peaks in sunlight, and then dissolve, or vanish in seas of rising vapour" (History, 1910, p. 315); H. Levine: "a compound of Plato and Godwin, Milton and Mist" (Broken Column, 1931, p. 58). A writer in the Dublin University Magazine (1877, p. 776) rejoiced in the obscurity because "we know of no poet, if we except Swinburne, whose writings are calculated to injure the youthful mind so deeply as Shelley." Introduction 43 petent to hear the spirit-voices which haunt the atmosphere of all true poetry" (Shelley, 1911, p. 92); and Arthur Glutton-Brock felt that Shelley had suffered because he had not been thought of as a religious poet, and readers, demanding realism, had failed to bring to his conceptions the asso- ciations normally brought to religious work (Introduction, p. xxi). More recently, Douglas Bush has written wisely: "He will, unlike our contemp- oraries, make his principal conception fairly clear, and then he feels at liberty to adorn or obscure it with a multitude of details which, we often feel sure, have significance for him but remain hazy to us" (Mythology, 1937, p. 139); while N. I. White commented: "An understanding that Shelley's imagery is not vague, but intelligible and profound, is necessary if we are to see him in his true proportions" (Shelley, 1940, II, 133). Another defense of Shelley's obscurity and intangibility was based on an appeal to his youth. George Gilfillan, for example, felt that "had he, twenty years later, a healthier, happier, and better man, 'clothed, and in his right mind,' approached the sublime subject," only Milton or Keats might have equaled what he would have done ("Prometheus," 1855, p. 432) . Sidney Lanier felt that the wordiness resulted from immaturity but doubted that Shelley would have outgrown it ("English Novel," 1881, p. 90); Macmillan Brown held that Shelley "had not lived long enough to mellow his ideas by wisdom or experience, or mould them into consistency; and hence there is a youthful crudeness and half -intelligibility, and unwise violence and self -con tradictoriness in his play" (Study, 1905, p. 53); and to Arthur Glutton-Brock, also, many passages in the poem failed because "poets, like other writers, must fail when they try to tell us what they do not know themselves" (Man and Poet, 1909, p. 207) — but he added that, in Shelley's failure, "he produced beauties beyond the reach of artists who attempt the possible" (p. 218). Francis Thompson, however, saw no reason to apologize for the poet's age. He argued that his youth, or in any event his childlike nature, qualified him "to be the poet of Prometheus Unbound, for it made him ... a mythological poet," and "assimilated him to the childlike peoples among whom mythologies have their rise" (Shelley, 1889, pp. 46-47). More significant, perhaps, than the foregoing statements have been those of critics who argued that the obscurity was more apparent than real, and that the materials which disturbed the reader were actually ap- propriate to the subject, Leigh Hunt answered the violent Quarterly Review attack by holding that the descriptions were true of the areas to which they applied and that to cite an obscure passage or two and conclude that all of Shelley's work was "obscurity and nonsense, is mere dishonesty" ("Letters," see Appendix D, item XII). Later in the century, R. A. Holland took a similar position but amplified it more specifically: "Fault has been found with the poem because of its lack of human incidents and passions, but unreasonably, for these would be incongruous to its design* 44 Introduction . . . The intrusion of an earthly character would mar its speculative integrity"; and he held that for Shelley's world the "inhabitants must be spectral, often formless, sometimes only voices" ("Soul of Shelley," 1876, pp. 156-57). Stopford Brooke, too, believed that the unsubstantiality of form, methodical idealization, and dream world were a "mistake of de- liberate method on Shelley's part, rather than a weakness of capacity" ("Inaugural Address," 1886, p. 15). With these views most later writers have agreed, and Gertrude Slaughter has even insisted that the poem's "creatures are more than abstractions. They are suffering, thinking, exulting beings, sublimated and etherealized-— the elements rather than the forms of actual life" ("Shelley," 1922, p. 78); or, as P. H. Butter saw it, the personifications are "Shelley's means of making clear to the reader the progress of [the] internal drama" taking place in the mind of Prometheus (Shelley's Idols, 1954, p. 169). The relationship between unintelligibility and subtlety of thought has also been a recurring theme in Prometheus Unbound criticism. It was first offered in 1822 by the reviewer in the Album, who noted that Shelley's "powers of thought . . . equally subtle and profound, occasionally lead him beyond the capability of expression, and in those passages he, of course, becomes unintelligible" (see Appendix D, item XIII). This sentiment was frequently echoed in later criticism, and most interestingly by Disraeli's comment on Marmion Herbert (Shelley) in Venetia (1837) : These peculiar doctrines of Herbert, which, undisguised, must have incited so much odium . . . were necessarily so veiled by the highly spiritual and metaphorical language of the poet that it required some previous acquaintance with the system enforced to be able to discover and recognise the esoteric spirit of his Muse [quoted in Garnett, "Shelley and Beaconsfield," p. 127]. But these tentative overtures were strengthened and made the pattern by Mrs. Shelley's statement, in her note on the poem, that "it requires a mind as subtle and penetrating as his own to understand the mystic mean- ings scattered throughout the poem" (see Appendix C). Lady Jane Shelley amplified this: [Only] his own subtle, and almost instinctive, apprehension of metaphysical analogies could have enabled him to endow his ideal characters with a language proper ,to the abstract ideas which they typify. . . . The personifications of Shelley's mythological drama are not the vague idealisms of a young poet seeking for effect; they have a deep psychological meaning. The poetry which they utter is like the language of beings wakening, in the fresh dawn of the world, to the mystery of their own emotions and the miraculous loveliness of the universe. We seem to behold the elemental splendour of things disarrayed of that indifference which springs from our superficial familiarity, and from the deadening effect of our conventional existence [Memorials, 1859, p. 111]. Interesting variations have been given on this theme. J. A. Symonds stressed the Turneresque quality of the poet's perceptions (a comparison frequently made) : Introduction 45 The scale of colour is light and aerial, and the darker shadows are omitted. An excess of luminousness seems to be continually radiated from the objects at which he looks; and in this radiation of many-coloured lights, the outline itself is apt to be a little misty. Shelley, moreover, pierced through things to their spiritual essence [Shelley, 1878, p. 1251. Walter Raleigh felt that this "spectral world" held in Shelley's thought "the place of what is commonly called the real world," and as a result the "figures that he sets in motion are for the most part creatures of his own making, who have no tangible being outside the realm of his imagination"; but Raleigh added: " Prometheus Unbound is something more than a dance of prismatic lights and a concert of sweet sounds; it is a record of spiritual experience, subtle in its analysis, profound in its insight," and he held that "the details of the drama . . , have been wrongfully regarded as freaks of ornament and fantasy" ("Shelley," 1902, pp. 296-97). Other variations have been offered by Charles H. Herford, who admitted the remoteness of the setting but argued that "to suppose that Shelley's thought is equally unrelated and remote is surely to confuse image and purport. . . . Shelley does not 'refuse to face the facts of life' [as Babbitt had said] . . . and though very much escaped him, in some vital points he saw more clearly than any of his contemporaries" ("Romanticism," 1922, p. 131); and by Cecil M. Bowra, who carried the issue to a logical extreme by arguing that, normally, individual characters are made to represent "wide issues and show what these issues mean," but that Shelley "wished to show how wonderful [the ideas] were in their very vagueness and vastness," so he "evolved a system of coherent symbols which would appeal as poetry and yet take away nothing from the metaphysical character of his subject" (Romantic Imagination, 1949, pp. 104-5) ; to which Bennett Weaver added that these "mystic and lyrical embodiments of ideas . . . lead the drama toward song. Rather importantly, I think, it is they who suggest the grand transmutation of the character of Prometheus into something approaching the character of the Galilean" ("Prometheus," 1949, p. 132). But probably the most perceptive analysis in this category was that made by James H. Cousins, who stressed (as did Amiyakumar Sen [Studies, 1936, 243-70] and G. Wilson Knight [Starlit Dome, 1941, p. 211]) Shelley's interest in Indian lore and experience of things of the spirit (Work Promethean^ 1933, p. 43), and wrote: [In] the realm of poetry, whose appeal is less to the emotions and more to the mind than the appeal of music, clarity of statement is an essential quality. Yet there is a stage beyond which the demand for clarity in poetry may be a demand for something other than poetry; a stage where external expression is incapable of carrying the whole offering of inner meaning, and words have to bear on one shoulder the image immediately evoked, and on the other the sometimes shadowy, sometimes shining, shapes of thoughts and feelings seeking incarnation in the always inadequate hodies of speech [pp. 8-9] .47 47Similar views have heen held by A. Yolland: "poetic language must always be a compromise between the things which can definitely be said and the things which the 46 Introduction ON THE DRAMATIC TECHNIQUES Another body of critical attention has been concerned with the dramatic and verse techniques of Prometheus Unbound. It will be well to approach this discussion through Cecil M. Bowra's analysis of the problems faced by Shelley in writing the poem. These were (1) the question of how faithful all details should be to the abstract ideas embodied in the work (Bowra felt that in mood and tone the poet succeeded here) ; (2) the problem of how to relate abstract ideas to human experience and human feelings (in this he was not always successful) ; and (3) the problem of how much should be included ("Shelley evidently believed that he was writing a great philosophical poem and poured into it all his most imaginative and daring speculations," but always in terms of his own system) . These problems led to certain difficulties which Bowra pointed out: (1) the poet did not always successfully translate his abstract ideas into images; (2) he did not always distinguish clearly between literal and symbolic expression; and (3) he failed to give dramatic force to most of the poem (Romantic Imagination, 1949, pp. 117-20) .48 Defenses of the dramatic effectiveness of the poem have not been under- taken by many writers, and usually the arguments have not been as direct or convincing as those from the other camp. In 1823 a writer in the Gentle- man* $ Magazine felt that Aeschylus might have written it had he lived in Shelley's day (see Appendix D, item XIV), and at the close of the century Vida Scudder countered those who felt a lack of unity in the poem by maintaining that only in Prometheus Unbound did Shelley's "architectonic faculty" evidence itself in any important way: Each act of the Prometheus centres in a distinct phase of the one theme [Redemption]. The first act, expressing the calm of proud endurance, breaks towards the middle into an agony still passive and at the end sinks into the peace of exhaustion. The second act is one of hope and promise: if the first centres in endurance, this centres in action. The spirit of life palpitates through every line. Faint at first, as Asia waits in lovely passiveness, it grows more eager, stronger, till it culminates in the marvellous lyric which brings us close to Goethe's poetfain would say" (Shelley's Poetry, 1907, p, 16) ; 0. Elton: Shelley and Plato "quarrel with reality because it is there and in the way" (Shelley, 1912, p. 35) ; H. J. Grierson and J. C. Smith: "it is as vague as are the prophecies of the genuine Hebrew prophets. It is always the fraudulent prophets who are definite" (History, 1944, p. 396). And R. D. Havens, in a study that appeared too late for detailed inclusion in the present work ("Shelley the Artist," 1957), has commented that as an artist Shelley "idealized and universalized his embodiments of human nature or mythological personages and, though he often observed external nature closely, he generalized his descriptions of it. ... It is partly for this reason that his greatest achievement is Prometheus Unbound [since it] deals with the cosmic, the timeless, the eternal" (p. 180). ^Earlier, Louis Cazamian had listed as faults of style the repetition of words nearby in different contexts, and ambiguity in use of words, characters (e.g. Earth and The Spirit of the Earth), and settings (e.g. the two caves and temples). However, he con- sidered these to be faults in small matters only (Edition, 1942, pp. 34-36). Introduction 47 Werdelust— the creative rapture of the soul of the world. The third act is the calm of fulfillment, as the first was the calm of endurance. In the fourth act ... the full paean of triumph sweeps us along with tumultuous and unequalled harmony [Edition, p. xlv] . Miss Scudder felt also that the architectonic power of Shelley was nobly shown by his use of light and color— passing first from night into dawn, then darkening in the storm of the Furies, then again clearing in the promise "of the peace of dawn," with the sunrise deepening into its full glory and intensifying into day in Act II, and this in turn darkening into shadows at the cave of Demogorgon, at last to be "lifted to the final Height of Vision, and to the consummation of the drama" (pp. xlvii-xlix). Some years later, Olwen Campbell wrote that "many of [Shelley's] critics have tried the most elaborate allegorical, philosophical and moonstruck interpretations, seemingly oblivious of the fact that even here 'the play's the thing' " (Shelley and the Unromantics, 1924, p. 203). James H. Cousins offered a subtler argument: The drama of the tangible stage has laid upon it the duty of being the critic, interpreter and reflector of human life. The drama of the human spirit, composed by the creative impulse of humanity, not merely by its generative fever, enacted in the light of the sun, not in the shadows cast by the moon or the limelight, demands that life shall reflect and ultimately emhody it. Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama of this order. We do not go to it for facts concerning early Greece or the Europe of 1820, but for fundamental verities that are clamped to no age and are therefore current in and applicable to all ages and places; ideas and thoughts that "look before and after" towards a golden age of "what is not" but was and will be; an age which, because humanity has set out on a circumnavigation that will bring it back to its native harbour in the realm of the spirit, is at once in the romantic past and the still more romantic future [Work Promethean, 1933, pp. 22-23]. G. Wilson Knight went farthest, however, when, in comparing The Revolt of Islam with Prometheus Unbound, he found in the later poem "a more satisfying fusion of movement with stillness, of action with artistic design, and consequently no extreme symbolisms . . . take precedence over dram- atic realism"; and he felt that the poem was "truly dramatic rather than narrative" (Starlit Dome, 1941, p. 204). B. Rajan, too, contended that "the causation is unorthodox but com- plete, and the principal obstacle to understanding is the statement." Rajan explained by pointing out that at first Prometheus defied Jupiter in the curse: "The equilibrium thus defined is perverted but stable, and can be altered by nothing except a fundamental change in the nature of one of its opponents." At last suffering taught Prometheus wisdom, and his com- prehension progressed and led to redemption. "His mind has become the mind of the universe and its message therefore must penetrate to all existence. To universalize the mental re-organization of Prometheus is ... the function of Asia. To transmit the revolution of mind to the revolution 48 Introduction of matter is ... the business of Demogorgon." If, then, "evil should be once more an impulse of behaviour, the remedy is to love and to endure." This, Rajan held, "is the emotional faith which integrates Prometheus" and we "must give our intellectual, if not our total, assent to the coherence of an emotionally valid plan" ("Motivation of Prometheus," 1943, pp. 297-301). P. H. Butter saw form, if not drama, in the fact that the movement of the whole poem is from the mind of Prometheus outwards. The effects of the change in him are seen spreading in ever -widening circles — over men, over the earth, the moon and out into "the void's loose field." . . . This provides a loose, but sufficient structure for the poem [Shelley's Idols, 1954, p, 171]. But probably Walter Jacobi was on the surest ground when he discussed the problem as it related to dramatic types. He distinguished between drama that could be staged and costumed and drama which, like Prome- theus Unbound., must be visualized by the reader with help from the poet. He pointed out the effectiveness of the stage directions in this poem, of the descriptive passages as substitutes for scenery and costume, and of the words and phrases that guide the reader in visualizing the setting, charac- ters, and action of the play. Jacobi admitted that, for a reading drama, it was better fully to incorporate the stage directions in the dialogue (which Shelley did not always do), but he nevertheless ranked Prometheus Un- bound as one of the most typical reading dramas of world literature ("Biihnen und Lesedrama," 1932, pp. 207-17). With few exceptions, however, it has been agreed that the poem is not dramatic in the narrower meaning of the term, although definitions have not usually been brought into the discussions.49 The writer in Taifs Edinburgh Magazine ranked it with Aeschylus even though it was "dram- atic in form only; there is little or no human interest in it" (1833, p. 338) ; and Julian Schmidt, in 1852, also felt that the superhuman themes led to a resultant disintegration of form (Price, "Julian Schmidt," p. 34). William B. Scott cited as evidence of an "infirmity of construction" the fact that the hero disappeared "in an unexplained and trivial manner, so that the result of his grqat endurance and of the sympathy of nature receives no adequate development" (Edition, 1873, p. xxiii). This view Helene Druskowitz supported and amplified. To her the Prometheus of Act III showed nothing of the depth of the Prometheus of Act I. He was too naive and evidenced a spirit that had never known pain and suffering. Moreover, Asia was sometimes a goddess, sometimes a mortal; Jupiter 49That Shelley himself had no illusions on this score should be clear from his calling the work a "lyrical drama," from his discussion of drama in his Preface to The Cenci, and from his statement to Trelawny (which could not apply to Prometheus Unbound) with respect to Charles the First: "I am now writing a play for the stage. It is affectation to say we write a play for any other purpose" (Trelawny, Records, 1878, I, 117). Graham Hough's comment is pertinent: "Prometheus Unbound is the first of a long line of nineteenth-century poems cast in dramatic form, but with no conceivable relation to the theatre" (Romantic Poets, 1953, p. 139). Introduction 49 lacked the force of personality he should have; Demogorgon was kept entirely nebulous; and the connection with the fatal child was unclear. But Miss Druskowitz felt also that the secondary figures exhibited a plasticity not frequently attained by the poet (Shelley, 1884, pp. 276-78). And, though J. Macmillan Brown saw Prometheus as "the only real dramatic character in the drama; for besides being the symbol of an ab- stract idea he is a personality," he agreed that "towards the close it fades off into that misty fringe of existence that is to the poet the most real" (Study, 1905, p. 54). This opinion was further developed by Arthur M. D. Hughes, who wrote: The Prometheus must be judged as a sort of Mystery, for a drama in the proper sense it clearly is not. A drama is a picture of an action the links of which are causally connected. But Prometheus does not act, and both Jupiter and the deus ex machina by whom he is overthrown are obscure entities with no motives for what they do. There are great dramatic incidents, but these are single moments in a miraculous tale. . . . [Also] there is a break in the figure of Prometheus where it seems that sculpture from an infirmer hand has been joined on to the head and frame of a masterpiece.50 ... It is more especially in the third Act, when the lovers meet in a renovated world, with no more to suffer or to do, that they fall below their dignity and cloy the reader with girlish happiness [Edition, 1910, p. 180-81]. The lack of action cited by Hughes has been noted frequently. George Woodberry saw this defect as Aeschylean, "but on the larger scale of Shelley it is more noticeable. The scenes change, but there is no real action" (Studies, 1908, p. 278). At times this position has been qualified by admitting the absence of the physical action which would make for drama, but stressing the substitution of intellectual action, "to be explained, not by human motivation, but by the development of thought" (Barrell, Shelley and Thought, 1947, p. 150). To Harry Levin: "Milton and Aeschylus succeeded in creating superhuman figures by drawing men on a vast scale. Shelley lacked the power of characterization . . . and so he sought to con- vince by imagery and allegory" (Broken Column, 1931, pp. 59-60). To Carlos Baker: "The difficulty in the interpretation of Prometheus Unbound arises chiefly from the fact that the leading characters are both characters in a drama and symbolic universals" (Shelley's Major Poetry, 1948, p. 111). But Cecil M. Bowra felt that the characters were actually not so much symbols as "ideas presented in visual shape" (Romantic Imagination, 1949, p. 107). John Bailey thought that it was "much more" than a drama, but not a drama ("Prometheus in Poetry," 1923, p. 118), He noted especially the meager plot, the dramatic ineffectiveness of the events, and the character weaknesses, wherein "one person seems to fade into another" (p. 113) .61 Bailey then called attention to the applicability here 50 Cf. E. B. Hungerford: "Shelley chips his monumental idea into bric-a-brac," and "the plot lies full fathom five" (Shores of Darkness, 1941, pp. 97, 100). 51 J. W. Beach, however, insisted that the characters did not "drift about aimlessly." Demogorgon was the doom of Jupiter, and, while one could not motivate a doom, the poet could personify it, as he did ("Latter-Day Critics," 1922, p. 724). 50 Introduction of Shelley's description of Hellas as "a sort of lyrical, dramatic nondescript piece of business" (to Horace Smith, April 11, 1822; Julian, X, 377), and added: "Drama is an affair of men and women: and Shelley's imagination preferred creating angels and fiends. He could not even project himself into his drama" (p. 118). Shelley, Bailey thought, was a much more human person than his Prometheus, who was too good, while Jupiter was too black, for successful drama (pp. 124-27) . Another group has sought to justify Shelley's use of the form chosen. Henry Salt, for example, stated that the lack of dramatic action was in- tentional (Shelley Primer., 1896, p. 63). To Stopford Brooke the poem represented "the marriage of Shelley's double nature, the fusion for crea- tive work of the lover of man and the poet" (Edition, 1882, p. xvi) ; while to Rossetti it would have been alien to present the theme in a "directly realistic or plainly delineated kind," for greater severity would have meant a loss of spontaneity ("Prometheus as Poem," 1887, p. 173) ; and to William F. Revell it seemed that "what to a watcher by the cross, or at the foot of the mountain, may appear nothing more than simple endurance, is in reality a struggle of the most active and severe kind, a struggle for mastery over the weakness of the flesh" ("Prometheus," 1907, p. 427). Similarly, William J. Alexander, Louis Cazamian, and Stephen Spender have de- fended Shelley against the argument that he intended a drama. Spender's statement is typical: ** [Prometheus Unbound] is not at all dramatic, perhaps because Shelley did not see so much a drama in the situation of the struggle between gods, as an occasion for the victory of the symbol of the oppressed" (SheBey, 1952, p. 28). With the nondramatic category for the poem generally supported, it has not been easy to agree on what the poem is if not stage drama. Little consideration was given to finding a substitute term until John Robertson suggested that "if we read on it is because we care more for fantasy than for human significance in song" ("Shelley and Poetry," 1884, p. 195) ; and "the poet wanders off into every kind of diffuse and fantastic digression, creating for us an endless range of 'rich windows that exclude the light, and passages that lead to nothing' " (p. 224). To fantasy as a possible subtype for dramatic literature were added such descriptions of the poem as a compound of many forms, and, if drama at all, closest to the rhapsodic dramas of the Hebrew poets in the Old Testament (W. R. Rutland, Swinburne, pp. 66, 88) ; reading drama rather than stage drama (Walter Jacobi, "Biihnen und Lesedrama," p. 217); material better suited to the cinema than to the stage (St. John Ervine, "Shelley as Dramatist," p. 95) ; a masque (Elizabeth Meldrum, "Classical Background," p. 161) ; a Mystery (A. M. D. Hughes, Edition, p. 180) ; and, frequently, if drama at all then symbolic drama (Oliver Elton, Shelley, p. 34; Carl Gfabo, Newton among Poets, p. xi; Louis Cazamian, Edition, p. 38; Carlos Baker, Shelley's Major Poetry, p. Ill; Cecil M. Bowra, Romantic Imagination, p. 105; and Stephen Introduction 51 Spender, Shelley, p. 28 — with many writers acknowledging the symbolism). Others found the poem basically a myth (Vida Scudder, Edition, p. xi; A. M. D. Hughes, Edition, p. 171; Gertrude Slaughter, "Shelley," p. 77; Joseph Barrell, Shelley and Thought, p. 150; and C. S. Lewis, "Shelley, Dry den, Eliot," p. 29, with the most penetrating comment that of Lewis: "Like all great myths its primary appeal is to the imagination: its indirect and further appeal to the will and understanding can therefore be diversely interpreted according as the reader is a Christian, a politician, a psycho- analyst, or what not") ; an epic (Stopford Brooke, "Poetry of Shelley," p. 214; and Herbert Read, Defence of Shelley, p. 69) ; a dramatic ode, or a sequence of odes linked by dramatic poetry, thus making it much like an opera (Charles Gamier, "Metrical Study," p. 155; George H. Clarke, Edition, p. 238; and George Cowling, Shelley, p. 63, with the latter noting that "its form owes something to Italian opera, to which Peacock introduced Shelley in 1817, and in which he afterwards found great pleasure"); a noble oratorio (Parke Godwin, "Shelley," p. 127); nearer to symphony than to drama in form (Arthur Glutton-Brock, Man and Poet, p. 209) ;52 or suggestive of fresco painting, and a panorama of ideal scenes (George Woodberry, Studies, p. 278). ^Prometheus Unbound has frequently been the subject of musical settings. Koszul found no fewer than five for Asia's song at ILv.72-110 (Cceuroy, "Musical Inspiration of Shelley," 1923, p. 82). Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1954) lists the following items: Sir Granville Bantock's Prometheus Unbound, for chorus and orchestra (1936); Havergal Brian's Prometheus Unbound, for solo voices, chorus, and orchestra (1937-44) ; Norman Demuth's incidental music (1948) ; Katharine Emily Eggar's setting of Asia's song, for mezzo-soprano, string quartet, and piano (n.d.); Maurice Emanuel's Prometh&e enchalne, three -act opera (1916-18); Lars -Erik Larsson's incidental music (n.d.); Hubert Parry's "Scenes from Shelley's Prometheus Unbound" for contralto, tenor, bass, chorus, and orchestra (1880); Sir Stanford Charles's setting of Asia's song (1911) and of the song of the Spirit of the Hour (1913) ; William Wallace's setting of Asia's song (1896); and Maude Valerie White's setting of the same song (n.d.). The poem has also frequently suggested comparisons with music or musicians. John Todhunter noted that, like Mozart's Don Giovanni, the poem "was written for his own delight, not for the world. It is to all other lyrical poems what the Ninth Symphony is to all other symphonies" (Study, 1880, p. 134). Armin Kroder regretted that musicians had passed by Shelley's poem as the basis for a symphony ("Shelley ana," 1906, p. 139) ; Helen Clarke held there was as great a difference between Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound and Shelley's poem as between "the naked scales of Pythagoras and the poignant soul- touching diminished seventh harmonies of a modern symphony" ("Prometheus Myth," 1910, p. 110) ; and J. de Gruyter declared that the poem "comes nearer to music than perhaps any other drama that has been written" ("Shelley and Dostoievsky," 1922, p. 134). John Bailey felt that "in that escape of the spirit which is the special preroga- tive of music Shelley stands alone" (Poets and Poetry, 1911, p. 168); and G. H. Clarke thought the poem a fit subject for "the musical genius of a Wagner" (Edition, 1907, p. 238). Andre Coeuroy, noting the many uses of music in the imagery, stated: "There are hearts to which music reveals the fraternal bond between souls. For Shelley, the poet of poets, she goes far beyond this, inasmuch as she seeks to express, through metaphor, 52 Introduction By far the larger number of those who have refused to acknowledge the poem as a drama, however, have chosen to classify it as a lyric with dram- atic overtones, rather than the opposite (for the lyrical vein has been recognized even by those who have criticized the poem as a drama). This was, in effect, to reverse Shelley's description of the work as a 'lyrical drama" and to view it as a dramatic lyric (or, occasionally, as a non- dramatic lyric). Roden Noel, for example, found "unity of mood, and lyrical feeling" in the absence of dramatic unity ("Shelley," 1885, p. 120) ; and Henry Salt pointed out that "the lyrics in fact are as prominent as the blank verse" (Shelley Primer, 1896, p. 63). Stopford Brooke saw it as "more of a Titanic lyric than a drama" ("Lyrics of Shelley," 1907, p. 144) ; and Arthur Glutton-Brock noted that "both the epic and the dramatic forms were dead" in Shelley's day, and the poem was a lyrical drama that which overpasses reality — the very essence of poetry" ("Musical Inspiration of Shelley," 1923, p. 95). Charles Gamier was especially sensitive to the feeling of music in the poem and offered a comprehensive comparison, pointing out that, if Shelley's dramatic imagination was lacking, his musical imagination was faultless, "his lyrical gift peerless. . . . Shelley's subtle charm and mighty harmonies invincibly recall to one's mind now Meyerbeer's weird power . . . now Mozart's chaste elegance and terse dal- liance . . . now Mendelssohn's crystalline facility; now Schubert's wealth of tender imagination; now Beethoven's deep sense of joy and sorrow, metaphysical yearnings, strong-rooted optimism, constructive science and thrilling appeal to our profoundcst sympathies. All these musical associations may illustrate independent passages, but if one name only was allowed to us to characterize the whole of Shelley's lyrical drama, his intense intellectual as well as emotional Sehnsucht, the essence of his mysticism . . . the one name would be ... Chopin" ("Metrical Study," 1937, pp. 156-57). R. V. Dawson amplified the Beethoven comparison in noting the composer's use of the Prometheus story in the ballet music Die Geschopfe des Prometheus (1801), from which a theme in the finale was used as a chief subject in the finale of the Eroica Sym- phony (1804), a symphony that took Napoleon as well as Prometheus as its inspiration. The attitudes of the two artists differed, however: "To the one [Beethoven], the joy of creative heroism predominates; to the other the pain. To Beethoven, Prometheus is a type; to Shelley, a personification. To the one, victory is as much an attainment as a hope; to the other, more an ultimate goal than an immediate reward." In the Eroica, also, Dawson found Beethoven more realistic than Shelley (because he had Napoleon before him), with the choral movement of the Ninth Symphony — in its use of Schiller's An die Freude ("For all men are brothers truly," etc.)— closer to the poet, especially to Act IV of Prometheus Unbound: "In each case it is the joy of the perfect freedom of mankind . . . but whereas Shelley's feeling is so much that of hope frantically sought as a refuge from disillusionment, Beethoven's is a more fully matured and seemingly tangible joy," a position which Shelley might easily have reached ("Beethoven and Shelley," 1929, pp. 4142). Such parallels possibly led Edmund Blunden to point out: "Lovers of coincidence may care to know that while Shelley's work was being published, Beethoven's 'Overture to Prometheus' was being performed on the Apollonican of Messrs. Flight and Robson, which Shelley had paid his shilling to hear before leaving England. Louis Cazamian points out something more striking. At almost the same date as that of the composition of Shelley's lyrical drama/ Beethoven was composing his 'Choral Symphony' " (Shelky, 1947, p. 261). Introduction 53 because "all other forms were clearly impossible." Glutton-Brock added that the myth used in this lyrical drama was "of a new kind, and made to express the new ideas of an age of revolution," but that, whereas the great myths reflected "the experience of multitudes and generations," Shelley's expressed "only his own rather limited experience and his own peculiar ideas, which were not so much the result as the cause of that experience" (Man and Poet, 1909, pp. 194, 196-97). More recently, also, Douglas Bush has supported this view by describing the poem as "not a drama but a sustained emotional lyric" (Mythology, 1937, p. 151); as did Chauncey Tinker, who wrote that "it began as a play and turned into a paean" ("Shelley Once More," 1941, p. 92). ON THE VERSECRAFT When we turn from dramatic aspects of the poem to consideration of its poetry and versecraft, more general agreement is found. Shelley has been recognized as possessed of "the mythopoeic faculty of the world's primaeval poets" (Roden Noel, "Shelley," 1885, p. 121). To Henry Sweet, indeed, he stood "alone among modern poets" in this respect, as evidenced by his use of the star, the cave, the dawn, the sun, clouds,63 the wind, volcano and earthquake, desire, and dreams; and especially by the "Turneresque" quality of light and color ("Shelley's Nature Poetry," 1888, pp. 298-324). George Calvert was of the same belief when he wrote: "Shelley's brain is an exhaustless spring of likenesses which his poetic faculty illuminates into beauty and significance. . . . The choral pages . . . are as Shakespearean as the Puck-p ass ages in Midsummer- Nighfs Dream, only created with a high, holy purpose" (Coleridge, Shelley, Goethe, 1880, pp. 217-18). Inasmuch as the mythopoeic quality is most fully evidenced in the poet's use of imagery and figures of speech, it is natural to find that nearly all critics of the poem as poem have touched on these matters. N. I. White, indeed, pointed out that "the reason why Prometheus Unbound has from the first been so commonly misunderstood lies in the boldness and original- ity of the imagery. Had the contemporary critics been entirely without other prejudices they would still have misunderstood and underestimated the poem on this ground" (Shelley, 1940, II, 127). It was not until 1899, however, that an exhaustive catalogue of the similes and metaphors in Shelley's poetry was made, by Pelham Edgar, with many examples taken from Prometheus Unbound. Edgar included similes of color, light, sound, odor, swiftness, change, evanescence, love, thought, and number; as well as double similes, Homeric similes, similes of human to natural, human to human, human to animal, etc. (Study, passim). In 1904 Hans Zettner expanded Sweet's approach by tracing the mythical creations of Shelley, 530scar W. Firkins commented: "Shelley is as devoted to clouds as if he had set himself to the task of atoning in his single person for the apathy and neglect of all other poets" (Power and Elmiveness, 1937, pp. 100-1). 54 Introduction with many illustrations from Prometheus Unbound, under the headings of Earth, Nymphs, Echoes, Fauns, Flowers, Spirits, Water, etc., showing how Shelley infused life into these and gave them a mythical reality (Shelley s Mythendichtung, passim). B. I. Evans, more selectively, established that "certain figures — the sphere, the star, the boat, the lake, and the autumn leaves — remain persistent images threading themselves through his poems"; and in Prometheus Unbound he felt that "the power of the permanent image" could be established with great strength, especially in Act IV, where "the images of boat and stream and star and sphere return, as if Shelley, faithful to these symbols of his earlier vision, determined to en- shrine them here" ("Persistent Image," 1922, pp. 792, 796). Arthur Keith went so far as to argue that the merit of the poem "rests not on any well- ordered philosophy, unless we qualify by saying that beauty is philosophy, but upon imagery that fires the dullest mind" ("Imagery," 1924, p. 67). He then surveyed, with some of his illustrations from Prometheus Unbound, the areas of personification and imagery from animal life, plant life, stream, sea, shadows, clouds, vapor, music, childhood, thoughts, dreams, and emo- tions. A slightly different approach was made by Oscar Firkins, who was concerned primarily with tabulating, from the entire range of Shelley's poetry, illustrations of the variety of the poet's abstract imagery in which were united "the qualities of power and elusiveness, of momentousness and intangibility" (Power and Elusiveness, 1937, p. 185) ; and Firkins concluded that the poet was "very nearly, if not quite, unique among the better and better-known representatives of letters" in his habitual practice of present- ing matter in terms of mind (p, 48). In the following year Ants Or as, extending the scope of Firkins' approach, concerned himself primarily with determining how the images "illustrate [Shelley's] manner of perceiving form and movement" ("Shelley's Poetic Imagery," 1938, p. 6). Richard H. Fogle's comparative study of the imagery of Keats and Shelley (1949) permitted a much fuller and more subtle treatment than that of Firkins, although it was not so minute in its distinctions (and was marred by many incorrect line references) . In a subsequent article Fogle dealt more directly with Prometheus Unbound, which he considered "a gigantic effort to syn- thesize the abstract with the concrete, the ideal with the actual" ("Image and Imagelessness," 1952, p. 24). Fogle treated the imagery under three heads: (1) images which develop the theme; (2) images classified by repre- sentation (visual) ; and (3) images of mental process* Through this study of imagery he concluded that, instead of a "helpless surrender to his own emotions," as anti-Shelley criticism would have it, Shelley is expressing not a surrender, not a passive emotion, but the result of in- tellectual effort pushed to its furthest reaches, with all the difficulties and dangers which are involved in it. ... What seems superficially to be formlessness and the shattering of order is really the synthesis of form and formlessness, of expansion and determination, of image and imagelessness [pp. 35-36], Introduction 55 And more recently P. H. Butter directed his attention to "the intellectual content of [Shelley's] images . . . because this is the aspect of them which is most distinctive of him and that which the hasty reader is most likely to miss" (Shelley's Idols^ 1954, p. 4). The contributions of these writers to an understanding of Prometheus Unbound will be found in the Critical Notes. Finally, the prosody has not been overlooked, although it has usually been included in studies of larger scope. As early as 1823, Shelley's blank verse was compared with that of Milton, but it was pointed out that "it is as totally different in rhythm as it is in ideas. . , . One cannot say it is like any other metre of English blank verse; it is, as I say, individual — Shelleyic one may say, I suppose, as well as Miltonic" (Gentleman's Maga- zine^ 1848 [1823]; see Appendix D5 item XIV). George Gilfillan was especially impressed by the lyrics, with their "rush of poetic numbers, the tremendous gallop of an infuriated imagination" (Sketches, 1845, p. 116) ; while Stopford Brooke noted that Shelley "used blank verse as if it were his natural tongue. It is easy, weighty, flowing, well paused, close knit, or let free, exactly as the mind within him drove, or the subject claimed" ("Inaugural Address," 1886, p. 11). A fuller statement with respect to the versification was given by Vida Scudder, who wrote: Blank verse rises into the long, passionate swing of the anapaest, or is broken by the flute-like notes of short trochaic lines, or relieved by the half -lyrical effect of rhymed endings. . , . The variety of metres is marvelous.54 Thirty -six distinct verse-forms are to he found, besides the blank verse. These forms are usually simple; but at times the versification-scheme is as complex as that of the most elaborate odes of Dryden or Collins. Miss Scudder admitted to a frequent Miltonic echo in the lines, but re- marked on "a cadence of which Shelley alone is master, unique in haunt- ing, clinging melody," and concluded that "Shelley has drawn a new music from English words" in many passages. She was also aware of a "subtle lyrical cry" even in the blank verse, but stressed the "sweep and variety of direct lyrical modulation," and she noted that the major characters, speaking in distinctively appropriate verse, "use as a rule the plain recita- tive, while lone, Panthea, and the other chorus-characters generally sing rather than speak," with blank verse marking passages of transition or of repressed feeling, while climaxes of passion rush into lyrical form (Edition, 1892, pp. Uiv). Arthur Symons varied the theme slightly by finding in the blank verse 54George Saintsbury (History, 1910, pp. 108-9) was equally impressed and broke from his usual restraint with the following "outbreak": "I can only say that in all the long procession and pageant of English poetry which it has been my good fortune to survey as I have been preparing and writing this History, nothing has ever presented itself, and nothing, I think, will present itself, in such a combination of prosodic beauty and variety as this. . . . This was the heritage of which seven centuries of poetic labour and experiment from Godric to Coleridge had put English poetry in possession; and Shelley's was the golden key that threw it open to enjoyment," 56 Introduction none of the sweetly broken music of Shakespeare or of the organ harmonies of Milton. It is a music of aerial eloquence. . . . There is in it a thrilling music, rarer in liquid sound than that of any other poet, and chastened by all the severity that can clothe a spirit of fire and air. ... It has [also] an illumined gravity, a shining crystal clearness, a luminous motion" ["Shelley," 1907, pp. 354-55] ; and Arthur Glutton-Brock was equally enthusiastic: [Shelley's] purest music has an intellectual quality that sets it far above all mere versifying. It is not a tinkling tune, but a harmony made by all the faculties of his mind acting together. The peculiar swiftness and keenness of his music ex- presses the eagerness of his thought as it soars from one idea to another, always pressing nearer to the ultimate truth. . . . His very blank verse is all lyrical. . . . Other poets employ it because it is near to prose and their difficulty is to distinguish it from prose. . . . But Shelley's blank verse is as simple in language and in the structure of its sentences as his rhymed lyrics; yet it never becomes prosaic, and is full of music even when not very full of sense; above all it never lags or stumbles, but moves swiftly as if there were a great momentum in it. ... He needed rather to lower his mind than to lift it into blank verse. It was to him what recitative is to a musician with a boundless command of melody [Introduction, 1911, pp. xiv-xvi] . A slightly negative note was struck, however, in the suggestion by Salvador de Madariaga that he found in the poem an impression of stiff- ness, "an almost mechanical rigidity, which is at first the more disconcert- ing as it lies hidden under an admirably fluid external rhythm," a quality that he felt the poet held in common with Calderon (Shelley and Colder on, 1920, p. 14). But almost universally the poet has been credited with mastery in his art of verse and song. The general tendency to praise the lyrics at the expense of the poem as a whole has, of course, been unfortun- ate. To N. I. White such praise "merely falsifies Shelley's intention," for White considered the poem to be "one of the most highly integrated unions of noble thought and subtle expression by which English literature has ever been enlarged" (Shelley, 1940, II, 127). White added that "the sudden burst of lyrical genius in Prometheus Unbound is genuinely aston- ishing. . . . Most of the [perfectly handled verse forms] Shelley had ap- parently never employed before. Several of them are either unique or extremely rare in English poetry before Shelley"; and he suggested as possible lyric sources the Greek dramas, Byron's Manfred, general reading, music, or opera, but admitted that "these are all vague guesses. There seems to be no adequate explanation of the lyrical richness of Prometheus Unbound other than a sudden flowering of pure lyric genius" (II, 133-35). Louis Cazamian noted that in Jupiter, Mercury, Hercules, etc., Shelley chose the Latin nomenclature, while with Demogorgon, lone, and Panthea he used the Greek; and Cazamian ascribed the eclecticism either to the poet's preferences, or to the problem of metrics (Edition, 1942, p. 12). And, finally, Carlos Baker, like White, emphasized the importance of considering the whole poem: Introduction 57 The interspersed lyrics contain a quality of lightness without sacrifice of dignity, which serves admirably to relieve the austerity of the rolling iambs, of which they frequently seem a distant echo, like wind in trees after thunder. Nor are these lyrics . . . mere musical interludes without significant relation to the progress of the play. Their function is roughly that of a dramatic chorus: to mourn or rejoice as occasions require, to mark transitions, to introduce or close the scenes, or to provide commentary on the course of the action. They are, moreover, carefully related to the deep and detailed complexities of the myth Shelley has evolved [Shelley's Major Poetry, 1948, p. 117]. In addition to the incidental references to Shelley's versecraft, there have been a few special studies of importance. In the first of these, by J. B. Mayor in 1888, Prometheus Unbound was treated only incidentally, but a few of the verse structures were described, and some consideration was given to the technique of variation, to alliteration and rime, and to line-endings ("Shelley's Metre," passim). It was not until 1902, however, that a significant technical approach to the metrics was made, by Hermann Till, who drew for illustrations on Prometheus Unbound, among other poems, and whose purpose was to show the general skill with which the poet used his artistic tools to gain his effects (Metrische, passim). In the following year Armin Kroder published his painstaking study of Shelley's art of versification, with findings subject to the usual weaknesses and differences of opinion on such matters, but generally sound in its con- clusions. Kroder's principal attention to Prometheus Unbound was given in his chapter on **strophenformen" where he analyzed with technical facility the stanza structures typical of the poem, dealing with rime schemes, phrasing, and appropriateness of form to content, and comparing them with similar uses in other poems (Shelleys Verskunst, pp. 178-88) ,55 More recently, Charles Gamier has catalogued and related to context the different stanza patterns, ranging from two to thirty verses in length and with some of the longer being in themselves short poems; and he acknowl- edged, as might all who attempt such studies, that there are subtleties of sound and movement impossible to show in such an analysis, for "Shelley's lyrical drama stands a vast musical whole, a noble dramatic ode" ("Metrical Study," 1937, p. 150). ON THE RELATIONSHIP TO EARLIER WRITERS The fourth area of critical attention with respect to Prometheus Unbound has been concerned with the study of parallels and influences found in 55Because the general development of Kroder's discussion is important to his study, and because it is necessary to acquaint oneself with his specialized terminology, no attempt has been made to give his separate illustrations in the present edition. His findings are in general agreement with those included in the Critical Notes. The other- wise important An Analytical Study of Shelley's Versification, by Louise Propst (1933), like others of its kind, is limited to selected lyrics only, with no examples taken from Prometheus Unbound. 58 Introduction earlier authors. Of the many specific instances cited, most will be found recorded in the Critical Notes of the present edition, but relationships of a more general nature that justify inclusion here have been drawn between Shelley and Aeschylus, Goethe, Milton, Dante and Spenser, Godwin, Plato, Byron, and Calderon, in that order of emphasis. As might be expected from Shelley's choice of subject and from his discussion in his Preface to the poem, Aeschylus has received the widest and most varied treatment. Comparisons with Aeschylus Douglas Bush has pointed out that Prometheus Bound was too 'Vast and explosive" for the neoclassic period, but that with the changing taste brought in by the Romantic point of view Prometheus came to represent heroic individualism and revolt against tyranny. There were two main lines of development, according to Bush: (1) the "partly esthetic concep- tion" which culminated in Goethe (1773); and (2) the "rebellious or humanitarian or both" as in Byron and Shelley (Mythology, 1937, pp. 78-79). That Shelley was early attracted to the Aeschylean drama has already been demonstrated, and Mrs. Shelley's note to Prometheus Un~ bound related that "the sublime majesty of /Eschylus filled him with wonder and delight," as well as that "the mighty passions and throes of gods and demigods . . . fascinated [his] abstract imagination" (see Ap- pendix C). The Southern Literary Messenger (an exception in holding Shelley's poem to be an intended imitation of and sequel to Aeschylus) compared the two as men— Aeschylus "accused of impiety, and tried before the Areopagus," Shelley "arraigned and condemned, without being heard in his defence, at the bar of public opinion" (1842, p. 197). F. H. Gile avoided the personal but felt that Shelley and Aeschylus shared common ideals, in that the latter "meant to show the trials and hardships of all discoverers and reformers in the face of the ignorance, bigotry, conserva- tism and superstitition of society" ("Prometheus," 1908, p. 435). John Bailey, in attempting a more particularized explanation of the Aeschylean attraction, suggested that the Aeschylus of Prometheus Bound would have appealed on the basis of (1) his lyrical, prophetic, and theological genius; (2) his use of the Chorus which still dominated a simple plot and action; (3) a dramatis personae without human beings (lo being semidivine); (4) the airy remoteness of the scene; (5) his use of the winged car, the winged beast, and lo as "hardly a walker on the common road of earth"; (6) his full use of nature; and (7) his political, theological, and occasionally almost religious bent. Bailey concluded: "The Prometheus Vinctus is, in fact, like nearly all the poems of Shelley, neither particular, nor local, nor national, nor even earthly, as all the other dramas of Aeschylus are: it is rather, what Shelley loved to be, cosmic and universal" ("Prometheus in Poetry," 1923, pp. 120-22). Bennett Weaver found a more personal reason Introduction 59 for the choice, feeling that Shelley was attracted to the play ("not the greatest of those which /Eschylus composed") because in the lonely Titan Shelley could contemplate suffering similar to that which he thought was his own. He could brood upon the tragedy of sacriiice. He could exult in the glory of the hard will set against tyranny, set against it and over- throwing it. He could rejoice at intelligence gaining its victory over power. He could see in Prometheus [an ally] ['Tre-Promethean Poems," 1950, pp. 356-57] . Opinion has been sharply divided as to how adequately the poet used his model, but three general views may be suggested as typical: (1) Shelley, while not imitating, caught the general spirit of the ancients and was not unlike Aeschylus in his style; (2) Shelley was unsuccessful and actually perverted the Aeschylean materials; and (3) Shelley was not attempting an imitation of Aeschylus but was, rather, extending the earlier writer's work. The first of these views was taken early, with comment on the Aeschylean quality in the Titan's monologues (Gentleman's Magazine, 1848 [1823]; see Appendix D, Item XIV). Later, Vida Scudder held that Shelley was "steeped in the spirit of Aeschylus" without being plagiaristic (Edition, 1892, p. 121). Taifs Edinburgh Magazine thought the poem dramatically "worthy, from the might and magnitude of its conceptions, to rank beside ,/Eschylus" (1833, p. 338); and Thomas Medwin called it a "truly classical drama" (Shelley, 1847, p. 212), while R. Pickett Scott thought it was "in fact a Greek drama in the English language" but with Hebrew overtones (Place of Shelley, 1878, p. 21). With this Aubrey De Vere and Swinburne disagreed, the former holding that "in his Trometheus Unbound' his clas- sical vein is too often checked by political or metaphysical disquisitions most inappropriately introduced," although he admitted an "Aeschylean energy" in it ("Poetic Versatility," 1849, p. 420) ; while the latter found the poem "magnificent and un-Hellenic" (Letters, 1865, XVIII, p. 28). More recently, however, Gilbert Highet has declared that "in Prometheus Unbound [Shelley] wrote for Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound a sequel which actually surpassed the Greek poet in nobility, if not in depth of thought" (Classical Tradition, 1949, p. 419). As to the influence of general Greek thought and culture on Shelley's poem, this too was an early theme, with a writer in the Literary Magnet noting that when the poet turned "all the energy of his wonderful mind to the study of the ancients . . . [the] improvement was manifest: his style became full to overflowing of classical associations, and rich with allegorical fancies, and as celebrated for its grasp and depth of thought, as for the luxuriance of its ornament" (1825, p. 163) . More recently Arthur Keith has pointed out that Shelley's absorption in the wonderful and beautiful led him to see nature instinct with life and beauty, and in this he was close to the primitive Greek mind, even pre-Aeschylean in his development, since Aeschylus sought a rationalistic interpretation of the universe, from 60 Introduction which Shelley shrank ("Imagery," 1924, p. 176). And J. A. K. Thomson has written: The most massive evidence of the inspiration drunk by Shelley from Greek poetry is Prometheus Unbound. It is of course only too easy to show how unlike Shelley's poem — for it is hardly a play — is to a typical Attic tragedy. To begin with, it is completely devoid of dramatic excitement or even interest, there is no plot, the spoken parts are too lyrical, the lyrical parts are given an excessive importance, the characters are altogether too shadowy. Yet when all this is said it may still be held that Prometheus Unbound . . . strikes one not indeed as like a drama of the Periclean age, but as like what the Periclean drama might have become in the hands of a great lyrical poet, who was not writing for the stage. A Greek would have been less shocked or even puzzled by it than most of Shelley's contemporaries [Classical Background, 1948, pp. 231-32]. These are typical of many expressions that have recognized Shelley's deep perception of the culture reflected in his Prometheus Unbound, but it has also been stressed that the poet was influenced by the art as well as by the writings of the past. Medwin recorded that "the Praxitelean shapes of the Vatican and the Capitol, were alike sources whence he drew his in- spiration in this truly classical drama" (Shelley, 1847, p. 212) ; and, com- menting on the figures created through the poet's mythopoeic faculty, Roden Noel wrote: "One might almost be looking, as I have done, at those sacred pictures in the temple-tombs of Thebes, painted so many thousands of years ago" ("Shelley," 1885, p. 121). But there have been a number of writers who have not shared the feeling that Shelley caught the Aeschylean note. An early reviewer commented on the "audacity" of the poet in attempting "the very flight of [the] father of tragedy," and felt that Shelley, despite "very extraordinary powers of language and imagination" had "tried to pervert [the myth's] purpose and meaning" (Blachvoods Magazine, 1820; see Appendix D, item III); and another, while admiring the Aeschylean monologues of Prometheus, felt that in many other respects Shelley had marred and destroyed what he might have made worthy (Gentleman's Magazine, 1848 [1823] ; see Ap- pendix D, item XIV). Later, it was objected that Shelley's substitute for the lost sequel [to Prometheus Bound] is unsuccessful. . . . ^Eschylus lived with the real up to the ideal, Shelley scarcely knew anything of the world as it is, and the little he knew he wished to alter. The consequence is, that in all his beautiful poetry the mind scarcely recognizes a familiar association. This is fatal to dramatic poetry [American Quarterly, 1837, pp. 196-97] . Still another anonymous writer held that only in Act I of the poem did Shelley suggest Aeschylus. This writer supported his criticism with one of the first uses of the poet's correspondence. He quoted from the letter to Godwin, December 7, 1817 (before Shelley left England), Shelley's report on his nervous state: "I find the very blades of grass and the boughs of distant trees present themselves to me with microscopical distinctness" (Julian, IX, 258). The writer commented: "No description of Shelley's Introduction 61 poetic style . . . would serve so well as this sentence to show how unlike his dramatic poem is to the Chained Prometheus of ^Eschylus. Shelley has produced a chaos of poetic material without symmetry and without even formal unity" (British Review, 1840, p. 111). George Gilfillan, however, while admiring the poem, found a blemish in the fact that the drama was, on the contrary, like that of the Greek dramatist. He held that "it fails from attempting too much. It is too like Eschylus to be equal to Eschylus. It reads, in part, like a translation from the Greek, and this is fatal to its success" (Sketches, 1845, p. 116). And Swinburne's admiration for Aeschy- lus led him to much the same position, which he supported more fully: At Este . . . Shelley began his great and daring venture of attempting to write a new Trometheus Unbound.' It is unnecessary to say that the result, regarded as a poem or complete work of creative and plastic power, can bear no comparison whatever with the transcendent and unapproachable work of the greatest poet that ever lived — comparable only with Shakespeare on the one hand, and with the greatest of Hebrew or Arabian prophets on the other. From the dramatic or from the prophetic point of view it is so insufficient as to be almost liable to the charge of absolute futility. But poetry has hardly ever risen higher into clearer air, on wings of more perfect music, than in the sublimer passages of the first and fourth acts ["Shelley," 1870, p. 336]. A more unusual argument was advanced by the Reverend William A. 0' Conor, who did not believe that Aeschylus had written a sequel to the Prometheus Bound,™ and who assumed that Shelley, therefore, had mis- conceived the Greek poet, as he had misconceived Christianity ("Prome- theus," 1882, pp. 29-45). The objection of William J. Courthope was more orthodox, but no less severe: As a whole, in spite of its splendid passages, it is a tiresome poem. The imagery blazes without relief ; the action flags amid the cloying sweetness of the melodies; the characters are mere empty abstractions employed on a monotonous repetition of a tale of pain, misery, and oppression which cloaks the dialect of the French Revolution. How different is the method of the genuine dramatist, as shown in the "Prometheus Vinctus"; how simple— indeed, how matter-of-fact — is the treatment of the myth; how straight-forward the plot; how well distinguished and how justly balanced the characters — the cheery manliness of Prometheus, the feminine sympathy of the Oceanides, the humorous fussiness of Oceanus, and the gentlemanly good breeding of Hermes! . . . Shelley's conception has its foundation in French sentimentalism; ^Eschylus built on Attic commonsense [Liberal Movement, 1885, pp. 148-49]. G. Lowes Dickinson believed that Shelley had lost the quality of Aeschy- lus by too great departure from the ancient legend. As a result, solidity 66 James S. Thomson noted that E. G. Harman (The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus: Represented in English and Explained, London, 1920) also denied that Aeschylus' Prometheus Unbound and Prometheus the Fire Bringer ever existed, or that Prometheus Bound was philosophical: "Rather, [Harman] avers, it is completely contemporary. Prometheus is Aeschylus himself, and Zeus is the upstart Athenian government" ("Unbinding of Prometheus," 1945, pp. 4-5). 62 Introduction and verisimilitude were lost. To Aeschylus the myth was an architecture which he adorned but never obscured by his symbols, while with Shelley the myth was "a mere framework for the luxuriant growth of his meta- physical imagination," with, as a result, a weak and wavering plot (Edition, 1898, pp. vi-viii). And Elizabeth Meldrum wrote: "Shelley had a sense of principle, none of character. He cannot quite sustain the characters of the Greek gods who were, in Greek plays, written of according to their own proper characteristics. They become like his own Spirits of Air" ("Clas- sical Background," 1948, p. 161). The soundest interpretation of Shelley's relationship to Aeschylus, how- ever, was that of the critics who felt that the poet was not attempting to imitate the Greek dramatist or rewrite the lost member of the trilogy but was, rather, advancing certain of the ideas in the Prometheus Bound to their modern implications. This was, in effect, Shelley's own position, as we have seen from his letters, and as a careful reading of his Preface will show. Thus, one of the early reviewers noted that Shelley added a symbolic meaning to the treatment in Aeschylus (London-Critical Magazine^ 1820; see Appendix D, item IV) ; and the writer in the Gentleman's Magazine may well have sensed this when he wrote: "It is not properly though an imita- tion . . . but it is what, had ^Eschylus lived in the nineteenth century, and been an Englishman, he might have written" (1848 [1823] ; see Appendix D, item XIV). Medwin, too, found the poem "a bold and successful at- tempt, not so much to revive a lost play of ^Eschylus, as to make the allegory a medium for developing his abstruse and imaginative theories — an object he never lost sight of in any of his poems" (Shelley, 1847, p. 212) . William B. Scott was more specific: To the Hellenic mind [Prometheus] was a Titan gifted with unconquerable will and the gift of seeing into futurity and prophesying. He was no more the repre- sentative of humanity and of its development intellectually through the ages, than Zeus was of the all -wise creator and sustainer we moderns call God. . . . [Shelley's poem] possesses to us moderns the grandest and most portentous significance, making all thrones tremble as well as that of Zeus [Edition, 1873, pp. xxii-xxiii]. Giovanni Boglietti felt that, although Shelley kept the principal lines of development of the Greek fable, he had brought it into happy accord with the development it had undergone, and with the development of the moral conscience of the world ("Prometeo," 1880, p. 52). Sidney Lamer, con- cerned with the growth of human personality from Aeschylus to modern times, used Prometheus Unbound to illustrate the modern elements, although he felt that as a result of the different audience, which would not look at the thunders and earthquakes as did the Greek, Shelley's drama had a "tang of insincerity, of dilettantism" in it; but he also felt that if the audience of Aeschylus had acquired that direct way of looking all phenomena in the face which is one of the incidents of our modern personality they would have perceived such an inadequacy between the thunders and earthquakes of Jove, on Introduction 63 the one hand, and the immortal spirit of a Titan and a god like Prometheus, on the other, that the play, instead of being a religious and impressive spectacle to them, as it doubtless was, would have been simply a matter of ridicule. Further, Lamer held that Shelley "was penetrated with modern ideas, but penetrated as a boy would be, crudely, overmuch, and with a constant tendency to the extravagant and illogical: so that I call him the modern boy" ("English Novel," 1884, pp. 85-90). In 1893 a writer in the Nation held that Prometheus Unbound touched ccon the new problem of humanity," and satisfied "its altering needs and creeds. It is likely that [Shelley] had some part in bringing about the reformation of social ideals which we see going on about us; it is likely that in this regard he struck the keynote of the coming century rather than our own" (p. 87). George Woodberry wrote: The ethical motive of Shelley, his allegorical meanings, his metaphysical sug- gestions, the development of the old and introduction of new characters, the conduct of the action, the interludes of pastoral, music and landscape, the use of new imaginary beings neither human nor divine, and the conception of universal nature, totally transform the primitive ^Eschylean myth [Cambridge Edition, 1901, p. 621]. George H. Clarke thought that the poem combined "the Greek sense of Fate, the Renaissance sense of hope, the Revolution sense of freedom, the Romantic sense of love, the modern sense of science. It completes ^Eschy- lus as England completes Greece" (Edition, 1907, p. 239); and F. H. Gile indicated that Aeschylus dealt with the desire and hope of freedom, Shelley with the how of it, while others must deal with the when in later centuries ("Prometheus," 1908, pp. 430-31). Such comments are typical of many that might be cited, but, since the attitudes toward the philosophy of the poem will be outlined fully below, further illustrations will be reserved for that discussion. Here it will be in order to offer a composite tabulation of the more general comparisons that have been made with the Prometheus Bound. PROMETHEUS BOUND PROMETHEUS UNBOUND I. General Structure 1. A unity described variously as grand, magnificent, sculpturesque, bleak, and compactly restrained (Delrieu, Gilfillan, Palgrave, H. Clarke, J. M. Brown, Prescott, Mel- drum), together with an architecture adorned but never obscured (Dickin- son) and an austere majesty (Guttel- ing). 2. The full story used (Weaver). 1, A chaos of poetic material (Brit- ish Review, 1840), exhibiting debauch- ery of the imagination (Delrieu); wordy, diffuse (Gilfillan), yet more complex and more organic (Scudder) ; or a many-tinted, symbolistic nature painting (H. Clarke) growing from a metaphysical imagination (Dickinson) and resulting in a complex phantas- magoria with redundance of style (Gutteling) . 2. The story only up to the point of the wedding used (Weaver). 64 3. The play works primarily through plot (Tillyard). 4. The consummate act would have been the unbinding (British Review, 1840). 5. The physical setting is stressed, and nothing is left to the imagination (Scudder) . 6. It was written for objective the- atrical presentation (Courthope). 7. Some grim humor is present (Campbell). 8. The play broadens to its imagina- tive scope (Weaver) . 9. A realistic play (American Quar- terly, 1837) containing a human in- terest (Gilfillan) that is definite, con- crete (J. Bailey), and rooted always in human nature and human values (Bush), with real persons, whether divine or human, existing in a real world (Bowra). Introduction 3. Prometheus is isolated, and the stress is put on him in isolation (Till- yard) . 4. The unbinding is dismissed in a stage direction (British Review, 1840), and Jupiter's dethronement is made the climax (James Thomson). 5. Stress is on the spiritual, with much left to the imagination (Scud- der), although both use the play of the elements and emphasize heat and cold (Weaver). 6. It is a subjective reflection of Shelley himself (Courthope). 7. No humor is employed (Camp- bell). 8. The play starts with a broad imaginative scope (Weaver) . 9. Inasmuch as Shelley scarcely knew anything of the world as it is (American Quarterly, 1837) the poem is void of human interest (Gilfillan), lacks solidity and verisimilitude (Dick- inson), stresses the spirit rather than the body, the ideal rather than the real (J. Bailey), and with its incoher- ent symbols (Bowra) is too far from humanity (Bush). Shelley has for- saken both gods and men to concern himself with continents, spheres, and elements (Levin). II. Characters Prometheus 1. Prometheus, merely a Titan (Scott, Courthope) rather than a pure saint (J. Bailey) or an ideal hero (D. Sen), is nevertheless a distinct character who has healthy human truculence, even grim humor (Bush), yet who wavers between retribution and compromise (Campbell). 2. Foresight is his leading quality (Courthope). 3. He hates (Middleton), is fiery, untamed, revengeful (Scudder), vio- lent and cunning (Prescott), and would gloat over the curse had he uttered it (Guthrie). 1. Prometheus, a representative of humanity (Scott) and a mere suffering philanthropist and rebel (Courthope), is a saint (J. Bailey) and the very type of heroism and moral perfection (D. Sen), who becomes soft and effeminate and is gradually submerged in the background (Bush), yet whose purpose is inflexible (Campbell). 2. Rebellion against constituted authority is his leading quality (Court- hope). 3. He forgives (Lanier), has all-em- bracing pity (Scudder) and love (Pres- cott), and does not gloat (Guthrie). Introduction 4. He delivers a boastful recital of accomplishments (Eclectic Magazine, 1848), but his speeches are imposing and somber (Delrieu) . 5. The revelation of the secret is humiliating (Middle ton). 6. The emphasis is on physical suf- fering (British Review, 1840), which gives significance to his will (Weaver) . 7. His punishment is harsh but de- served for his sin of elevating unde- serving man (Hungerford) . 8. His character is developed gradu- ally through the play (Slater). 9. He agonizes (Levin). 65 4. His accomplishments are more gracefully related through Asia (Ec- lectic Magazine, 1848), and his speeches are eloquent only (Delrieu). 5. He refuses to reveal the secret and patiently awaits the ultimate omnipotence of the Good (Middle ton), but he, too, repents for his hatred (Lea). 6. The emphasis on mental suffering weakens the dramatic effect (British Review, 1840), but is spiritual and modern (Lanier), and the pain, giving significance to the will, is even more sharply focused (Weaver) . 7. His punishment is undeserved because Shelley resented the Aeschy- lean conception (Hungerford) . 8. He is practically dropped after Act I (Slater). 9. He rhapsodizes (Levin). Zeus- Jupiter 1. Zeus does not appear in person, but his character is clear (Weaver), and he is external (Fresco tt). 2. He is not a mere devil (J. Bailey). 3. Aeschylus has reverence if not esteem for Zeus (Guthrie), and, since he is not permanently tyrannical but in a passing mood, the reconciliation is reasonable (Harris) . 4. Zeus takes the pleasant privilege of a god with lo (Weaver). 1. Jupiter is present, has a character similar to that of Zeus (Weaver), but is a creation of Prometheus' mind (Fresco tt). 2. He is a mere devil ( J. Bailey) . 3. Shelley has no reverence for Jupiter (Guthrie), and, since he is an abstraction, a permanent attitude of mind, no reconciliation is possible, only complete overthrow (Harris). 4. Jupiter's beastly ravishment of Thetis is stressed (Weaver). Nymphs 1. They have kind, innocent virgin pity (Gentleman's Magazine, 1848 [1823]). 2. They serve as chorus but are mere observers (Scudder), and are not individualized (Weaver). They are, however, appropriate to their roles since Ocean proposes mediation to Prometheus (Delrieu). 1. Asia, lone, and Panthea are a disgusting travesty of Aeschylus' nymphs (Gentleman's Magazine, 1848 [1823]). 2. Shelley adds voices of the whole creation; as chorus they further the action (Scudder), and the Oceanides are individualized (Weaver), but the chorus is a bizarre accessory, fantastic, in Shelley (Delrieu). lo-Asia 1. lo is parallel to Asia (Fresco tt). 1. Asia is in every respect richer than lo (Prescott). 66 Introduction Mercury 1, He is a type character (Weaver), 1. He is a more complex character who is flippantly cruel (Scudder). (Weaver), who is well disposed toward Prometheus (Scudder). Ocean i. He is full of proverbs (Weaver). 1. He is more complex in character (Weaver). III. Other Considerations 1. The play sketches a great deal in broad lines, but without a distinct philosophy of life (H. Clarke), and Aeschylus is satisfied with separate truths (Jack). 2. It has an informing ethical im- agination (Babbitt). 3. Aeschylus accepts Necessity (Scudder), seeks a rationalistic inter- pretation of the universe (Keith) with a spiritual stoicism (Rutland), and a rapprochement between the Powerful and the Benignant (Campbell). 4. Aeschylus thinks in terms of uni- versal moral law (Rutland), and deals with the desire and hope of freedom (Gile), but it is a blind hope (Scudder), for the sublime doctrine of love was foreign to him and to Greek myth (Herford). 1. The play offers a complete spirit- ual and social philosophy (JI. Clarke), with the persons and incidents possess- ing higher, because more menial and spiritual, significance (Fresco tt), and Shelley seeks the truth behind the myth (Jack). 2. It lacks an informing ethical im- agination (Babbitt). 3. Shelley opposes Necessity with freedom and control over man's des- tiny (Scudder), shrinks from a ration- alistic interpretation of the universe (Keith), lives by hopes and desires (Rutland), and can see nothing good in power as such (Campbell). 4. Shelley thinks in terms of Man- kind (Rutland), deals with the means to freedom (Gile), and adds love to hope (Scudder).57 57To this listing should be added the unique comparison made in 1882 by William 0' Conor, who started from the assumption, noted above, that as there was no Aeschylean trilogy the story of the drama closed with the extant play. 0' Conor viewed the problem in narrow Christian terms. He felt that Shelley misconceived both Aeschylus and Christianity, for the lover of men should have been shown vanquished, as a symbol to men "that men may not be ashamed to suffer for the right," just as the crucified Christ was a symbol superior to the triumphant Christ. 0' Conor was thus led to the following comparisons ("Prometheus," passim): PROMETHEUS BOUND 1. An unjust god vs. a Prometheus who is vanquished, left bound, and re- mains a symbol of suffering and self- lessness. 2. Prometheus, distinct and isolated, proud of utterance, leads us to feel for all who suffer wrongly. 3. The closing scene inspires our con- tinued opposition to tyranny. PROMETHEUS UNBOUND 1. A triumphant, freed Prometheus who thereby loses his symbolic value for us. 2. Prometheus, identified with the race, self-conscious of utterance, leads us to self-pity. 3. Act III, scene iii removes all need for suffering Titans and is counter to human history and to human nature. Introduction 67 Comparisons with Goethe The first important comparisons with Goethe were made by Julian Schmidt in 1852. Schmidt considered Shelley the channel through which the Faustian tradition entered English letters, and he found in Shelley's poetry the "cardinal errors" of Faust: (1) overstrained idealism, already taking the form of scepticism in Shelley, whom Schmidt regarded as an iconoclast in ethics and religion; (2) preference for superhuman themes; (3) a resultant disintegration of form; and (4) the allegorical tendency, with a constant shifting of viewpoint because the allegorical interpretation was but partially applicable (Price, "Julian Schmidt," pp. 33-35). In England, Edward Dowden believed that "Goethe's 'Faust,' inferior in imaginative splendour to 'Prometheus Unbound,' expresses an order of ideas far juster and more profound" (Shelley, 1886, II, 264); but Richard Hutton found Faust as a whole splendid, while Prometheus Unbound, ob- scure and weak, was "splendid only in individual elements," the parts being greater than the whole and more beautiful out of context ("Shelley," 1876, p. 146). John Todhunter, however, thought Shelley superior to Goethe in vitalizing his personifications and in transmuting "philosophy into poetry" (Study, 1880, p. 135). Both poets, according to Steichen, agreed on the Saturnian, Jovian, and Promethean stages of existence, with the Saturnian representing rest, or the "unconscious vegetable life"; the Jovian, conflict, or "conscious existence into which evil has been intro- duced"; and the Promethean, attainment, or "conscious joy, an existence which has cast off evil" ("Study," 1904, pp. 49-50). Karl Heinemann noted that both poets turned against belief in a personal God and considered such belief the real foe and tyrant of man (Gestalten der Griechen, 1920, p. 30) ; and J. M. Brown saw in both poets the same "veiled" treatment of "the relations of the supernatural to the natural, the divine and demonic to the human. ... But Shelley overdid the method in his great play, as his great European master in his second part of Faust" (Study, 1905, p. 9). Philo Buck, indeed, considered it "more than possible that the form and much of the apparatus of the Prometheus Unbound owes itself directly to the Faust, and to the Helena episode as this had appeared in its earlier version." He noted also that both Goethe and Shelley were interested in science (with Goethe the more "ardent and fruitful observer and experimenter"), and Earlier, George Gilfillan had also found the Aeschylean treatment congenial to Christianity. However, he assumed a lost play but believed that in it Aeschylus either "meant to represent Jove as repentant" thus making Prometheus "the forgiver instead of the forgiven," or, more probahly, Aeschylus "meant to make it appear that Jove had been 'playing a part' and that he meant to surprise Prometheus . . . hy producing suddenly the reasons which had made him assume the aspect of the oppressor, and convince even his victim that his sufferings had been disguised benefits." This, Gilfillan thought, would give "almost a Christian meaning to the whole fable of the 'Prome- theus' " ("Prometheus," 1855, p. 422). 68 Introduction that both attempted the synthesis of science and art ("Goethe and Shelley," 1932, pp. 85-86). Contrasts between Faust and Prometheus Unbound may be tabulated as follows:58 FAUST PROMETHEUS UNBOUND 1. There is simple deliverance from the tyranny of circumstance or of fate (Dowden). 1. The advance is from error to truth, from weakness to strength, from inward disruption to inward harmony, from egoism to self -transcending love: a moral and spiritual ascension (Dowden).59 5SShelley did not know Goethe's fragmentary Prometheus, as it was not printed until 1830, although the soliloquy which is sometimes made to comprise the third act had been published in 1789 (John Bailey, "Prometheus in Poetry," 1923, p. 134). There is no evidence that Shelley knew even this soliloquy, however, and the comparisons that have been made with the German Prometheus are included here only because of the related interest in Faust (see Appendix E for an outline of Goethe's Prometheus fragment) : PROMETHEUS 1. The fragment typifies the progres- sive spirit of art (H. Clarke), and the esthetic conception in the development of the myth (Bush). 2. Prometheus is an utterly independ- ent being over whom Zeus has no power as long as he is true to his chosen ideals (H. Clarke). 3. Since Prometheus himself rules, he never complains against Zeus, who repre- sents conventions which the world thinks important, standards conserved from the past (H. Clarke). 4. Prometheus shapes men in his own image and scorns Zeus (Herford). 5. Prometheus is against the impo- tence, idleness, and dullness of the gods (J. Bailey). Shelley's poem has also been compared with Faust II (not published until 1832) in its grandeur of idea, boldness of creation, and splendor of details (Edouard Schure*, "Poete pantheiste," 1877, p. 777). 59William Guthrie held that in Shelley the advance was similar to that in Faust, only Shelley viewed the strength as already imminent in the weakness and in the error: "[That] is to Shelley revelation, which in Faust seems attainment" (Poet Prophets, 1897, p. 156). On this point a fuller statement from Philo Buck should be included: "Nowhere is the difference between Shelley and Goethe greater, however, than in their attitude towards man's evolution. . . . [To Shelley] it is mystical and catastrophic. ... It got itself confused with all manner of vitalisms and spiritisms of ether and electricity and the paraphernalia of transcendentalism. . . . But Goethe takes PROMETHEUS UNBOUND 1. It typifies the progressive mind of the human race struggling to combat error with truth (H. Clarke), and the rebellious or humanitarian conception in the development of the myth (Bush). 2. Prometheus is chained, and under Jupiter's power (H. Clarke). 3. He cries out against Jupiter, who represents tyranny and evil (H. Clarke). 4. He is visioned as the perfected man of the future (Herford). 5. He is against the selfishness and cruelty of Jupiter ( J. Bailey) . Introduction 2. Goethe never lost the zest of the struggle and saw before man eternal strife and fruitful creative labor (Buck). 3. Concerned as he was with attain- ment as a process, Goethe would don the godlike (Guthrie). 4. For Goethe, evil (denied by show- ing it creates good) is not adventitious but essential, and sin is a condition of progress (Steichen). 5. The Promethean period is a mere illusion, so Faust dies still striving for the ideal (Steichen). 6. Goethe, interested in what is go- ing on today, offers a beautiful picture of what we are now (Steichen). 7. Goethe knew where imagination should stop and the practical affairs of life begin (Buck) . 8. Mephistopheles is not pure evil, and the Faust- Mephistopheles conflict is not one to the death (Buck). 69 2. Shelley longed for peace and saw an eternity of peaceful enjoyment of the fruits of congest (Buck). 3. Concerned with the revelation of the divine in the human, Shelley would doff the human (Guthrie). 4. For Shelley, evil (denied by show- ing it destroys itself) is not bound up with consciousness, is adventitious, impedes progress, comes from without and can be shaken off (Steichen). 5. The Jovian period is potentially the Promethean (Steichen). 6. Shelley, distressed about the pres- ent, offers a beautiful expression of what seems to us an imaginary, unreal world (Steichen). 7. To Shelley there were no limits when man has once gained his rightful heritage (Buck). 8. Jupiter is pure evil, and Prome- theus' fight is to the death (Buck) . Comparisons with Milton In considering the influence of Milton on Prometheus Unbound, most of the critical attention has been given to specific parallels in the text, but the more general references have treated of verse techniques as well as of characters and ideas. The verse considerations have been dealt with above, where it was pointed out that, although a Miltonic echo was recognized, the Shelleyan quality was generally regarded as dominant, a quality char- acteristically described as "aerial" (Arthur Symons) or "unique in haunt- ing, clinging melody" (Vida Scudder), as opposed to the organlike power and greater compass of Milton's verse (John Bailey). With respect to the scope of the two poets, R. Pickett Scott noted that, while Milton clothed in verse ideas already in vogue, and sought to justify the ways of God to man, Shelley gave body to "shapes that haunt thought's wildernesses" and tried to justify the ways of man in his own eyes (Place of Shelley, 1878, p. 22). But William J. Alexander felt that Prometheus Unbound gave "a view of the history of the universe, past and to come, as a more modest course. . . . After all, Everyman is a creature of flesh and blood, of human intelligence and human passion and human weakness — as was Faust — why picture him as the inflexible Titan, as superhuman in his agony as he is in his humility and renunciation? One can live with Goethe and discover always the right inspiration and the right comment. One finds the rarefied atmosphere of a Prometheus at times difficult breathing" ("Goethe and Shelley," 1932, p. 100). 70 Introduction Milton gives another view of the same subject in Paradise Lost" reflecting the philosophical ideas current in pre-Revolutionary France as Paradise Lost reflected the philosophy of Puritanism (Edition, 1898, pp. 314-15) ; and William P. Ker added that in Shelley's poem the "scheme of redemp- tion [is] as fixed as that of Paradise Lost. ... It is the ultimate triumph of pure Reason and of the Soul of the world" ("Shelley," 1923, p. 46). Douglas Bush, however, held that Shelley had no thought of Milton's (or of Aeschylus') "total philosophic design but only of individual character isolated from the plot, and, with his usual Manicheism, he sees the antag- onists in terms of black and white" (Mythology, 1937, p. 152). J. Macmillan Brown turned his attention to Samson Agonistes, which he considered "far more like its model the Prometheus Bound than is Shelley's great drama" (Study, 1905, p. 11) because it takes the most uncompromising view of the perplexities of life and yet reaches a simple unity by the force of faith in the righteous government of the world, [while Shelley] shuts his eyes to the grossness and animality of much of human nature and thus gains faith in his solution of the human problem; he would purify the world by sweeping away all existing institutions and taking care that none be put in their place. Also, "Milton keeps his drama tragic to the last . . . whereas Shelley allows his play to linger on an act beyond the fall of Jove and the resumption of self-control by human thought." On the other hand, Brown thought, each drama has "a fault that is its greatest merit . . . the purely lyrical nature of its poetry" (pp. 14-16). J. A. K. Thomson, however, held that Shelley's poem "is more essentially Greek in spirit, though less in form, than Samson Agonistes., which is really the tragedy not of Samson but of John Milton. Shelley had one necessary qualification of a dramatist which was denied to Milton — he could forget himself" (Classical Background, 1948, p. 232), As to comparisons of characters, although Helene Richter was alone in dealing with Asia, pointing out that Milton's Eve represented physical beauty whereas Asia represented intellectual beauty (Shelley, 1898, pp. 417-18), comparisons of Satan and Prometheus have, of course, been many. Vida Scudder held that Aeschylus' Prometheus was, in a sense, the parent of both (Edition, 1892, p. 125) ; the Dublin University Magazine in 1877 listed their similarities as iron determination, self-contained and self-sup- porting pride, defiance of fate, and calm and inflexible will; and J. M. Brown pointed out that in the two poems it is Satan and Prometheus alone who have the character and the imperfections to make them dramatically interesting (Study, 1905, pp. 124-25). But differences have been stressed more frequently than likenesses, and these may be tabulated as follows: SATAN PROMETHEUS 1. Satan has enormous, selfish, all- 1. Pride is lacking in Prometheus conquering pride (Gilfillan; Dublin (Gilfillan) because of his self -surrender, Introduction University Magazine, 1877; Tod- hunter), and elemental dignity (Bald). 2. His is an active malignity (R. Scott), and in hatred he drags down mankind and opposes goodness (Dub- lin University Magazine, 1877). 3. With no consolation from hope, he endures by sheer power of will (Dublin University Magazine, 1877; R. Scott). 4. He opposes the omnipotence of God (R. Scott), the one to whom he owes everything (Dublin University Magazine, 1877). 5. He (like Keats's Titans) is marked by wild regret and frantic indignation (Salt), and his hate and scorn are intensified by Milton (Scudder). 6. He and the infernal world were believed real by Milton (Quarterly Review, 1887). 71 self-devotion (Todhunterj, and disin- terestedness (Bald), and, believing in his own innocence, he waits (Dublin University Magazine, 1877). 2. With long - suffering love (R. Scott), he is wise, firm, and good, de- fending mankind and opposing crime (Dublin University Magazine, 1877). 3. He looks forward with undying hope (R. Scott) to the hour of triumph, and pities the doom of his rival (Dublin University Magazine, 1877). 4. He gave Jupiter all he has (Dublin University Magazine, 1877), and op- poses the reigning power of evil (R. Scott). 5. In his temporary subjection he is calm, passionless, and fearless (Salt), and his noblest elements are developed by Shelley (Scudder). 6. Shelley dealt with airy abstrac- tions and the shadows of a dream (Quarterly Review, 1887). Comparisons with Dante and Spenser Comparisons with Dante, while not numerous, have frequently been penetrating and illuminating. In 1876 R. A. Holland, in defending Shelley's lack of human incidents and passions in the poem, argued that "the in- trusion of an earthly character would mar its speculative integrity," and that in this the poem differed from those of Dante and Goethe ("Soul of Shelley," p. 157). Shelley has frequently been ranked with, or just below, the Italian poet in inspiration (e.g., by George Barnett Smith and Rossetti), and Herbert Read considered that, in his conception of love as the guiding principle of the universe, Shelley was "much nearer to Dante than to Plato" ("Optimistic Philosopher," 1950, p. 378). To Benjamin Kurtz both Beatrice and Asia were "idealizations of love, each gazing upon her peculiar Heaven," but Beatrice was "almost completely shorn" of sensuousness, while Asia was "an apotheosis of the sensuous" (Introduction, 1933, p. xxviii) ; and James Notopoulos pointed out that, like Spenser's Una, "Asia is seen through a veil, so beautiful is she" (Platonism of Shelley, 1949, p. 248). But the more important, and the more detailed, comparisons have been made by Vida Scudder and Levi Kuhns. In a chapter called "Ideals of Redemption, Mediaeval and Modern"" (Life of the Spirit, 1895, pp. 96-144), Miss Scudder developed her theme around Dante, Spenser,60 and Shelley as representing, respectively, the 600ther than in Miss Scudder's chapter (and in incidental references in her edition of the poem, already noted) general comparisons with Spenser have been few, although specific echoes have frequency been pointed out (see the Critical Notes). T. Bohme 72 Introduction Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Revolution. "To Dante, the struggle of life is pilgrimage; to Spenser, it is warfare; to Shelley, it is endurance"; but all three, she held, told the story of the human soul as it moved from passion to peace, with Shelley's Hellenism representing the forerunner of that neopaganism which has sought to escape Christian in- fluence and return to classic forms. To her, Act I of Prometheus Unbound was the "Inferno" of Shelley, Act II "Shelley's version of the journey up the purifying Mount," and Acts III and IV the final triumph. In all three poems Miss Scudder found the same dominant interests: (1) pure interest of story; (2) political interest; and (3) spiritual interest. "Pain, expiation, glory, — under this threefold experience life is conceived in every century. But the centuries differ in their thought of the source of the pain, the nature of the expiation, the meaning of the glory." The problem for Dante she conceived to be the purification of the soul; for Spenser, the routing of the powers of wrong; for Shelley, the liberation of the soul (with man innately good and purity an instinct; by "the force of Revolution, man is at last set free"). "The aim of Dante is holiness; but the aim of Shelley is freedom." Miss Scudder saw the protagonists as Dante the Mystic, Arthur the Knight, and Prometheus the Rebel, with the rebel (unlike the heroes in Aeschylus and Milton) "not only recognized, but recognized with pride." To her Dante was the most vivid, Spenser's knights being "mere painted shadows" and Prometheus a puppet ("a brief list of abstract qualities, and we are done with him"): "The majesty of Prometheus springs from his resistance of tyranny without; but, having no foes to fight within, he sug- gests vacuity." Moreover, she felt that "Dante's love is organic, human, varied," while that of Prometheus was "a benevolence monotonously diffused." In considering the ethical scope of the three poems, Miss Scudder noted that to Dante sin was "definite, hideous, obvious"; to Spenser it came "with a fair face, disguised in forms of sanctity and beauty"; while to Shelley "sin is gone. Disbelief in moral evil was part of the creed of Shel- ley's day." As a result she felt that Shelley lost relief and variety in eliminating sin from his picture of human life, but that he recognized "what no older poet ever knew, the insidious and profound danger of doubt" which was the "very source and centre of his Titan's pain," and that in his "consciousness of altruism and of doubt he signals the era of to-day, and therefore we hail him prophet." found Spenserian evidence only in "slight traces" and saw Dante as the more important influence (Spensers literarisches Nachkben, 1911, p. 310). 0. Elton felt that in Shelley "the meaning of the drama is ... clearer than its myth— a contrary effect to that which is produced by the Faerie Queene" (Shelley, 1912, p. 35) ; and J. Kooistra held that, while Spenser wished to tell a story, with Shelley the spiritual meaning was the thing, and the latter poet was not strong in allegory ("Prometheus," 1916, p. 214). Introduction 73 As to the symbols of salvation, in all three "salvation comes through women. . . . They purify, and they reveal"; and Miss Scudder noted that in each poem there was a separation, and a reunion that led to final triumph. To all three poets, also, the women were "the source whence radiance streams," with the glory at first darkened, and "the movement towards victory . . . marked by their growth in radiance." The love between Prometheus and Asia Miss Scudder felt was less concrete than that in Dante and Spenser; in Shelley it was "absolute but remote from human comprehension. . . . Shelley can give us love in absence, the love that is yearning; but the love that is possession he cannot give." Both Dante and Shelley were mystics, according to Miss Scudder, but "the 'beauty un- beheld,' whereof Asia is the shadow, is the Anima Mundi, the soul of the natural world; the vision whereon gaze the eyes of Beatrice is the Face of God . . . [and Asia] brings no message of the Divine." Finally, Miss Scudder treated of the "Ideals of Triumph" and found that in Dante and Spenser "help from above descends through countless ministries," but, in Shelley, "angels have given place to the personified forces of nature, or the instincts of the soul of man. ... A kindled con- sciousness of the abounding but elusive life in nature has replaced the old faith in supernatural help. . . . Shelley knows no heaven but a regenerate earth," and the life of Prometheus and Asia after the reunion palls on us, as inevitably in a Utopia. Dante was successful because his Paradise was a "frank and exclusive use of symbol," whereas in Shelley there was occa- sional intrusion of literal fact; and in Dante's peculiar faith Soul was the supreme reality, whereas Shelley could offer no vision of the Absolute. And Miss Scudder concluded that the difference was that between Freedom Spiritual and Freedom Natural. Shelley longed "for a state of absolute equality, unrestrained liberty, a state where, as we instinctively feel, growth cannot be." With the Christian Dante it was freedom won through long discipline; with the revolutionary Shelley it was freedom as an innate right: "If the modern thought of salvation is broader, to attain it we are left with less help." Levi Kuhns found the Paradiso especially comparable to Prometheus Unbound in that both made the same use of light, of love as the principle of life, of music, and of dance. He also found the spirits of the nine heavens paralleled many times in Shelley's poem. But where Dante was medieval, Shelley was modern; and where Dante, profoundly religious, made God the measure of all things, Shelley made man the measure. Kuhns's de- tailed parallels will be found in the Critical Notes of the present edition, but he pointed out that, more important than specific echoes, "the spirit of Dante pervades the whole of Shelley's poetry" (Dante and the Poets., 1904, pp. 188-96). Finally, Traugott Bohme concluded that Shelley's method, especially in the treatment of Asia, 74 Introduction is no longer Spenserian, but absolutely Dantesque. . . . The influence of the Dantesque figures of light which are enthroned high above the earthly and do not mix in earthly conflicts has ... in general forced the Spenserian allegory very much into the background [Spensers literarisches Nachleben, 1911, p. 310], Comparisons with Godwin In 1907 Arthur Symons offered this explanation of the prevailing attitude toward Shelley in his own day: What seems to us abnormal in its innocence was to them abnormal in guilt; they imagined a revolution behind every invocation to liberty, and s*aw Godwin chari- oted in the clouds of Prometheus Unbound. They saw nothing else there. . . . Eng- land still feared thought, and still looked upon poetry as worth fearing ["Shelley," p. 347]. This is a fair summary of the comparisons with Godwin down to the end of the century,61 with the attitude finding its extreme statement in 1913 as H. N. Brailsford wrote: "It would be no exaggeration to say that Godwin formed Shelley's mind, and that Prometheus Unbound and Hellas were the greatest of Godwin's works" (Shelley, Godwin, 174). George Woodberry, however, suggested that "Plato has displaced God- win and the eighteenth century philosophers in the intellectual sphere, though . . . without entirely excluding them" (Cambridge Edition, 1901, 622) ; and William Butler Yeats considered that Shelley's "liberty was so much more than the liberty of Political Justice that it was one with In- tellectual Beauty" ("Philosophy of Shelley's Poetry," 1900, p. 81). Arthur M. D. Hughes, also, saw an advance over Godwin: "Shelley has converted the bald propositions of Political Justice into the core of a mystic faith and raised the noblest monument in literature to the cause which he served" (Edition, 1910, p. 182); as did C. H. Herford, who held that, while Shelley's "Godwinian creed had [in respect of perfectibility] undergone no abate- ment whatever," nonetheless "the sublime doctrine of love was foreign" to Godwin, and, "under forms of thought derived from the atheist and materialist Godwin, Shelley has given,, in Prometheus Unbound, magnificent expression to the faith of Plato and of Christ" (History, 1915, pp. 64-65, 67). Benjamin Kurtz concluded that the Platonism "superimposed upon God- winism . . . makes the great difference between the more strident declama- tion of Queen Mob and Islam, and the lovely wisdom of Prometheus Un- bound" (Pursuit of Death, 1933, p. 185). Amiyakumar Sen, too, felt that Shelley had gone beyond Godwin in leading Asia through "a series of 61Typical comments: Dublin Magazine (1820) : Shelley erred in applying ideals to the test of experience (see Appendix D, item VI); L. Stephen: "a continued reflection of Godwin's characteristic views" ("Godwin and Shelley," 1879, p. 379) ; E. Dowden (like Slater, Scudder, Hancock) : "now as always, [Shelley] wrote as the disciple of William Godwin" (Shelley, 1886, II, 264); W. J. Courthope: "foundation in Godwinian axioms" (History, 1910, p. 307)| Introduction 75 educative experiences," whereas Godwin's Reason would save mankind at once (Studies, 1936, p. 135). 62 Ellsworth Barnard specifically opposed those who built up the "miscon- ception" that Shelley "considers evil to be the outgrowth of institutions," and that Prometheus Unbound was "an illustration of this Godwinian dogma" (Shelley's Religion, 1937, pp. 121-22). He later noted that Shelley differed from Godwin in another respect, for "Godwin's doctrine of 'per- fectibility,' as set forth in Political Justice, involves 'perpetual improve- ment' and not attainment of perfection, to which it is expressly opposed" (Edition, 1944, p. 88). And A. E. Rodway offered a succinct statement of Shelley's advance over Godwin, which he found in the transmutation of Godwin's "benevolence as means" to Shelley's "love as an end"; the greater emphasis on "the empire of feeling"; the vision, in Prometheus Unbound, of man's future undividedness, -when passion and reason are one (Passion heing, as it were, Nature -as -Love; Reason, Nature-as -Necessity) ; and finally, the emphasis on the need for a change of heart so that this union can come about. This will happen when man is in harmony with Nature where the union is already effected. Such union gives a spiritual power analogous to the colder rational non-violence of Godwin. It is as poetry to prose. ... As [Shelley] developed, God- win's principles remained the basic elements of his thought, but were transmuted into his own substance [Godwin, 1952, pp. 49-50]. Comparisons with Plato The general influence of Plato on Prometheus Unbound'has been variously stressed. To David M. Moir the poem was "as unintelligible as not a few of the superlatively metaphysical reveries of Plato, Kant, and Coleridge" (Sketches, 1887, p. 227). Vida Scudder ascribed to Godwin and Plato the poet's communist anarchical attitude toward authority (Edition, 1892, p. xx); and Woodberry and Kurtz, as we have just seen, recognized that Godwin was being replaced by Plato in Prometheus Unbound. Oliver Elton felt that, like Plato, Shelley "watches life with profound intelligence from afar, but . . . rejects it" (Shelley, 1912, p. 35). But the first serious study of the relationship between the two was made by Lilian Winstanley. She pointed out that Shelley's ideas came naturally to "the disciple of the thinker who was, above all others, most daring in [social and sexual] speculations"; and she traced, with illustrations of Shelley's use, the four 62But he also held that Godwin's "principle of non-resistance to evil except by an enlightenment of the human intellect ... is the cornerstone, as it were, of the Prometheus Unbound" (p. 211). To this George Cowling would have agreed: "The mind of Shelley's Prometheus is that of William Godwin in Political Justice, V. 11 [II, 98] : 'I could endure all that injustice or caprice could inflict, provided that I possessed, in the resource of a firm mind, the power of looking down with pity on my tyrant, and of knowing that I had that within, that sacred character of truth, virtue and fortitude, which all his injustice could not reach' " (Shelley, 1936, p. 62) ; as would D. Bush: "Although Shelley had been moving from Godwinism toward a kind of Platonism, the millennium he envisions is still Godwinian" (English Poetry, 1952, pp. 144-45). 76 Introduction Platonic groups of ideas centering around (1) general religious and philoso- phical speculations, (2) cosmic speculations, (3) social and political con- siderations, and (4) the theory of love ("Platonism in Shelley/' 1913, pp. 73-74). As these bear on Prometheus Unbound they have been indicated in the Critical Notes of the present edition. Johanna Gutteling felt that Plato's influence led Shelley to produce a "complex phantasmagoria, in which the Platonic mysticism is a feature no less striking than the profuseness of imagery and the redundance of style" (Hellenic Influence, 1922, p. 95) ; but Bennett Weaver thought that Shelley "was conscious that Jesus stood between him and Plato, adding the spacious infinitude of the uttermost genius to the best thoughts of the Greek" (Understanding of Shelley, 1932, p. 160). Carl Grabo, too, held that "the ethics of Christ is fused with the metaphysics of Plato" (Interpreta- tion, 1935, p. 13) ; but he believed that "the neo -Platonic philosophy as set forth in Proclus, Porphyry, and Plotinus more clearly elucidates Prome- theus Unbound than do the Platonic dialogues. Plato . . . offers no philoso- phic system. This the neo-Platonists do offer, and Shelley's system in Prometheus Unbound is akin to theirs" (pp. 9-10). 63 While Grabo dealt ex- tensively with the Platonic tradition,64 it was James Notopoulos who, in this area, made the most complete and detailed study to date. Notopoulos felt that experience plus the reading of Berkeley and Plato shaped the final expression in Shelley's poem. Personal and national dis- appointments showed the poet that ideal perfection was not of this world, and so Necessity gave way to idealism. In the idea of Intellectual Beauty Shelley found, like Plato's lover in the Phaedrus, "the world of mind where man is unconquered by the world of evil and tyranny." Compared to that world, this one was a veil, and Shelley came to hope for the regeneration of man through conversion of the soul and mind, even as did Plato (Platonism of Shelley, 1949, p. 237). Notopoulos distinguished three types of Platon- ism and held that Shelley combined all three in his work: (1) Indirect ^Carlos Baker, in commenting on Grabo's work, found it satisfactory except where the critic was "led to apply to the interpretation of a given passage a concept either far from Shelley's customary views or not demons tr ably known to the poet, who, though learned, was not so learned as Professor Grabo. The so-called neo-Platonic interpreta- tion is, however, so deeply informed by ethical considerations that Grabo's is only a modification of the traditional view that the poem is a moral allegory" (Shelley's Major Poetry, 1948, p. 286). Roy Male has suggested that "Shelley's Well-known enthusiasm for Plato's Diakgues and his translation of the Symposium have obscured the fact that a primary source of his pervasive theory of love lies in the eighteenth-century develop- ment of the doctrine of sympathy . . . [i.e.,] the broader social impulse as well as a means for psychological analysis" ("Shelley and Sympathy," 1950, p. 183). 64This tradition Richard Fogle later defended as no heresy, but "one of two great streams, the Platonic and the Aristotelean, into which all 'creative' writing may be divided." He held that "Prometheus Unboundis neither a fascinating sport nor a baseless fantasy; it is a supreme example ot a permanent mode in literature" ("Image and Imagelessness," 1952, p. 25). 5 Introduction 77 Platonism, represented by "the Platonist who is influenced by Plato in- directly, through Plato's plastic interpenetration in the thought and history of civilization"; (2) Direct Platonism, represented by "the Platonist who studies, accepts, and is directly influenced by Plato's thought as contained in the Dialogues"; and (3) Natural Platonism, represented by "the Platon- ist who has Plato's wonder, inspiration, and insight into the same realm of speculation" (p. 4). Prometheus Unbound, then, was in Notopoulos' opinion the fruition of Shelley's Platonism, derivative and natural. Both Plato and Shelley stressed the need of moral wisdom and virtue in poetry; both mingled science and poetry; both used symbolism despite their mutual belief that the deep truth was imageless; in both this symbolism was either natural ("essentially concerned with the use of pure sense perceptions in the character of symbols") or artificial ("concerned with the imaginative and arbitrary use of common symbols in an uncommon and novel way") ; and both shared ideas on the problem of evil — for, even though neither was consistent in his views, both agreed that evil belonged to the realm of appearance and not to that of Reality, and that it was accidental, in Shelley to be overcome by will, in Plato by "mastery in the soul of the rational element" (pp. 232-36). In Notopoulos' opinion, also, Prometheus Unbound was motivated prim- arily by Shelley's reading of the Republic, although the Symposium shaped its expression in terms of Beauty: "The Republic appealed to Shelley the reformer, whereas the Symposium appealed to Shelley the poet and lover; Shelley manifests both of these sides of his nature in the Prometheus Un- bound" And in the use of Asia as the symbol of Love, Notopoulos held that Shelley followed the Platonic tradition of Dante, Spenser, and Wiel- and, all of whom influenced him (pp. 238-39). Comparisons with Byron Comparisons relating Prometheus Unbound to several poems of Byron have been neither so numerous nor so detailed. The first of any importance was given in a development of the "Satanic School" theme in 1839, wherein the writer linked Cain and Shelley's poem by arguing that in the page of Byron and of Shelley, strains of the loftiest religious sentiment are found, [but] these strains seem like the voices of fallen angels, singing, in a dream in the lower world, one of the not yet forgotten chants of heaven, and when the fugitive dream has fled, again joining in the rebellious shouts of hell. The choice and mode of treating of such subjects, as Cain and Prometheus, show that these two master-spirits of the Satanic School, do not feel that Faith is wiser than douht, and Reverence is nobler than rebellion [Christian Examiner, 1839, p. 149]. George Gilfillan described Prometheus as a figure "between man, demon, and deity," who lacked the "lurid malignity" of Byron's Lucifer ("Shelley," 1845, p. 95); while R. Pickett Scott suggested that as Childe Harold's Pil- grimage was "the shout of a strong man rejoicing in his strength," so 78 Introduction Prometheus Unbound was "the glad paean of one who suddenly discovers the true secret of all harmony, and who pours forth his very soul in song" (Place of Shelley, 1878, p. 25) . In comparing Manfred and Shelley's Prometheus, Helene Richter held that the latter was not marked by scorn of humans, as was Manfred, but by love; Prometheus did penance for mankind, whereas Manfred did penance for a personal guilt; Prometheus overcame his fate through patience and noble suffering, whereas Manfred boasted of his pride; Prometheus was at one with all created things, especially humanity, whereas Manfred's love of nature was a flight from the world; and Prome- theus was saved by love, whereas Manfred was trapped by love into a situation from which only death could save him (Shelley, 1898, pp. 413-16). Manfred was also thought to be one possible source of the lyrical eff^ctive- ness of Shelley's poem (N. I. White, Shelley, 1940, II, 134). As to Byron's Prometheus (see Appendix E), Richard Ackermann thought that Shelley got hints, including the allegorical, for his hero and for Jupiter from this poem ("Studien," 1892, p. 31). Byron's Prometheus was, ac- cording to Charles Herford, "a symbol of the divineness, the heroic endur- ance and the 'funereal destiny' of man. . . . But, for Shelley, no symbol of humanity could suffice which excluded the perfected man of the future he confidently foresaw" (History, 1915, p. 64). Llewellyn Buell, too, found similarity in the general tone of the two poems, as well as several specific parallels ("Byron and Shelley," 1917, pp. 312-13); and Douglas Bush linked Shelley and the Byron of Prometheus as adherents of the "rebellious or humanitarian" rather than the aesthetic development of the Promethean theme, with Byron's hero "the Prometheus of Shelley's opening lines; he would have uttered the curse against Jupiter, he would never have re- tracted it" (Mythology, 1937, pp. 78-79). The strongest assertion of Byron's influence on the poem, however, has come from G. Wilson Knight, who held that "the unnamed parent was, very clearly, Byron." Knight cited influence from Prometheus, Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, and Manfred, and held Jupiter to be, in many respects, "a precise duplication of Arimanes" in the last poem, although the "ethical complexities of Manfred are in Shelley replaced by the black and white opposition of a bad Jupiter against a good Prometheus, with a final dis- solution of drama ... in an un-Byronic lyric mysticism written after his immediate influence had waned." Act I was thus most strongly influenced, especially by the "Promethean stanzas" in Childe Harold's Pilgrimage (see preliminary note to Act I in Critical Notes) . It was on the basis of these stanzas that Knight held Byron to be the "unnamed parent" of Prometheus Unbound: Shelley and others . . . implored [Byron] to house his genius in a great poem of traditional sort. But he was instinctively impelled to aim at some thing higher; in him literature had taken on flesh and blood, poetry had become indecently and Introduction 79 threateningly alive; and that is why everyone was always offering him advice, trying to get the Djinn back into the bottle. In these Promethean stanzas Byron had, as never before, spoken out in person, thrown off the mask, and come before his public as a confessed Titan. I suggest that Shelley was most deeply disturbed, and, purposely or instinctively, proceeded as quickly as possible to bottle up the dreaded substance once more in his own magnificent and highly respectable fiction: that, and that only, was its proper home. After all, our culture has no place for the reality [Byron, 1952, pp. 257-59]. Comparisons with Colder 'n Finally, Shelley's interest in Calderon led Salvador de Madariaga to compare the two writers. He concluded, with respect to Prometheus Un- bound, that Shelley, like Calderon, was "too deeply obsessed with man" to write of men, and that there was, despite the charges of deficiency in human interest, no lack of it. Calderon, as a priest, knew what man's destiny was, but Shelley, on the contrary . . . was in the dark, and his preoccupation was born of doubt and anxiety. . . . Thus, unable to find serenity in resignation like Shake- speare, or peace in faith like Calderon, Shelley spent his short years hovering over the future city of his dreams when hope sustained the wings of his imagina- tion, or, when hope failed him, wailing over his own misery and the world's wrong" (Shelley and Calderon, 1920, p. 24). 66 Elizabeth Ebeling extended the inquiry, with particular attention to Prometheus Unbound and the Magico Prodigioso, and offered a more detailed comparison. She found both writers alike in vastness, intensity, universal- ity, lack of comedy, dogmatism, strict and stern adherence to a fixed idea, taste for weird and fantastic scenery, unearthiness of theme and execution, and the salvation of man as theme ("Shelley tinged with revolution and love, Calderon with Christian dogma"). Yet, as artists, she felt that Calderon the Catholic often took precedence over Calderon the poet; whereas Shelley was always the poet first, and differed from other "thesis" writers because of his Platonism, because his revolutionary dogma was the result of a passionate love of humanity, and because he was a great and enduring artist ("Sources," 1931, p. 73) ,66 65The last is an interesting echo of Carlyle's description, in "Characteristics" (1831): "Hear a Shelley filling the earth with inarticulate wail; like the infinite, inarticulate grief and weeping of forsaken infants'* (Essay 's, III, 31). 66Interest in comparative analyses of the Prometheus story was focused in 1897 in a "new idea in teaching English" offered by the editors of Poet Lore. They presented an elaborate study plan (with detailed study suggestions) under the following headings: The Origin of the Prometheus Myth; The Greek Prometheus Stories and Their Inter- pretation; The Development of the Myth in Aeschylus; New Aspects of the Myth Brought Out by Shelley; Classic Influences Observable in the Form of Shelley's Prome- theus; Cosmic Elements in Shelley's Prometheus; Grounds for Identifying the Samson with the Prometheus Myth; the Lack of Correspondence of Milton's Samson Agonistes with the Prometheus Story; Points of Agreement between Cain and Prometheus; 80 Introduction ON THE IDEAS IN THE POEM As the critical approaches to the ideas of Prometheus Unbound are con- sidered, it will be well to keep in mind three pertinent statements. Helene Richter wrote: Shelley's philosophy appears to be influenced essentially by the English em- piricists and the French materialists, by Plato, Spinoza, and Christianity, with the influence of the former appearing in his youthful years, and that of the latter more strongly in his maturity. The influence of Godwin, as of an eclectic who incorporates in his work ideas of all the theorems which come into question in reference to Shelley, is perceptible throughout his life. However, in spite of the fact that Shelley . . . borrows from the great supply of thoughts of older spirits, he assimilates that which he has received so completely that . . . each of [the derived ideas] attains an individual and original configuration. Shelley's pantheism gets an individual stamp through his unifying of nature, beauty, and love; his concept of freedom through the emphasis of self-mastery as true independence, and of self -reform as the means to its realization; his belief in immortality through the union of the dead with nature. And so it seems permissible to speak not only of philosophical influences on the uncommonly well-read poet, but of a world-view of Shelley's own ["Shelleys Weltanschauung," 1902, p. 435]. J. Macmillan Brown commented: [Shelley] had to pour the new wine of the modern world into the old bottles of Greek literature. ... He had to utter his sympathy with the nobler creed of love and pity that came in with Christianity; he had to speak out the protests of the French sceptics against the perversions of the Deity introduced by that system; he had to lament the tyrannies that had devastated the earth and to speak against all governments; he had to give voice to the new passion of democracy; he had to side with the ideal world of the spirit of man; he had to find beauty in the noble- ness of the material world of nature. ... [It was] a problem impossible for the greatest genius of which humanity is capable. But Shelley made the problem easier than it was by the visionary character of his solutions \Study, 1905, pp. 12-13] . And Bennett Weaver pointed out that Shelley was one of the deepest scholars among English poets. Because of his amazing facility among the tongues, his quick conception, his strong retentiveness, and his ability to imagine that which he knew, he held many ideas of many men in an assimilation which made them his own. Consequently we have found in him that for which we sought, and Shelley scholarship has tended to become a record of overemphasis [Romantic Poets, 1950, p. 171]. Allegorical Considerations The overemphasis referred to by Weaver has, however, not necessarily led to allegorical interpretations of the poem, and frequently when the Byron's Lucifer Considered as a Hebraic Prometheus; The Contrast in the Doctrine of Evil Held by Shelley and Byron; Elements of the Myth Emphasized by Goethe; The Part of Hermes in Aeschylus, Goethe, and Shelley; The Treatment of the Myth by Lowell and Longfellow; The Characterization of the Heroes of Aeschylus, Shelley, Goethe, Milton and Byron; The Idea of God in the Poems; The Influence Exerted by the Feminine Element; Artistry in the Poems; The Underlying Philosophy in the Poems. Introduction 81 word allegory has been used in critical discussions it has been used loosely, as a substitute for what N. I. White called "the general representative value of all great art" as opposed to "a real machinery of definite parallel values." White set himself to show that the poet nowhere mentioned an allegorical in tent for the poem (nor did Mrs. Shelley), that the identifica- tions of a few characters actually left the difficult problems untouched, and that the allegorical guesswork could be attributed to the recognized and indisputable fact that the poem as a whole does represent the struggle of humanity against oppression. . . . There is no confusion here; the con- fusion appears only when subsequent critics have tried to elaborate the meaning of the poem by working out an allegorical mechanism for it ["Every Man His Own Allegorist," 1925, pp. 174-80]. Nor was White the first to attempt clarification of the question of allegory. In comparing Shelley's poem with The Faerie Queene, Vida Scudder agreed that while the latter was an allegory, with "the connection between story and meaning . . . arbitrary rather than essential," Prometheus Unbound was a myth, with "no painful invention, unless in some minor details; these figures have flashed upon the inner vision of the poet in per- fect unity of soul and form. ... An allegory is the result of experience; a myth, of intuition" (Edition, 1892, pp. xi-xii) ; and William J. Alexander agreed that the poem was "not a puzzle to be solved by ingenious inter- pretations, nor must the allegory be forced, especially in details. The poem is much more a medium for the expression of emotions with regard to cer- tain great subjects than an expedient for the systematic statement of a philosophy" (Edition, 1898, p. 319), Similarly, George Woo dberry argued against those who went beyond Shelley and Mrs. Shelley in giving precise meaning to the characters: [That] Shelley had any conscious logic of this sort in his poem seems too un- certain to be asserted. The drama is an emanation of his imagination, working out his deepest sentiments and convictions in a form nearer to the power of music than language ever before achieved; it is haunted by the presence of the inexpres- sible in the heart of its most transcendent imagery; and in all its moods and motions is far from the domain in which the prose of articulated thought is discerned through a veil of figured phrase. The intellectual skeleton, in any case, even were it discoverable, is not the soul of the poem. Certain theories of Shelley, as to philosophical problems, are present in the verse; but they control only instinctively, and not by deliberate thought, the structure of character, scene, event, and act [Cambridge Edition, 1901, p. 621]. Traugott Bohme, in turn, noted that only in Asia and Panthea could allegorical suggestion be found. The figures from classical mythology, and the elements of nature, he held, must not be so considered, inasmuch as "the real allegory sensualizes something abstract by calling on the strongest forces of the fancy" (Spensers literarisches Nachleben, 1911, p. 309). In effect, indeed, Bonnie's treatment of Asia and Panthea was on the level of "representative value" rather than allegory. Frederick Prescott also held 82 Introduction that "it is wrong to treat Shelley's drama as an allegory," for "all the ascriptions may be recognized as true to the poem, but all taken together are inexhaustive. . . . Partial meanings may indeed be assigned in criti- cism," but "it is manifestly an error to select one of these meanings and fix upon it as the meaning" (Poetry and Myth, 1927, p. 123) ; and Melviri Solve commented: " Prometheus Unbound is so highly idealized and so re- mote from the conditions of life that the moral lesson is not essential to the enjoyment of the piece, and is, in fact, so well disguised that the critics have differed widely as to its interpretation" (Theory of Poetry, 1927, p. 28). Benjamin Kurtz, too, suggested that Shelley's symbolism should not be taken literally, for it was a poetic idealizing vision "towards which the meliorist believes society may move" (Introduction, 1933, p. xliv). The matter is actually scarcely as important as it has been made. Shelley's own words in the poem, his ascription of certain characteristics to certain personages, his development of such action as the poem contains, show clearly that he was not unaware of the "representative value" of which White wrote; and, as William Guthrie noted significantly: "So elastic are its conceptions, so indefinable its pivotal terms," that the poem must be reinterpreted for every age (Poet Prophets, 1897, p. 199). 67 In any event, it is, if nothing else, kinder to assume that Shelley was no allegorist, in the narrower meaning of the term, than that he was as bad an allegorist (which Olwen Campbell thought he was, "though a deeply philosophical poet — quite a different thing" [Shelley and the Unromantics, 1924, p. 204]) as the critics' failure to agree on a single meaning in the poem would indicate.68 Adverse Opinion on General Grounds The principal opposition to Shelley's ideas (and despite its vigor it has been a minority opinion) stemmed from those who felt that the poet held an erroneous view of mankind; and attacks on the political, religious, or moral aspects of the poem have grown out of this. As Melvin Solve has expressed the difficulty: "No critic in Shelley's day could solve the meta- physical puzzle of Prometheus. Yet it was imaginative penetration of this sort, working according to the laws of thought, which Shelley demanded 67For a suggested "basic approach" to Shelley's meaning as expressed in the poem itself, see Appendix F. With Giithrie's statement compare the inscription on the Shelley monument erected by the citizens of Viareggio in 1894 (as given, with transla- tion, in Roe, Last Phase, 1953, p. 239): "A P. B. Shelley, Cuor de Cuori, nel MDCCCXXII annegato in questo mare, arso in questo lido, lungo il quale meditava al Prometeo Liherato, una pagina postreme in cui ogni generazione avrebbe segnato la lotta, le lacrime, la redenzione sua. (To P. B. Shelley, corcordium, in 1822 drowned in this sea, cremated on this shore, along which he meditated Prometheus Unbound, a last page in which each generation has discovered its conflict, its tears, and its redemption.)" 68In this section of the Introduction only the broader aspects of interpretation will be considered. For specific identifications of characters see Dramatis Personae in the Critical Notes. Introduction 83 of the critics" (Theory of Poetry, 1927, p. 190); and Francis Mason noted that, "according to Shelley's quite valid philosophy, imagination was the only vehicle in which the gulf [between dreams and reality] should be traversed . . . and we perceive the utter fallacy of condemning his poetry because its author did not achieve a pragmatical philosophy instead of a poem" (Shelley Criticism, 1929, pp. 7-8). " The early reviews set the tone. The poet was accused of taking "a wild view of the latent powers and future fortunes of the human race" (London Magazine, 1820; see Appendix D, Item I). A second reviewer agreed with the ideal of "peaceful triumph of goodness over power" but, on an assump- tion frequently made, objected to Shelley's belief that the goal could be realized in an instant, that men are now fit inhabitants of an earthly para- dise, that all restraint and authority should be cast down, and that man- kind should be left to the guidance of passion as yet unsubdued (London- Critical Magazine, 1820; see Appendix D, item IV). Even Leigh Hunt, in defending Shelley's descriptions as true of the areas to which they applied, admitted that the poet was "too apt to draw descriptions of the state of mankind without sufficient light on his canvas" ("Letters"; see Appendix D5 item XII) ; and Andre Delrieu suggested that one might more justly, but with irony, call the poem The Dream of Happiness ("Po6tes modernes," 1843, p. 196), For Swinburne the poem was "spoilt" by the "infusion of philanthropic doctrinaire views and 'progress of the species' " (Letters, 1865, p. 28) ; and Edward Dowden wrote: Shelley's ideas are abstractions made from a one-sided and imperfect view of facts . . . which ignores the true conditions of human existence. Humanity is no chained Titan of indomitable virtue. It is a weak and trembling thing, which yet, through error and weakness, traversed or overcome, may at last grow strong [Shelley, 1886, 11,263]. Paul Elmer More added: "With a child-like credulity almost inconceivable he accepted the current doctrine that mankind is naturally and inherently virtuous, needing only the deliverance from some outwardly applied op- pression to spring back to its essential perfection" ("Shelley," 1910, p. 7). Nor was George Santayana willing to share the poet's view of mankind: Shelley's earthly paradise ... is too festival -like, too much of a mere culmination, not to be fugitive: it cries aloud to be translated into a changeless and meta- physical heaven, which to Shelley's mind could be nothing but the realm of Platonic ideas. . . . [He] did not understand the real constitution of nature. It was hidden from him by a cloud, all woven of shifting rainbows and bright tears . . . [and] the mechanism of nature, as it is in its depths, [remains] in his pictures only the shadowiest of backgrounds ["Revolutionary Principles," 1913, pp. 167-69]. Similarly, T. S. Eliot "positively" disliked some of Shelley's views, "and that hampers my enjoyment of the poems in which they occur." He de- scribed these views as "ideas which Shelley bolted whole and never assimi- 84 Introduction lated, visible in the catchwords of creeds outworn, tyrants and priests, which Shelley employed with such reiteration. And the bad parts of a poem can contaminate the whole" ("Shelley and Keats," 1933, pp. 91-92).69 The reductio ad absurdum was reached in Henry Van Dyke, who held that Prometheus Unbound had "no real relation to the life of man, nor to the true dramatic theme, the conflict between passion and duty. Imagine the actual effect of the arrival of Demogorgon in one of our United States; the sudden disappearance of the governor and the legislature and all the judges and all the policemen; the closing of all churches and the opening of all prisons. Would the Golden Age promptly begin? I fear not" ("Knight Errant," 1929, p. 221) .70 To this, an adequate answer might be E. M. W". Tillyard's statement: "Superficially it is easy to ridicule the millenarianism of a Shelley, but what if his passion for human betterment is no mere echo of the hopes of his age but the oblique expression of a primal joy hidden in all of us?" (Poetry Direct and Oblique, 1948, p. 50). Fortunately, a more serious, and fresher, note was struck by Stephen Spender: Shelley's failures are inevitable. The world in which he lives he treats as past his- tory: he imagines himself in the future where men are free, where there is equality between the sexes, where there are no slaves or tyrants. ... In his poetry one "notices that the symbols which refer to tyranny and injustice are over -simplified, because they are seen in the light of a historic perspective which Shelley invented for himself ["Keats and Shelley," 1937, p. 584]. And Ellsworth Barnard asked: Is not the true significance of the story of Prometheus (as of the story of Christ) that perfect purity can come only through an agony and a triumph like theirs? Does not Shelley say as much in the last lines of the poem? And can there ever be salvation, on such terms, for a whole society? [Edition, 1944, p. 89]. Adverse Opinion on Political, Religious, and Moral Grounds In addition to, and at times supplementing, the foregoing typical objec- tions to Shelley's views of mankind may be listed those that were critical of the political, religious, and moral views of the poet as reflected in Prome- 69More recently, Eliot has been brought "to a new and more sympathetic apprecia- tion" of Shelley by Leone Vivante's English Poetry (1952. Preface by Eliot, p. x). 70Similar objections have been raised by W. Trent: "the solution proposed ... is as impossible and ineffectual as if it had been generated in the heated brain of a maniac" ("Apropos of Shelley," 1899, p. 86); V. Scudder: "man, as Shelley depicts him, is ... scarcely higher, except for his aesthetic instincts, than an amiable brute" (Edition, 1892, p. xxxix); A. Symons: Shelley was no visionary, but a dreamer "in a continual state of hallucination" (Romantic Movement, 1909, p. 270); G. R. Elliott: Shelley "never really apprehended the mysterious duality of human nature because he was so sure that he comprehended it. He was mastered by the conceited comprehension emanating from the enormous modern study of nature" ("Solitude of Shelley," 1929, p. xiii). Introduction 85 theus Unbound. At times, these areas of thought were grouped together, as when an early reviewer saw Shelley's theme as the overthrow of religion, government, and morality and called the poem a "pestiferous mixture of blasphemy, sedition, and sensuality" (Blackwood s Magazine, 1820; see Appendix D, item III). And another reviewer argued that "no man is justified in giving to the world wild and crude notions, the first effect of which . . . would be the overthrow of all existing institutions," and that with Shelley "atheism is a principle" (Dublin Magazine, 1820; see Ap- pendix D, item VI) . With reference to the political views as such, Symons, as we have seen above, accounted for the early adverse reaction by pointing out that readers in Shelley's day "saw Godwin charioted in the clouds of Prometheus Unbound . . . and still looked upon poetry as worth fearing" ("Shelley," 1907, p. 347) . How far we have come from such fears may be suggested by Chauncey Tinker's more recent comment: " Trometheus Unbound' sets forth no doctrine that is of much importance to radical thinkers today. . . . We ignore the 'message' . . . but lend a ready ear to the inarticulate music" ("Shelley Once More," 1941, p. 92). But even by the turn of the century Sidney Newsom found the political philosophy not dangerous, merely "impracticable, and its chief defect springs from his ignorance of humanity" (Edition, 1907, p. xxxi). Salvador de Madariaga, too, thought that Shelley erred in resting his political philosophy "implicitly on the assumption that the light of intellectual knowledge has but to shine on a man for his soul to be purified of evil. It overlooks the possibility that development in one direction may coincide with, or even result in, regres- sion in another direction" (Shelley and Calderdn, 1920, p. 25). And William Butler Yeats wrote: Shelley the political revolutionary expected miracle, the Kingdom of God in the twinkling of an eye like some Christian of the first century. . . . Why is Shelley terrified of the Last Day like a Victorian child [as Demogorgon indicates he is] ? ... Shelley was not a mystic, his system of thought was constructed by his logical faculty to satisfy desire, not a symbolical revelation received after the suspension of all desire ["Prometheus," 1933, p. 366] . Religious opposition to Prometheus Unbound has more frequently been expressed. An early writer objected to the "extraordinary profanity with which [Shelley] introduces the most sacred subject" (Gentleman'' s Maga- zine, 1848 [1823] ; see Appendix D, item XIV); while another felt that the choice and mode of treating Prometheus showed that Shelley did not feel "that Faith is wiser than doubt, and Reverence is nobler than rebellion" (Christian Examiner, 1839, p. 149). Robert Chambers cited the poem as evidence of Shelley's daring scepticism (Cyclopedia, 1844, II, 357); and George Gilfillan wrote that Shelley's great object 86 Introduction is to predict the total extinction of evil, through the progress and perfectionment of the human race. Man is to grow into the God of the world. We are of this opinion, too, provided the necessity of divine sunshine and showers to consummate the growth be conceded. But Shelley's theory seems very hopeless. ... Of lyrics, and dramas, and poetic dreams, and philosophic theories, we have had enough; what we want is, the one master-word of Him who "spake with authority, and not as the scribes" ["Prometheus," 1855, p. 435]. William 0' Conor argued that Shelley had misconstrued true Christianity, as found in the suffering Christ, by freeing Prometheus and assuming hap- piness for him. Not happiness, 0' Conor thought, but "the willingness of each man to surrender his propensity to monopolize happiness" was the answer, and this "requires the example of a god suffering for all" ("Prome- theus," 1882, p. 35). But J. Slater permitted his religious bias to carry him even farther. To him Shelley "saw man weak, suffering, oppressed, and, not referring this state of things to its true cause, man's fall, he attributed it to the good and merciful Creator. Under the influence of Calvinistic ideas ... he became a hater of God, a misotheist rather than an atheist" ("Prometheus," 1884, p. 384). George Bernard Shaw, however, insisted on the poet's basic atheism ("Shaming the Devil," 1892, pp. 249-50) ; and Richard Hutton wrote: In this fine poem Shelley in reality puts no personal power over Jupiter. Tyranny he represents as personal will; but the power that dethrones tyranny is a breath, a shadow, nothing. ... To Shelley all will is obstructive; the only being he can really worship is the rich radiant spirit of feminine loveliness . . . and even for her he feels not worship, but "the desire of the moth for the star" ["Shelley," 1888, p. 184]. Vida Scudder, in her turn, found the religious aspects of the poem un- satisfactory. She admitted that Shelley's revolt from Christianity was typical of his time, and felt that he was, like Spinoza, actually God-intoxi- cated: "His reason might deny, but his imagination believed; and the imagination was the very centre of Shelley's nature" (Edition, 1892, p. xxii); but she also found a "lack of any definiteness in the religious thought of the poem," and that the interpretation of evil ignored its scien- tific aspect as "imperfect development, but also the far deeper and truer aspect of evil as Sin"; and she found no outlook toward immortality, no recognition of the Divine Fatherhood (p. xxxix). More emphatically, Sister M. Eunice Mousel held that it is impossible to maintain that Shelley's poetry . , . stimulates to higher spiritual attainment. More specifically, it is not merely the anticlimactic description of an earthly paradise, but the deeper moral purpose of its allegory, that thus ob- trudes upon the reader the impression that Prometheus Unbound is forced, strategic- ally, toward a conclusion utterly remote from human truth" ["Falsetto in Shelley," 1936, pp. 605-6]. And, finally, even as late as 1949, Hoxie N. Fairchild could see in the re- ligious aspects of the poem only advocacy of a "cult of pride" in which "the Introduction 87 mind of man is liberated from its dark delusions solely by the mind of man" (Religious Trends^ p. 350). Equally important with religious objections to the poem have been those based on moral grounds. The reviewer in the Lonsdale Magazine (1820) felt that Shelley was tempting us "to act upon the passions without con- sulting the reason, and to soothe and overwhelm the finest feelings of our nature . . . [for] the very decencies of our nature are to vanish beneath the magic wand of this licentious REFORMER" (see Appendix D, item V). But it was Mrs. Shelley who, in her note to the poem in 1839, inadver- tently misled many later critics by her frequently quoted statement: "The prominent feature of Shelley's theory of the destiny of the human species was, that evil is not inherent in the system of the creation, but an accident that might be expelled. . . . Shelley believed that mankind had only to will that there should be no evil, and there would be none" (see Appendix C). Shelley's true position on this issue will be indicated later, but the in- fluence of Mrs. Shelley's statement, and its use by Dowden ("To represent evil as external ... is to falsify the true conception of human progress" [Shelley, 1886, II, 264]) set a pattern that continued to reappear in the decades that followed. Frederic Myers, assuming that Shelley believed in a sudden extirpation of evil, wrote that the knot of human destinies is cut and not unravelled; the arbitrary catastrophes of an improvised and chaotic mythology bring about a change in human affairs depending in no way on moral struggle or moral achievement, — on which every real change in human affairs must depend, — but effected apparently by the simple removal of priests and kings, — of the persons, that is to say, in whom the race, however mistakenly, has hitherto embodied its instincts of reverence and of order ["Shelley," 1880, p. 352]. Mathilde Blind, regretting that Shelley could not have profited by "those great generalisations of Darwin which have revolutionised the modern con- ception of life," called Prometheus Unbound "the Passion-Play of Human- ity" but found in it "something crude and undigested in the manner in which the poet tries to solve the problem of good and evil. . . . The principle of evil incarnated in Jupiter simply topples down or is hurled down," and "if he had worked out this theme with more historic realism" Shelley would have shown the human race "as emerging from a semi-brutal, barbarous condition, and continually progressing to higher stages of moral and mental development" ("Shelley's View of Nature," 1888, pp. 44-46). Charles D. Warner based his argument on an interpretation of the Greek moral law: Now, the key-note of the Greek faith ... is the inexorable nature of the moral law, the Hebraic conception of the omnipotent sweep of this law — though Prome- theus brought light to humanity, he could not escape it. In the Prometheus Un- bound of Shelley, Zeus stands for Law, for Faith, Christianity, Custom, Super- stition, Wrong, for every tyranny over the human mind; Prometheus for the Universal Love which dissolves all law and leaves man free. A magnificent poetic 88 Introduction conception! But to what does it lead? What basis has it in any conceivable system of ethics, philosophy, or revelation, for human nature? That way lies anarchy. It would seem that Shelley had no clearer conception of the inexorable moral law of ^Eschylus than he had of the inexorable law of Love of Jesus of Nazareth ["Shelley," 1887, p. 305]. Leslie Stephen, in his turn, made his appeal to history: If all the complex organisation which has slowly evolved itself in the course of history, the expression of which is civilisation, order, coherence, and co-operation in the different departments of life, is to be set down as an unmitigated evil, the fruit of downright imposture, all history becomes unintelligible. . . . [Shelley] cannot be content with the intimate mixture of good and evil which is presented in the world as we know it ["Godwin and Shelley," 1879, pp. 381-82]. To A. E. Randall, "the life [Shelley] desired was to be like the Anglican conception of God, 'without body, parts or passions'. . . . Whatever he touched he simplified into a simple contest of good will and evil will. Trometheus Unbound' is a sciomachy concluded by a miracle" (quoted in Current Literature, 1912, pp. 226-27). But Arthur Glutton-Brock found a different basis for the weakness of Shelley's view: Shelley knew nothing about wickedness. To him it was an arbitrary mystery. Therefore he was quite content to represent it as arbitrarily overthrown. In his simple, passionate view of life something must happen, sooner or later, to change the nature of things. . . . Since he conceived of evil as imposed on man by a super- natural tyranny, a supernatural revolution was necessary for his deliverance. . . . The central idea of "Prometheus" — that the world is sick of an organic disease, and can only be cured by a miracle — has been expressed in many religions. But the notion that this disease is the result of a celestial tyranny — and that not man alone, but everything in the universe, suffers from it — is peculiar to Shelley, and the result of his extreme idealism. . . . [His] passion for perfection expressed itself also in another idea . . . that the highest beauties and excellences of this life are prophetic of a nobler state of being. . . . [For] it is through the universality of imperfection, and the infinite variety in the quality of all things which it implies, that we are continually led to compare the better with the worse, and to aim at the better [Man and Poet, 1909, pp. 199-200, 210-11], Again Glutton-Brock noted that a conflict between a good man and an evil man would be too concrete for [Shelley] . . . . Prometheus and Jupiter are simply good and evil will; and they are utterly unrelated to any of the facts of life as we know them — so unrelated that he cannot even bring them into conflict or describe the means by which one at last triumphs over the other. The whole drama is causeless All we know is, that Prometheus wishes well to the universe, and Jupiter ill; therefore Jupiter persecutes Prometheus until something happens which causes his fall . . . [immediately after which] comes the millennium [Introduction, 1911, pp. xiv-xv], And Irving Babbitt saw in the vision of "a humanity released from all evil artificially imposed from without" the "true religion of the Rousseauist" (Rousseau and Romanticism, 1919, p. 137). A variation on the moral theme was offered by Aldous Huxley: Introduction 89 Following Rousseau, the romantics imagined that exclusive passion was the "natural" mode of love, just as virtue and reasonableness were the "natural" forms of men's social behaviour. Get rid of priests- and kings, and men will be for- ever good and happy; poor Shelley's faith in this palpable nonsense remained unshaken to the end. He believed also . . . that you had only to get rid of social restraints and erroneous mythology to make the Grand Passion universally chronic . . . [but] he failed to see that the Grand Passion was produced by the restraints that opposed themselves to the sexual impulse, just as the deep lake is produced by the dam that bars the passage of the stream ["Fashions in Love," 1929, p. 138]. To which James H. Cousins replied: Shelley saw quite as clearly as the critic the use of the restraints of law as pro- vokers and intensifiers of the creative forces of life; but he did not limit the Grand Passion to sex. Love, to Shelley, is the integrating power in the universe. Sexual integration is only one of its phases, and is only justifiable when it is governed by spiritual integration [Work Promethean, 1933, pp. 38-39] . But George R. Elliott, in reading the poem, felt a "sense of frustration" from a different cause: The poem appeals at once to our yearning for universal sympathy and to our yearning for human perfection. These two sentiments, when stimulated, tend to diverge and to develop themselves in competition with each other. But Shelley will not have them do so. From the first, he keeps winding and fusing them to- gether in a single stream of undifferentiated emotion. . . . [He] merges more and more the qualities of ... Prometheus and Asia. If these two characters had been made the vehicles, respectively, of ethical elevation and wide sympathy, their eventual reunion could have won a fine human and poetic significance, suggesting that fullness of life which the human spirit recognizes as its greatest potentiality. . . . [But] the two are not married, but merged. The poem as a whole frustrates and repels our poetic sense by attempting the music of the spheres on a single string ["Solitude of Shelley" 1929, pp. 17-18]. Favorable Opinion on Political, Religious, Moral, and Scientific Grounds Countering the adverse criticism, of which the foregoing comments are typical, have been the views of those who have either approved the opin- ions of Shelley or sought to clarify and to evaluate the ideas on which Prometheus Unbound was based. Again, these writers have tended fre- quently to read their own interests or prejudices into the poem, and a survey of the attitudes will, it is hoped, suggest the wide range of interpre- tation as well as the balance among the different fields of interest, which, as before, have been concerned primarily with political, religious, moral, and — more recently — scientific readings. Turning first to the favorable political interpretations, we find one of the earliest suggestions in this area coming from George Bernard Shaw in a discussion period of the Shelley Society. Shaw is reported to have de- scribed the philosophical anarchist as one who 90 Introduction had a detestation of government as government, and can convince you it is bad; yet you are compelled to support it, in spite of this. Now, every one looks to a state of society in which no government would be necessary — in which men would be moral, &c., without restraint; in this you have the Promethean theory — you get rid of a tyrant you created yourself [Comments, 1886, pp. 121-22], This view was amplified by Helen Clarke, who wrote that "the anarchist would plunge an imperfect humanity into the millennium of an individual- governed society. Shelley represents such a society as the natural outcome of a human state wherein development has reached the point of perfect individual control" ("Prometheus Myth," 1910, p. 104). Miss Clarke saw the evil to be combated as "the aristocratic idea with all it brings in its train of tyranny and egotism ... of expediency and its foster brothers, lying and hypocrisy" ("Sketch," 1892, p. 142). But it was Vida Scudder who first treated the political implications of the poem fully. She defended Shelley as a spokesman of his age, against those who would stress only his ethereal dreamlike quality: "To express the democratic idea in brief, historic act was the work of France; to express it in eternal art was the work of England." Shelley alone of this period, she felt, saw fully the light of the ideal of the Revolution and of the demo- cratic ideal, and Prometheus Unbound was, therefore, the perfect symbolic reflection of the conceptions of the new democracy, alike in their strength and in their weakness. We shall find it vague where the Revolution was vague, crude where the Revolution was crude, — that is, in its intellectual philosophy; we shall find it great where the revolution was great, — that is, in its spiritual ideal. But Miss Scudder also recognized that Shelley's description of the ideal state, after Prometheus and Asia were united, was "weak, sentimental, empty, — guilty of that worst of aesthetic sins, prettiness. . . . For a re- generate humanity, Shelley had no message" (Edition, 1892, pp. xvii-xx, xxxviii) . Miss Scudder's analysis was frequently echoed, and with little variation (by W. J. Alexander, W. J. Dawson, D. J. MacDonald, Philo Buck, and others), but an exception was the poetic description of William Butler Yeats, who considered Prometheus Unbound "a sacred book" with a certain place among the sacred books of the world: [Shelley's] liberty was so much more than the liberty of Political Justice that it was one with Intellectual Beauty, and ... the regeneration he foresaw was so much more than the regeneration many political dreamers have foreseen, that it could not come in its perfection till the hours bore "Time to his grave in eternity" ["Philosophy of Shelley's Poetry," 1900, pp. 81-82]. And again: I have re-read his Prometheus Unbound for the first time for many years, in the woods of Drim-da-rod, among the Echte hills, and sometimes I have looked towards Slieve-nan-Orr, where the country people say the last battle of the world Introduction 91 shall be fought till the third day, when a priest shall lift a chalice, and the thousand years of peace begin. And I think this mysterious song utters a faith as simple and as ancient as the faith of those country people, in a form suited to a new age, that will understand with Blake that the Holy Spirit is "an intellectual fountain," and that the kinds and degrees of beauty are the images of its authority [pp. 94-95] .71 George Woodberry, in the spirit of Miss Scudder, wrote that "Shelley was the poet through whom the literary expression of the Revolution was to be poured," for the poet felt the Titanic quality and "the Promethean security of victory it contained— felt, too, the Promethean suffering which was the heart of mankind as he saw it surveying Europe in his day." In Prometheus Unbound, therefore, "the Revolution as a moral reached its height . . . [for] it is a summary and centre, in the world of art, of the greatest power in that century—the power of the idea of humanity" ("Titan Myth," 1905, pp. 67-68). In 1911 Arthur Glutton-Brock tried to correct the trend toward political interpretations of the poem. He wrote: "I have tried to show that the emotion expressed in Prometheus is not concerned with politics, for it is not even concerned with the world except that it regards the world as afflicted with a disease that can only be cured by a miracle." Shelley was un- like Milton, he held, in that it was Shelley's "moral sense alone that made him concern himself with politics; and in his heart he was impatient with the imperfection of this life that made a moral sense necessary. . . . [Also] when he was most inspired he forgot politics altogether in his longing for a nobler state of being" (Introduction, pp. xvii-xviii). An interesting reversal of the usual charges of radicalism laid against Shelley was made by J, Kooistra, who noted that in the light of "the view of Coleridge adopted from Kant, according to which 'the State is the organised expression of social reason,' and to be free means 'to have mas- tered every unsocial instinct,' " Shelley was, in some respects, a reaction- ary in holding man to be "a denizen of the world, not the citizen of a State" ("Prometheus," 1916, p. 218) ; and Alfred Noyes expressed a similar view in pointing out that Shelley's rebellion had nothing in common with that false kind of rebellion which has become "smart" and "fashionable" and is patronized by the reactionary Press. . . . His rebellion was against this very way of the world which in the general shifting of terms has come to be called "rebellion." ... His task was to interpenetrate the granite mass of things with the light of the soul ["Poet of Light," 1924, p. 38]. Philo Buck broadened the issue somewhat, but still held to a basically political interpretation when he wrote: The Prometheus Unbound thus is a combination of Shelley's faiths; the faith in the power of the human intelligence and science to triumph over nature, in the 71For the influence of Prometheus Unbound on Yeats's poetry see Donald Weeks's "Image and Idea in Yeats's Second Coming" (PMLA, LXIII [1948], 281-92). See also Phyllis Bartlett's "Hardy's Shelley" for influence on The Dynasts. 92 Introduction power of human brotherhood to triumph over human error, and in the power of the Idea as triumphantly to find itself at last fully expressed in the world of fact and circumstance. Read thus the plot becomes fairly obvious. Prometheus, like Jupiter, is Every- man, only the Titan has chosen the true way, while the tyrant has sought power in false ideas. For his "natural" benevolence, and hence physical weakness, Prometheus has been put into bondage by Jupiter who has chosen the motives of power, of hate, oppression, superstition and the rest of the forces that keep the "natural" man in subjection to the political and theological. This state of mutual antagonism is the war of the classes which sought a solution under the watchwords of the French Revolution. But like the Jacobins Prometheus at first was blind and pronounced his awful curse against usurping power. And moreover during all this period he is separated from Nature, Asia, without whom his being is incomplete. But he has at his side lone and Panthea, two virtues, Ideas, who never forsake him in his darkest horror, sisters and ministers of Nature, who feed his immortal faculties and lead him to the righjt vision of his true self and his relation to the world. Or as one might say it in prose divested of all imagery, man after aeons of suffering and effort gains science, or true knowledge of Nature, and awakes his full sympathetic imagination, love. Now Prometheus is ready again to take his place in the world, a place that shall be final ["Goethe and Shelley," 1932, p. 92]. Kenneth Neil Cameron, in turn, was to find the "central thought" of Shelley's poem to be the same as that of Volney's Les Ruines—^thsit of bringing hope to a disconsolate generation from the example of the French Revolution" ("Major Source of Islam," 1941, p. 205); and he was to narrow the political approach still more, for he argued: The struggle of Prometheus is the struggle of the leader of humanity — specifically the peoples of post-war Europe — against the despotic state (Jupiter) — specifically the rule of the Quadruple Alliance. In this struggle humanity is assisted by the forces of historical evolution (Demogorgon) and by the strength of human love and comradeship (Asia), Aided by these forces mankind overthrows the despotic state and advances into the new order ["Social Philosophy," 1942, p. 464] ,72 72Carlos Baker's criticism was pertinent: "[While Cameron] assumes a particularized symbolic political meaning for each of the major protagonists and antagonists, he is compelled ... to broaden this meaning until his interpretation becomes, in effect, the traditional moral interpretation with some political ornamentation. . . . Because politics for Shelley was a branch of ethics, one may concede the view that he had in mind a general political idea. , . . What Cameron's argument proves ... is that the more or less traditional ethical interpretation is probably the correct one" (Shelley's Major Poetry, 1948, pp. 283-85). A similar conclusion, without reference to Cameron, was reached by A. M. D. Hughes, who in 1947 admitted to "plenteous over-flowing" be- tween the poem's representation of conflict in the state and conflict in the soul: "As time goes on, the cause of political justice takes its place in an outer circle of the vast conflict of good and evil, life and death, of which for him the centre is his own soul" (Nascent Mind, pp. 205, 248). It should be noted that by 1951 Cameron, while still insisting that "the play ... is essentially a political drama," added: "But it is not only a political drama; ... its allegory moves on several levels," although he still held that the other concepts "revolve around the central core of meaning — the revolution of society — with now one aspect stressed, now another" (Edition, p. xxi). Earlier, W. R. Rutland had held that "to enter into the exceedingly difficult question of social Introduction 93 To this, Herbert Grierson and J. C. Smith, acknowledging Cameron's article, added that the deliverance of mankind is not brought about by the action of Prometheus and Asia, though they are to give it the guidance of wisdom and love, without which the revolution may end in such a disaster of anarchy and mutual slaughter as has disfigured the history of Christianity and wrecked the promise of the French Revolution. The agent of the revolution ... is Necessity (History, 1944, p. 394). Defenses and interpretations of Shelley's religious views, frequently im- pinging on moral considerations, have been more numerous than those dealing with political ideas; and, just as opposition to the poet's religious position depended on the degree of fundamentalism represented by the critic, so here the degree of liberalism has usually determined the accept- ability of the beliefs for which the poet stood. One of the first charges against which the poet needed defending was, of course, that of atheism, and as early as 1828 Henry Crabb Robinson declared that "his supposed Atheism is a mere metaphysical crotchet, in which he was kept by the affected scorn and real malignity of Dunces" (Diary, II, 387). Ten years later a writer in Frasers Magazine more moderately suggested that Shelley followed Aeschylus in making Prome- theus rebellious not against the idea of Deity itself, but only to that law of nature by which man, in all his efforts at improvement is compelled into submission. . . . Man himself, so far as he is exhibited in time, is compelled by the same necessity that controls nature at large. To this nature he is chained as to a rock [1838, p. 657] . Gradually the opinion developed that in Prometheus Unbound Shelley's real religious views were given but were difficult to define, for, as Ernest Kirtlan expressed it: "He lived, not in time, but in eternity. He was not an orthodox Christian," but neither was he an atheist ("Creed of Shelley," 1924, p. 232). To James H. Cousins, love, in the thought of Shelley, was an impartation of the essence of the Supreme Being. To Shelley, in very truth, "God is Love." But this theism of Shelley was universal, not localised in history or geography or limited in personality; and in a time of almost deeper spiritual darkness than our own, the vision of the supreme theist was called atheism [Work Promethean, 1933, p. 59]. Few, however, have gone as far as Ellsworth Barnard, who held that Prometheus Unbound offered many evidences of the belief of "the real Shelley" in an and political problems that may or may not be adumbrated in Prometheus Unbound . . . would be to go on a wild goose chase, and about as useful as to write a treatise on the political opinions of Beethoven from the score of the Sinfonia Eroica. Shelley was an extreme social enthusiast, and very probably deceived himself sometimes into thinking that he was interested in the sociological and political when he was really interested in the ethical" (Swinburne, 1931, p. 81). 94 Introduction active Spirit of Good, unchanging and all-pervading . . . opposed and partially frustrated by a recalcitrant Spirit of Evil . . . [And] somewhere in this process there are created self-conscious beings, which partake of the nature of the Spirit of Good to which they owe their existence. . . . This Spirit, I have contended, may legitimately be called a personal God. Finally, Shelley assumes (as does every religious thinker) that above and beyond the contradictions that are every- where present in the manifested world, there stands a unifying principle . . . which the human mind cannot comprehend, but the existence of which man's whole nature demands that he assume [Shelley's Religion, 1937, p. 96] . A second attempt to justify Shelley's religious position held that "if he rebelled against God, it was against the God of the Jews, not the God of the world or the heart" (Boston Quarterly, 1840, p. 331) ; or that the delusions of theocracy, and the evils attendant thereon, were the objects of his antipathy (W. M. Rossetti, "Study," 1886, p. 72). Similarly, Kineton Parkes could write that Prometheus, "assailed for so long by such spirits of evil employed by this god of evil, at last rises proudly from among the ruins of that sham Religion he has succeeded in overthrowing, and which he replaces with the true Religion of universal tolerance and love" ("Shel- ley's Faith," 1891, p. 213). To F. H. Gile, it was dogmatism that Shelley opposed: Thus, while perhaps unconsciously retaining the essence of the Christian spirit, he looked upon Christian dogmatism and conventionality as the tyrannic ^schylean Jove, and set about delivering man from his thralldom. Nor was he very far wrong . . . [for] the true Christian spirit contained a magic solvent [Love] of all oppression and suppressive tyranny. . . , And if Shelley made any mistake it was not in the ideal aimed at but in the impulsive, impatient, youthful manner in which he set about his reforms ["Prometheus," 1908, pp. 432-33]. To Edward Chapman, Shelley was in revolt "against the tyranny of mechanical mythologies and ecclesiasticisms; against theories of atone- ment, if one pleases, which would represent Christ as coming to deliver man from a fierce and savage God," but Prometheus Unbound "sets forth the appeal which the sacrifice of Christ made to Shelley's heart, however unwilling he may have been to express it in terms of conventional piety" (Literature in Account with Religion, 1910, pp. 124-25). For Arthur M. D. Hughes, Jupiter was "the personal God of the historical religions," and as such "the prototype and support of earthly tyrants and the key -stone of man's misery" (Edition, 1910, p. 172). And, finally, the summarizing statement of James S. Thomson was representative of much of the opin- ion in this area: The real tragedy of human life is that men have been ruled not by God but by an impersonal Being who is really a creation of their own minds, yet very potent. The history of civilization is the dialectic of man's self-torture by illusions which he is compelled to spin out of his own intellectual and spiritual nature. God, who is the Spirit of Love, is Deus Absconditus, and Jupiter, who is the symbol of false theology, occupies the vacant throne . . . [and man's] unbinding must come from within by the releasing power of love ["Unbinding of Prometheus," 1945, p. 9], Introduction 95 Other critics have felt that there was significant evidence of Biblical parallels in the poem. R. Pickett Scott cited the Hebrew feeling in the first two acts, and the Book of Job in particular, as an indication of the influence which balanced the Greek in Shelley's drama: "Job, on his dunghill, buf- feted by Satan, is, in all essentials, as Froude points out, the exact counter- part of Prometheus chained to the rock. . . . Each holds fast his integrity as a possession out of reach of the tormentor, and no effort of cruel enemy, or false friend, is able to snatch it from either." Also, Scott noted, each believes that justice will conquer: "Prometheus endures in knowing that Fate brings justice, and that Fate cannot be escaped even by Olympian Jove. Job endures knowing that his God, who loves righteousness and hates iniquity, is All- Just, All-Patient—Almighty" (Place of Shelley, 1878, pp. 21-22). And Bennett Weaver, noting that "like the Hebrew he gathers all tyranny into one personification, Jupiter, and all love into one Titan form, Prometheus" (Understanding of Shelley^ 1932, p. 110), added: "There is certainly in [Job] a quality which had for the suffering modern poet a strong charm" (p. 146). 73 By some, the religion of Shelley as manifested in Prometheus Unbound was more happily conceived of as a form of pantheism rather than of Christianity. Andr6 Delrieu was the first to develop this theme as he em- phasized Shelley's stress on "a new faith, the faith in the blind power of nature, the doctrine of pantheism" ("Po&tes modernes," 1843, p. 189). Edouard Schur6 wrote later: "We have called Shelley a pantheist — not because he adheres to a system, but to indicate the point of view from which he sees the world, and his tendency to see in the varied spectacles of evolution a universal spirit. It is a faith and it is incarnate in Prome- theus Unbound" ("Po&te panthfiste," 1877, p. 778); and J. A. Symonds expressed a similar view: The essential thought of Shelley's creed was that the universe is penetrated, vitalized, made real by a spirit, which he sometimes called the Spirit of Nature, but which is always conceived as more than Life, as that which gives its actuality to Life, and lastly as Love and Beauty. To adore this spirit, to clasp it with affection, and to blend with it, is, he thought, the true object of man. Therefore, the final union of Prometheus with Asia is the consummation of human destinies. Love was the only law Shelley recognized. Un terrified by the grim realities of pain and crime revealed in nature and society, he held fast to the belief that, if we could but pierce to the core of things, if we could but be what we might be, the world and man would both attain to their perfection in eternal love [Shelley, 1878, p. 1231 . Vida Scudder, too, noted that pantheism was the best description of Shelley's attitude (Edition, 1892, p. xxiii), as did James Thomson, who wrote that 73G. Woodberry compared the passivity of the two heroes and the lack of action in the two stories ("Titan Myth," 1905, p. 80); and A. Maurois called Shelley's poem "a lyrical drama on the Book of Job" (Arid, 1924, p. 242). 96 Introduction the most prominent and pervading idea of the poem is Pantheistic. The Good spirit, which at last triumphs, is, indeed, typified in the Titan Prometheus, and not in a man; but no faith in or worship of this deliverer is required from men who would be saved. . . . The poem is an apotheosis of the One Infinite Soul, self -subsisting, informing all things, one and the same in all masks of man, and beast, and worm, and plant, and slime [Studies, 1896, p. 286]. Similarly, Arthur M. D. Hughes felt that Shelley "had assimilated the mystic idea that all Nature is groaning under the same oppression as the human spirit, just as it is sustained by the same power" (Edition, 1910, 169). J. Kooistra agreed: "His God is Nature vitalised, one with man, suffering from the evils that beset him, sharing in his joy." Kooistra argued that, despite Stopford Brooke, Shelley was not and was not becom- ing a Christian (although by the time of Prometheus Unbound a change was evident in his attitude toward Christ) but was probably an agnostic as to immortality ("Prometheus," 1916, pp. 218-19) .74 Finally, in a related vein, but without arguing for pantheism as such, Joseph Barrell suggested that "ultra-Wordsworthianism" and idealism were the two principal elements in the poet's work at this time: "In Shelley the cult of wild nature reaches a logical extreme. Whereas the nature that Wordsworth describes is usually the home at least of a solitary shepherd, in Shelley a nature is pictured to which man contributes nothing and from which he draws only aesthetic pleasure" (Shelley and Thought, 1947, p. 132). By far the largest body of criticism dealing with the religious emphasis in Prometheus Unbound., however, has sought to show that the poem is illuminated by the spirit of Christianity, or by a spirit of love common to both Christ and Shelley. Thus an anonymous writer in 1840 stated that "the spirit of Christ animated all his struggle against Christianity, in the corrupt form under which he saw it" (Boston Quarterly, p. 331). A, M. Gannett found Prometheus Unbound "permeated through and through with the spirit of true Christianity" ("Shelley's Morality," 1888, p. 104), and Aubrey De Vere, in a letter to Lady Jane Shelley dated October 11, 1882, offered a more extended and more penetrating analysis: Religious Ideas recur with a singular frequency in the poetry of one who yet too often includes Religion & Tyranny in a common denunciation. But they are presented, as if changed by some "unuttered charm or midnight spell," into a form the Converse of that in which Religion presents them. A great world-wide Deliverance, & a Reign of Love are announced in his poetry; hut they are to be made ours through Science, not Faith; through Discovery, not Gift; from below not from above. ... I am convinced that intellectually, & in his Ideas he was often much nearer than he suspected to the very doctrines that he denounced. . . If I did not recognize in Shelley's favorite Ideas a something essentially op- . posed to some of the Conclusions with which he had rashly associated them, & in 74J. H. Cousins called him, on the basis of Prometheus Unbound, "transcendentalist as well as pantheist" (Work Promethean, 1933, p. 54) ; and later, on the basis of Adonais xliii ("He doth bear his part" etc.), Cousins concluded that Shelley was neither atheist nor pantheist, but believed in the retention of individuality after death (pp. 64-65). Introduction 97 his Aspirations for Humanity a something which must have made answer "Mesh of my flesh & bone of my bone" if only Christianity had been rightly presented to him & discerned by him — if it was not for these things I might still have admired his genius; but I should not have felt for him that sympathy which made me have his name carved deep into a stone seat amid that Ilex wood which over -hung his last home at Spezia. Genius is in some respects unfortunate. It sees great Truths very rapidly — too early & by a sort of Inspiration, not a gradual process of reason- ing. On the other it is particularly slow in reaching maturity of judgement. As a consequence, it catches hold of Principles long before it understands their right application. It is strong in Ideas, but weak as to Facts, which it distorts so as to fit them in with its preconceptions. Genius, far more than common place intellect, therefore needs Humility, & discovers that even when most right it was wrong also, & has much to retrieve. Much that was said in "Queen Mab" is retrieved in "Prometheus Unbound," where plain confession is made . . . that the whole Universe, & all man's nobler nature exist but because they were made by a Creator- God. I allude to the replies of "Demogorgon" [Il.iv]. Some years more might have given us a poem confessing that the wondrous works of Prometheus . . . were the Gifts to Man of One of whom the Titan was but a Greek Type [Abinger MSS, Reel 15]. On the same theme, Stopford Brooke wrote of the poem: [There] is no more magnificent embodiment of the noblest doctrine of Jesus . . . even to the redemption of the world by faithful suffering in the cause of truth and love. . . . The character of Prometheus is partly built on the character of Christ. His moral position towards mankind, and towards Jupiter, is the position of Christ towards suffering man, and towards the powers of the world, who cruci- fied Jesus because he would not yield to their policy and their priestcraft, nor back up their power, exercised for their own advantage over the bodies and souls of men. The means of Prometheus are the means of Jesus — nothing but enduring love. His triumph is the triumph of perfect Love ["Interpretation of Christianity," 1902, p. 376] ,75 John Bailey stressed the blend of Platonism and Christianity in finding the poem one prolonged and fervent expression of his Platonic and Christian hatred of all kinds of wrong, and of his faith, which is Platonic but has not always been Christian, that it is only our blindness which prevents our seeing that the world in which we live is one of infinite beauty and delight and the type and promise of another which is invisible, spiritual, and eternal ["Prometheus," 1923, p. 128] ; 75Similarly, M. Pratesi saw Prometheus as Shelley's choice because Christ had been made the tool of the oppressors, and saw the poem as a hymn to the new man who has conquered evil and slavery through the Christlike martyrdom of the redeemer Prome- theus ("LTdea religiosa," 1903, pp. 42, 81); W. Revell: Prometheus' revolt was "not anarchy, any more than the revolt of Jesus against the oppressive and irreligious ecclesiasticism of his day was anarchy" ("Prometheus," 1907, p. 423); F. H. Gile: In postulating a savior (Prometheus) Aeschylus was "a Christian before Christ," as Shelley was "a prophet of the higher Christian truth and a fuller spiritual redemption" ("Prometheus," 1908, p. 435); F. Prescott: The myth as expanded is "almost as sig- nificant for mankind as the story of Christ and his crucifixion itself" (Poetic Mind, 1922, pp. 62-63). 98 Introduction while Bennett Weaver, as we have seen above, believed that "Shelley was conscious that Jesus stood between him and Plato, adding the spacious infinitude of the uttermost genius to the best thoughts of the Greek" (Understanding of Shelley, 1932, p. 160). Sister Anna Mercedes was also concerned with Platonic- Christian relationships as she compared St. Augustine and Shelley: "A corrected Platonism led Augustine to intellect- ual sanity and moral security; a misguided Platonism led Shelley to in- tellectual bewilderment and moral chaos." But she noted that "Shelley, the atheist, blasted nineteenth century Christianity. Had Augustine been alive he would have helped him." She also held that "if [Shelley] were 'suckled in another creed' [than that of Godwin] he might have produced a City of God rather than Prometheus Unbound. Two virtues of Shelley stand out, and these are touchstones of Christianity: unworldliness and self-sacrifice." Sister Mercedes concluded: The tremendous, intuitive, twisted intellect of Shelley glimpsed half-blindedly the outlines of our vast supernatural truths. What might he not have been under the system of faith of St. Augustine? . . . The Beauty ever ancient and ever new lured him as it had few others, and we who, from our security, look back on him, can feel nothing but regret that he did not find his way ["Two Paths," 1944, pp. 326-28]. James H. Cousins sought to correct a possible misreading. He pointed out the general teaching of the poem: "The hope of the world, to Shelley, was not the dawn of emotions, but the dawn of mind"; and "true freedom is unattainable while the higher powers are inoperative; and that law can- not be set aside until love is the active principle in all life's affairs." But he added: "This does not, of course, mean anything so foolish as a cessation of all struggle for liberation until love has been achieved" (Work Prome- thean, 1933, pp. 28, 39-40). William Cherubim varied the theme: What is original in Shelley is the spectacle of extremist Radicalism operating at all times in direct conflict with a very uncommon religiosity. He never manages to synthesize the two tendencies; or if he does, it is at the expense of his Radical- ism, not of his religiosity. Thus in Prometheus Unbound ... the earthly millen- nium is reached through Jupiter's death — but under the aegis of eternal love. It is the Snake and the Garden again, after all ["Triumph of Life," 1942, p. 569]. This conflict was stated to a different purpose by Joseph Barrell, to whom the "essential Shelley" was fundamentally emotional rather than intellect- ual, and who felt that at the end of both Queen Mob and Prometheus Un- bound the poet returned to this emotionalism, to a Christian rather than a Greek attitude, and in this he was "at ojie with his age and time" (Shelley arid Thought, 1947, pp. 158-59) .76 76E. Meldrum considered the substitution of Prometheus for Christ "foolish," and found the poem "a magnificent statement of faith" (Classical Background, 1948, p. 161) ; and G. R. Hamilton felt that "underlying the flimsy superstructure of Trometheus Introduction 99 Finally in this connection should be noted the recent tendency of certain critics to (jualify the Christian elements in the poem. Joseph Warren Beach, for example, defended his argument that Prometheus Unbound represented the culmination of Shelley's naturalism ("and this in spite of the mystical platonism with which it is there associated") by writing: The faith in human perfectibility upon this planet takes the place of the Christian doctrine of the fall of man and the whole scheme of redemption. An earthly mil- lennium takes the place of the Christian heaven. The operation of destiny — mythical form of necessity — in bringing about this earthly millennium, takes the place of divine providence and the atonement. ... In a certain sense Prometheus takes the place of Christ as the savior of man; but it is to be observed that he is man himself acting as his own savior ["Shelley's Naturalism," 1936, pp. 231-32] . More recently Herbert Read has stressed the humanistic character of Shelley's concept of love: That love, which he declared the secret of morals, he also regarded as the guiding principle of the universe. Again, he was following Plato, and, more particularly, Dante. In the detail of his conception he is much nearer to Dante than to Plato, but as a confessed atheist he did not want to identify this "unseen Power" with a divine agency. He therefore gives it an eeawful throne ... in the wise heart," from which it springs to fold over the world its healing wings. This universal love is clearly and defiantly humanistic in character ["Optimistic Philosopher," 1950, p. 378]. But P. BL Butter suggested that, "however much theologians may stress the importance of grace and the powerlessness of man by himself, it is agreed that there must be a free act of the will to co-operate with grace." Prometheus performs such an act in repenting and thus, "congruous with the Christian idea . . . [brings] into play forces beyond himself. The poem is more nearly compatible with Christian theology than Shelley himself perhaps intended or realised" (Shelley's Idols., 1954, p. 171). Interpretations of Prometheus Unbound based primarily on moral con- siderations have been most widespread and, probably rightly so, most meaningful. Although, for purposes of emphasis, the political and religious approaches have been segregated above, it will have been clear that they have in most instances related to or stemmed from the broader moral aspects of the poet's thought; but there has also been a large body of opinion more narrowly concerned with the latter. Before outlining this opinion, however, it will be well to consider two points of view, stemming largely from Mrs. Shelley's note to the poem, that have attracted much critical attention. These have to do with two aspects of the problem of Unbound' is a noble idea of self-sacrifice which owes much to the Christian tradition. That tradition remained powerful below the surface of English life; a national front was formed against French atheism which, longer than Napoleon, appeared to threaten our shores" (Tradition, 1950, p. 68). 100 Introduction evil: (1) the degree of its externality; and (2) the degree of its permanence and ease of eradication. Mrs. Shelley had stated in her note that the poet believed that "evil is not inherent in the system of the creation, but an accident that might be expelled," and that "mankind had only to will that there should be no evil, and there would be none" (see Appendix C). The suggestion that Shelley believed evil to be external was given strong support when it was accepted by Edward Dowden and used to illustrate the "philosophical errors" of the poem ("Last Words," 1896, p. 99). Henry Salt attempted to correct the interpretation: Shelley delights to personify the Manichsean doctrine of a good and an evil spirit ... but we shall do him gross injustice if we suppose him unaware of the subtle mixture of the two elements in the human mind — to quote his own words, of "that inter texture of good and evil with which Nature seems to have clothed every form of individual existence" (Shelley's Principles, 1892, p. 72) ,77 Vida Scudder, however, accepted Mrs. Shelley's statement and explained: To the Revolution evil is a pure accident, an external fact. It inheres in institu- tions,— how it got there we are never told, — and when these institutions shall be shattered, the nature of man, pure, virtuous, loving, will instantly restore the Age of Gold. This conception determines the whole form of the myth in the Prometheus Unbound. Shallow though it seems to-day, it served a necessary purpose. It roused men from the lethargy of despair, and inspired them with faith in man's control over his own destiny [Edition, 1892, p. xxi], To Helene Richter it appeared that Shelley considered evil a necessary factor in the development of the human race, for men were children who needed the rod, and evil helped rather than harmed them. Prometheus was thus converted by evil into a stronger, more elevated character (Shelley, 1898, p. 414). This interpretation of Shelley's belief in evil as external prevailed (in Walter Bagehot, Henry Brailsford, Arthur Glutton- Brock, Walter Peck, and others) although, in 1902, Stopford Brooke suggested: There were two aspects ... in which [the poet] conceived humanity. There was first an actual humanity which submitted to evil, did evil and suffered for it. There was secondly an ideal humanity contained in the actual, which did no wrong, which was itself sinless, but which suffered from the evil in the actual humanity and suffered for its sake. . . . This was Prometheus ["Poetry of Shelley," p. 214]. 77Salt, in error, gave the quotation as from the Essay on Christianity. It is from On the Punishment of Death (Julian, VI, 187) . There is, however, a comparable sentence in the Essay on Christianity: "Good and evil subsist in so intimate an union that few situations of human affairs can be affirmed to contain either of the principles in an unconnected state" (Julian, VI, 228). Stewart C. Wflcox, in a study ("Present Values," 1957) that appeared too late for detailed inclusion in the present work, commented: "Philosophically, his central prob- lem was to deal with good and evil on a cosmic scale while recognizing that the problem of evil is unanswerable. , . . Prometheus Unbound is a tremendous feat of the modifying imagination, an effort to say what is perhaps beyond statement" (p. 203). Introduction 101 Similarly, Johanna Gutteling could not accept the view that Shelley be- lieved evil to be "purely external, the tyranny of some malignant Power" (Hellenic Influence, 1922, p. 95); and Melvin Solve, too, concluded that Prometheus Unbound is truly a psychological, a metaphysical, drama. We have here the struggle between the forces of good and evil in the mind of man. . . . For the purposes of drama, Jupiter and the other characters are given objective repre- sentation apart from the figure of the Titan— yet they are within the mind of man. . . . Perhaps [Shelley] had finally been driven by his fruitless efforts to reform the world, to follow the brutal advice of an early reviewer — to reform his own breast. If five or six persons, or as many millions, could profit by this introspective dramatization they would be welcome to it [Theory of Poetry, 1927, pp. 90-91]. Solve's position was given strong support by Melvin Rader's penetrating analysis, in which he, in turn, objected to the view "that Shelley regarded evil as externalistic and temporary: that his grasp of the entire problem was weak." This, Rader held, was true of the early poems, but the later works partially negated it; and the mature view was especially evident in Prometheus Unbound, where a distinction was made between evil that was "ineradicable and objectively grounded" and that which was "subjective but deeply based." The latter "mind-created evil is so radical that even the consciousness of time must be fundamentally altered before man can be altogether freed"; but subjective evil was, nevertheless, "in large meas- ure to be escaped by minds freed from all hatred, all superstition" ("Theory of Evil," 1930, pp. 25-32). Carl Grabo, too, supported this position. He felt that Prometheus Unbound reversed Shelley's earlier belief that mind was but a function of matter. Now man's will became free through the triumph in himself of love over hate, and the world, evil because his thought was evil, was transformed. The existence of evil as external to man, Grabo concluded, was denied (Interpretation, 1935, p. 168). Douglas Bush concurred: The main conflict ... is that between good and evil in the mind of man, but, in a manner more in accord with the myth, Shelley sees also an external conflict be- tween, as it were, God and Satan— with their roles reversed — and he shifts from one conception to the other in a somewhat disconcerting way [Mythology, 1937, p. 154]. Similarly, Ellsworth Barnard would refute those who, like Edward Dowden, Henry Brailsford, Crane Brinton, Solomon Gingerich, and Vida Scudder, had built up the "misconception" that Shelley considered evil to be the outgrowth of institutions: "What we really have in Prometheus Unbound, above all else, is a drama of the individual human soul, and its effort to free itself from the evil within and without" (Shelley's Religion, 1937, pp. 121-22). Carlos Baker, in turn, wrote: The real philosophical advance [in Prometheus Unbound] is the development of the idea that evil is largely, though not by any means entirely, the result of spiritual blindness, and that if man were able, by an act of willed spiritual self-- 102 Introduction reform, to overcome at some great hour his inheritance of hate and superstition, there would be almost no limits to what he could think and do [SheUefs Major Poetry, 1948, pp. 6-7]. Or, put in another way, "the removal of that repressive force which now manacles and tortures the human mind" would lead to rebirth of the power of love and to realization of "his tremendous potential of intellectual might and spiritual pleasure. . . . Mind may at any time shake off these agonies if the inward conditions of that mind can be made right," after which the harmonizing power (Asia) will return to it, where before "it has had to remain content with imperfect degrees of love" (pp. 112-14). Most recently, Stephen Spender has re-emphasized and broadened this interpretation, holding that, while the Shelley of Queen Mob "believed that evil is an external burden imposed on men by human institutions, which can be removed by an external change," by the time of Prometheus Unbound Shelley had looked far deeper into the heart of man and saw the corruption of power which turns to evil the means intended for good. . . . His early view thai society was divided into tyrants and priests on the one hand, and the enslaved strugglers towards freedom on the other, deepened into a tragic view of the war between good and evil in the human heart (Shelley, 1952, p. 7). An interesting sidelight on this inner conflict came from Joseph W. Beach's suggestion that in the poem human nature was represented by three figures: (1) Prometheus, "the inventive and progressive powers of man"; (2) Jupiter, "the backward drag of selfish personal interest, tradi- tion, and established authority"; and (3) Asia, the "type of love," the power that could break the deadlock between the two. According to this view, "life is in a perpetual state of unbalance or instability, and we should hardly be conscious of our living at all if it were not for die struggle we carry on against reality, which fails to satisfy us, in favor of an ideal state, which challenges us to effort" (Romantic View, 1944, pp. 116-18). Frank Lea offered another variation on the theme. He saw Prometheus as "the imagination defying reason" (Romantic Revolution, 1945, p. 112) and felt that "the basic experience comprehended in Prometheus Unbound is the rebirth of true Reason [rather than the mere reasoning faculty], or imagination" (p. 123) . A narrower limitation of this approach has been that which has focused on the autobiographical suggestion of the poem. Thus J. Macmillan Brown held: It was not merely because he had sat at the feet of Godwin ... not merely because by nature he loved the ideal ... not merely because he had so deeply sympathised with the French Revolution, but perhaps most fully because he had suffered keenly from the fetters which government and society hind around the spirit of man, . . . What was [Prometheus] but Shelley himself . . . pinioned down by the despotisms of law and opinion? [Study, 1905, pp. 172-73]. And Floyd Stovall wrote: Introduction 103 [Shelley's] philosophy was individualistic rather than socialistic; this fact is palpable in his idealistic poems of social reform . . . where we observe one or two personalities of heroic dimensions leading and directing the masses or accomplish- ing their regeneration by a supreme sacrifice. These leaders or redeemers of humanity always bear a remarkable likeness to Shelley or to that character which he strove to exemplify [Desire and Restraint, 1931, p. 237] . Stovall added that we "misunderstand Shelley in supposing that he ex- pected the perfection of man merely because he believed it possible" (p. 245) . With this Benjamin Kurtz was in general agreement, writing that "Prome- theus Unbound is a great poem of self -culture; but this self -culture is dramatically conceived, and — unintentionally — disguised, as a regenera- tion of society"; and he felt that it represented Shelley's "own moral victory over failure, pain, and despair" (Pursuit of Death, 1933, pp. 157- 58) ,78 This led to Kurtz's interpretation of the poem: Benevolence is the true character of man. To this Godwinian teaching, he adds, in the first Act, the lesson of his own adventuring: that benevolence is un- chained by suffering, by repentance of scorn and hatred, by pity for the wicked, by unfailing fidelity to the higher vision, and by love. In the second Act, he adds the Platonic dream that this innate beauty is redeemed from decay by visitations of the Idea, or Reality, of Beauty; and imagines an outer world brought into 78Another, and much narrower, attempt to find Shelley in Prometheus has resulted from the application of psychiatric methods to the reading of the poem. This was, perhaps, anticipated by a Cambridge critic, referred to by Andrew Lang as early as 1885, who felt that the poem revealed in Shelley "a hankering after life in a cave — doubtless an unconsciously inherited memory from Cave Man" (Lang, "Letters," p. 8). Later, T. V. Moore saw, in the Titan's victory over Jupiter, Shelley's "final triumph over his own father who drove him from home and was unrelenting and unmerciful to the end." But, since Prometheus was purified of hate, Moore held: "This probably means that Shelley finally conquered or outgrew his hate for his father and forgave him the wrongs he did" (Study of Character •, 1922, pp. 28-31). Even more extreme and more minutely detailed was the study of Arthur Wormhoudt, who based his unorthodox study on the theories of Edmund Bergler, a psychoanalyst who, in the words of Kenneth Neil Cameron, "apparently envisages the ills of mankind as due, not to sexual frustra- tion, but to problems encountered in breast feeding" (PQ, XXIX [1950], 108). A typical passage may suffice here: "[In Aeschylus], Prometheus, as the oedipal son, usurps the privileges of the father, is punished, repents and is forgiven. But the normal course of oedipal justice did not appeal to Shelley. His hatred of the father was seem- ingly much stronger than that of Aeschylus. It demanded the complete overthrow of Jupiter and the concomitant exoneration of Prometheus for this crime against the father. This exoneration is accomplished by overlaying the positive oedipus complex with a negative oedipus complex whereby the son represses his hatred for the father and puts himself in the mother's place in order to demonstrate his love in the most passive manner. But both the positive and negative oedipus complexes are themselves only defenses against the deeper conflict between the son and the mother. This conflict Shelley has also expressed" (Demon Lover, 1949, p. 88). And Wormhoudt concluded: "The final result of the complicated action of this great poem is to permit the Prome- thean Shelley to accept the guilt for the lesser crime of the negative oedipus relation and escape that of two greater crimes — masochistic attachment to the pregenital mother and rebellion against the positive oedipal father" (p. 108). 104- Introduction conformity with this innate beauty by the destruction of the horrors of injustice, intemperance, and hatred. Then, in the third Act, he avers that Life, which is a veil of this spirit, had better be called Death, for death has long since become his symbol of all imperfection, ugliness; but what he and other men have called death, is the true life, the greatest visitation of the divine. , . . Thus, at last, in the tri- umph of benevolence and beauty over the ugliness that is falsely called life, a per- fect moral character is achieved. The emotional harmony of that character, and a sympathetic harmony, or peace, in all natural things, overflows into the lyrics of the fourth Act. . . . The unbinding of Prometheus is in fact a story of what has actually happened, in some degree short of the ideal perfection, to each of count- less individual men. But the perfecting of society is a story of what has never happened, of what perhaps never can happen until there is a biological change in the fundamental nature of man. May one not be warranted, then, in detecting ... a movement, unrealized by the poet himself, away from the preoccupation with the perfection of society toward the perfecting of the individual [pp. 187-89] ? Another erroneous, but widespread, opinion (resulting from a too -literal reading of the poem) was that Shelley believed in a sudden and revolution- ary change in man's condition. John Todhunter hinted at the fallacy of this view in suggesting that the poem should be considered as an example of evolutionary rather than revolutionary thought (Study, 1880, p. 156); but Henry Salt was more direct in stating that Shelley used "the license of a poet, by concentrating into brief compass a revolution which must have demanded a long period for its accomplishment, little suspecting that his critics would attribute to him the almost incredible folly of a literal belief in the sudden extirpation of evil" (Shelley's Principles, 1892, p. 68). Later, Archibald Strong re-emphasized the point and linked Prometheus Unbound and Hellas as poems that contain the actual symbol of that which may yet be — which, indeed, must be — if man's progress, despite its imperfections and frustrations, be on the whole an upward one making for an increased love of his kind. Time, the only means of achieving the new order . . . interposes its aeons between conception and fruition: and it is surely for this cause that Shelley rails at it so fiercely [Studies, 1921, p. 65] . Gertrude Slaughter called the poem "a myth in which the poet's dream of the regeneration of mankind is represented as accomplished in one fated hour, to symbolize what is conceived of as happening in the long process of the ages" ("Shelley," 1922, p. 77); and Melvin Rader, noting that "the liberation of man does not approach swiftly . . . [for, although Shelley's] works are prophetic of revolution, he advocated a most gradual reform," cited as evidence the following: "Yet slow and gradual dawned the morn of love" (Queen Mob IX.38); " [liberal-mindedness, forebearance, and in- dependence are! to be produced by resolute perseverance and indefatigable hope, and long-suffering and long-believing courage, and the systematic efforts of generations of men of intellect and virtue" (Preface to The Revolt of Islam); "[the overthrow of the system of society] does not seem to be Introduction 105 one of the easiest. But the generous few are not the less held to tend with all their efforts towards it" (to Hunt, May 1, 1820; Julian, X, 164); "[reform should not come] before the public mind, through many grada- tions of improvement, shall have arrived at the maturity which can dis- regard these symbols of its childhood" (A Proposal for Putting Reform to the Vote; Julian, VI, 68); "Any sudden attempt at universal suffrage would produce an immature attempt at a Republic" (A Philosophical View of Reform; Julian, VII, 43). But Rader noted that in "it is our will / That thus enchains us to permitted ill," etc. (Julian and Maddalo 161-91), the poet wrote to the same effect as did Mrs. Shelley. The apparent contra- diction, he thought, could be reconciled by recognition of Shelley's accept- ance of Spinoza's belief "that the mind, by conceiving existence sub specie aeternitatis, can be liberated from bondage to time" and, "intoxicated with Eternity . . . could anticipate and ideally dwell in the age of dawn." ("Theory of Evil," 1930, pp. 28-31). Amiyakumar Sen based his explanation on the action of Asia: "Unlike Godwin's Reason, Asia does not, all at once, bring about, by a single touch of her wand as it were, the salvation of mankind. She has to pass through a series of educative experiences before she can redeem Humanity," and "when the emotions and the human understanding are equally and fully developed, educated and harmoniously blended together . . . man becomes perfect" (Studies, 1936, pp. 135-36). And N. I. White thought that, if die victory seemed too easily and suddenly achieved, "it is largely the fault of Shelley's original fable and the timelessness and spacelessness of its set- ting. ... It was to be a cslow, gradual, silent change,' as he had earlier made clear in the Preface to [The Revolt of Islam]" (Shelley, 1940, II, 124-25). To return now to the general development of critical thought relating to the moral significance of the poem, we may note that the most obvious feature, the "benevolent opposition of Prometheus to the oppressive and atrocious rule of Jupiter" (Monthly Review, 1821; see Appendix D, item VII), has, of course, been basic; but from the beginning the subtleties of Shelley's treatment have been pointed out: "He has drawn us Virtue, not as she is, but as she should be — magnanimous in affliction, and impatient of unauthorized tyranny"' (London- Inquisitor, 1821; see Appendix D, item VIII). Mrs, Shelley offered only the broadest interpretation of the meaning of the poem: Humanity is freed by Strength from the tortures of Evil, done or suffered, after the Primal Power of the world drives Evil from his usurped throne; whereupon Nature resumes the beauty of her prime and is united with her husband, the emblem of the human race (see Appendix C) . The general stress, in her note and in Shelley's Preface, on the idealized aspects of Shelley's beliefs has, however, as we have seen, been frequently 105 Introduction repeated.79 To Arthur Clive, the poem represented "the sufferings and endurance of the unconquerable spirit of Freedom through its night of tribulation and suppression, the ultimate overthrow and annihilation of that Evil One" to "the joy of all created things" ("Prometheus," 1874, p. 423) ; and Clive added: "Shelley has raised the ideal of human excellence so far as almost to make us hate the word 'progress' and grow weary of 'civilization' whose results up to the present have been so meagre and dis- heartening. We are scarce fit to breathe in his atmosphere, but it is good for us to know that it exists" (p. 437). Edward Dowden, too, felt that "the poem has helped us to conceive more truly and more nobly of the possibili- ties of man's life, its possibilities of fortitude, endurance, pitying sympathy, heroic martyrdom, aspiration, joy, freedom, love" ("Last Words," 1896, p. 99). But J. Slater, who saw Shelley's "characteristic sentiments' —the evil of government, philanthropy, fatalism, doubts of immortality, and an "unsavoury" opposition to marriage — in the poem, could not accept the poet's philanthropy because it left out God ("Let us love each other be- cause there is no God to love us") and dwindled down "into the kind-heart- edness of the everyday Englishman" ("Prometheus," 1884, pp. 386-92). In W. M. Rossetti's three lectures before the Shelley Society a more detailed study of the poem was offered. The critic interpreted the poet's meaning as follows: The Universe (spoken of as Heaven, Earth, and Light) is eternal and self-exist- ing: it had no creator. The primary powers of the Universe, or (as we may say) its spiritual functions, are Love, Fate, Occasion, Chance, and Change. Of these no beginning and no origin can be predicated, nor yet any end. Of Man, the earliest age is called the Saturnian Age, when Time became a factor in the world. Men in that age, being intellectually undeveloped, lived a natural and therefore so far a happy life, like animals, or indeed like plants. Ultimately Human Mind was evolved, or, mythically speaking, Prometheus came into being, and was united to Nature, as in the espousals of man and wife. One of the first acts of Human Mind was to create a God in his own image: he assigned wisdom to Jupiter — that is, to the Vicissitude of the World — and ascribed to him the dominion of Heaven, stipulating only that man should be free— free in will and in act. The mere animal happiness, or natural conformity, of man had lapsed with the birth of Mind: under the theocracy which the mind of man had established, everything went amiss. The natural operations of the Vicissitude of the World, such as want, toil, and disease, became grievously oppressive when they were regarded as the decree of Omniscient Omnipotence; and the spirit of mankind was a theatre of dismal cravings and chafings. To this catastrophe of all human well-being the Mind of Man supplied numerous and noble palliatives; but it sank beneath the stern theocratic sway — Prometheus was bound and tortured. Still the potential 79 Carl Grabo recently qualified this view, however: "Shelley in his late verse some- times still depicts an ideal society, as in the Utopia of Prometheus Unbound, but against this ideal of which he dreams he presents the world as it now is with a terrible and uncompromising realism. . . . The ideal society for which he strove became in his eyes, as his knowledge of human nature grew, increasingly remote, something to be achieved only by a new order of mankind" (Shelley's Eccentricities, 1950, p. 69), Introduction 107 remedy for the multiform and monstrous evil remained in the human mind itself — it remains in the human mind at this moment When the mind shall finally have rejected the delusions (such Shelley considered them) of theocracy, and shall have purged itself of the dark passions of hatred and revenge, then will the moment of emancipation be sounding. Eternity itself will conspire with the human mind to launch the world of man upon a new career — a career of boundless pro- gression, in which even the planet which man inhabits will participate. The theocracy, with all its attendant evils, will vanish into nothingness; the Human Mind will be re -united to Nature in indissoluble and boundless concord; and only chance and death and mutability will dispute with man the future of his globe ["Study," 1886, pp. 71-72]. To William Guthrie, "the mind of man, married to nature, separated, reunited," was the theme of "the whole poem" (Poet Prophets, 1897, p. 163) ; and he approved Shelley's choice of the Prometheus story, for in so choosing the poet could, because of the antiquity of the myth, avoid "any shock to religious preconceptions and associations." Jupiter and Prometheus could thus be made to "signify whatever he pleases without any serious danger of arousing bigoted opposition" (p. 152). Guthrie read the poem as meaning that, for the liberation and perfection of the soul of man, (1) man needs to "overcome that vindictive passion miscalled the desire for just retribution"; (2) he needs to learn that he "who reigns" is not "God," and that "all things are subject but eternal Love"; (3) he needs "an external power ... an incarnation of the eternal energy to de- throne objective evil"; (4) he needs "Hercules to break the fetters of evil custom from his body"; (5) he needs "to be united again with 'nature' "; after which (6) "the shell ... of that liberty which is a condition of true virtue, must be blown, and its note of prophecy must bring about its own fulfillment"; and (7) he must live with Asia in the " 'cavern' of science." Man, according to Guthrie's reading, was in want of something to give him confidence, so he gave Jupiter (government, anthropomorphic God, moral codes) power which turned to violence against man. For Jupiter is still on his throne, although for many he has fallen or is falling: "We see clearly from what the soul of man, according to our Shelley, needs to be delivered." In the final analysis, Guthrie felt, it was not Asia or Demogorgon, but the attitude of Prometheus himself, which made, and will always make, salva- tion possible: 'The finality of the redemption as a fact [Shelley] doubted, though the principle thereof he trusted. It could, in case of need, be applied again and again" (pp. 182-202). To George Woodberry, also, the separation of Prometheus from Asia during the reign of Jupiter was the important key, for it typified the dis- cordance between man and nature due to the tyranny of convention, custom, institutions, laws, and all the arbitrary organization of society — one of the cardinal ideas inherited by Shelley from eighteenth-century thought. The fall of Jupiter thus represented, for Woodberry, the abolition of human law, which was to be followed by the triumph of love, with man 108 Introduction and nature once more in accord, and with this accord presented doubly in the drama as the marriage of Prometheus and the regeneration of the world in millennial happiness (Cambridge Edition, 1901, p. 621). This interpre- tation was amplified by Allen R. Benham, who argued that the separation of Prometheus and Asia was "a presentation in a curious dramatic form of the [Rousseau] doctrine . . . that man can reach an ideal state of existence by what was called the Return to Nature,"80 and he cited the Essay on Christianity to show what Shelley thought Rousseau meant by this: Rousseau certainly did not mean to persuade the immense population of his country to abandon all the arts of life [J destroy their habitations and their temples and become the inhabitants of the woods. He addressed the most enlightened of his compatriots, and endeavoured to persuade them to set the example of a pure and simple life, by placing in the strongest point of view his conceptions of the calamitous and diseased aspect which, overgrown as it is with the vices of sensu- ality and selfishness, is exhibited by civilized society [Julian, VI, 247-48]. Benham concluded that Jupiter fell when Prometheus pitied rather than defied, suggesting that morality, to use a mathematical term, is a function of sympathy and the latter in turn of imagination. . . . The difficulty with the reign of Jupiter was that man was kept unrefined, his imagination was restricted, hence his sympathies were narrow, and a real human society was impossible ["Interpretation," 1923, p. 120]. To Walter Raleigh, Shelley "had learned 'To hope, till hope creates / From its own wreck the thing it contemplates'; and if the tyrant that oppresses mankind is immitigable Reality, he will be a rebel against Reality in the name of that fairer and no less immortal power, the desire of the heart." The gist of his teaching, Raleigh believed, lay "not in this or that promise held out of future good, but in the means that he insists on for its realization" ("Shelley," 1902, pp. 291-93).81 And J. Macmillan Brown saw as Shelley's aim: "To bring thought and love together by the aid of liberty [Demogorgon] . . . and he has accomplished it in Titanic, almost superhuman mould" (Study., 1905, p. 20). Arthur M. D. Hughes broadened the issue somewhat in his reading. He agreed that in Shelley's 80Helene Richter had held that Shelley's dream of the millennium was the reverse of Rousseau's: not a return to an earlier state, but a continuous progress (Shelley •, 1898, p. 422). 81With Raleigh's position it is interesting to compare that of George H. Clarke, who held that Prometheus Unbound "offers no sure method for the renovation of life, but it impresses us all with the assurance and reality of renovation," and that "the energy and enthusiasm of his belief, its spirit and its power" were more important than the matter of his belief: "Shelley's mankind, though given fluctuating place in a vast Nature -organization, is not by any means a mechanicized conception . . . [for Shelley's] eyes were habitually fixed on the great principles of Love and Wisdom and Virtue, abstractions which became so keenly and glowingly realized in his own thought that of their inherent activity he could entertain no doubt" (Edition, 1907, pp. 238^39). Introduction 109 view the human mind was oppressed by its own creation, the "personal God of the historical religions," and had lost touch with Intellectual Beauty. A reunion with Intellectual Beauty would enable the mind to behold the glory of nature. But, Hughes held, "Shelley would not dream of a return to any sort of primitive innocence," for "the very systems which oppress man testify to a striving for the light, and are the earnest of something better." Thus the way to salvation and sound knowledge is by a hard-won progress in virtue. . . . Prometheus the Titan merges into Prometheus the Mind of Man; and so, at a yet farther remove, we perceive that in the Mind of Man there is implicit, as the whole is implicit in the part, all the generative energy, the "father -force," as Todhunter expresses it, in Nature (Edition, 1910, pp. 172-74). To Charles Herford, "everything in the drama seems to support the faith of Shelley's most exalted hours, that love, even here and now, is the substance of things, and evil a phantasmal shadow." Even Jupiter "speaks in lovely images . . as if he, too, were a lover of Asia," and the Fury appears to suffer "what she inflicts" (History, 1915, p. 66). N. I. White found the poem not only consistent in its philosophy but moderate: "Surely the faith that there is an inextinguishable spark within the human spirit is intellectually as respectable as the contrary belief, when neither is capable of absolute proof by the ordinary laws of reason" (Shelley, 1940, II, 125). White pointed out that the poem was full of the feeling, stemming from Plato and Berkeley, that the mind was only a shadow of the Eternal Mind ("It is the mind of man that is invincible"). Moreover, he held, the poem expressed Shelley's "own disillusion and disappointment in life," yet the poet "reasserted more strongly than ever an optimism based upon a new philosophy of reality that could recognize fully the strength of evil while perceiving that it was not for ever invincible, because it rested upon a distortion of truth" (II, 135-37). Edward Hungerford concluded: The moral of Shelley's play does not ... differ from that of Aeschylus so radically as Shelley imagined. Man attains a limited freedom by eradicating from his nature its worse elements and being guided by the will of God, which is love. The es- sential difference is that Shelley allots to man a higher capacity for achievement within the limits of necessity than that envisaged by the Greek poet, an opti- mistic hope which may or may not be justified by events [Shores of Darkness, 1941, p. 215]. Andre" Maurois read the poem as "a new presentation of the one and only theme of his genius: the war of the Spirit against Matter, the war of Free Man against the World" (Ariel, 1924, p. 248); and Cecil M. Bowra saw the poem's principal ideas as reflections of four of Shelley's beliefs: (1) "in the end evil is conquered because it breeds its own opposite"; (2) "matter does not exist" and "spirit is the only reality . . . nature is no less alive than man and has, like him, a soul"; (3) "evil is subdued through love"; 110 Introduction and (4) when "love and reason are united, evil is doomed" (Romantic Imagination, 1949, pp. 110-14). One additional interpretative approach, recently expanded, has dealt with Shelley's interest in science. As early as 1867, in France, Odysse Barot had likened Shelley to Lucretius in capturing the language of the forces of the universe, the high truths of philosophy and science (Henri Peyre, Shelley et la France, 1935, p. 279). Later, in England, John Todhunter found in Prometheus Unbound an evolutionary approach to man's perfect- ibility. Prometheus, he felt, was "the divine imagination, the father-force, which creates and re-creates the universe by its marriage with the divine idea, or mother -force, Asia." Hence Prometheus was freed of suffering when Asia became so transfigured that evil could not bear her beauty, i. e.? "when the divine idea which gave birth to the old world" was ready "to give birth to a new one more perfect." To Todhunter, this was "the ever- renewed drama of creation, which, acted a million times in a second, eludes our vision in the mysteries of what we call chemical affinity, and which, extending over millions of ages, baffles the utmost range of our minds" (Study, 1880, p. 141). Thus, Todhunter thought, by Act II Shelley was "almost as clearly an evolutionist as any of our most modern philosophers," but "a transcendental evolutionist of the Hegelian type," and his Spirit of Nature was not a blind force but an intensely vital Mind. Moreover, the creation to Shelley was not a dead plan but "the perpetual effort to realize an ever-developing ideal"; for there were "certain nodal -points in this process of evolution — golden ages, when the real and ideal become one." Evil, then, represented "the discord in the cosmic harmony, which yet results in higher harmony when overcome and resolved" (pp. 156-57). Little, however, was made of Shelley's interest in this field until Alfred North Whitehead, in 1925, declared that science "was, in fact, part of the main structure of his mind, permeating his poetry through and through. If Shelley had been born a hundred years later, the twentieth century would have seen a Newton among chemists* . . . [But he] can simply make nothing of the doctrine of secondary qualities which is fundamental to [science's] concepts. For Shelley, nature retains its beauty and its colour" (Science and the Modern World, pp. 123-24). Promptly accepting Whitehead's challenge to consider Shelley's scientific background, Carl Grabo built the story of the poet's use of scientific thought from its materialistic and deterministic phase to the reconciliation of science with Platonism in Prometheus Unbound. Grabo traced the in- fluence of the thought of Erasmus Darwin, Herschel, Newton, and Davy on the poet, with special attention to the relationship between the theory of Beccaria and Shelley's use of electrical phenomena; but he admitted the dual symbolism of many passages, pointing out that "they are both scien- tific and neo-Platonic in their import" (Newton among Poets, 1930, p. xi), Introduction 111 and that "scientific thought very quickly verges upon mysticism in his verse" (p. 102). Nor did Grabo insist that his parallels indicated sources, only that, "if in some one or several of the scientific investigators and theorists of the time can be found data which make Shelley's scientific conceptions as set forth in Prometheus fully intelligible, that fact suffices for purposes of interpretation" (p. 86) . Grabo's detailed interpretation of Prometheus Unbound appeared five years later, and the principal parallels there presented will be found in the Critical Notes of the present edition. Influenced by these studies, Joseph W. Beach suggested that the union of Prometheus and Asia signified "not merely humanity's espousal of love" but also "man's alliance with nature as explored and interpreted by science" ("Shelley's Naturalism," 1936, p. 241) ; or, as James H. Cousins wrote of Adonais xliii, Shelley was "in fact stating the clearest science [of evolution] , but stating it gloriously, on the wing" (Work Promethean., 1933, pp. 54-55). Roy Male amplified the approach by relating it to the doctrine of sympathy, a motif he found also in Rosalind and Helen but in cruder form than in Prometheus Unbound, where, with Prometheus and Asia, it was refined, universalized, and paralleled throughout by an equation of love with electromagnetic attraction. To regard this analogy as a blending of Platonic love with the ideas of modern astronomy makes it seem a rather far-fetched conceit. But if we constantly remember that, for Shelley, love is synonymous with sym- pathy, the idea is much more plausible. The comparison of sympathy to elec- tricity was a commonplace in Shelley's time ["Shelley and Sympathy," 1950, p. 200]. Stephen Spender sided with these writers: In certain respects, Shelley developed modern poetry further in [Prometheus Unbound} than it has gone since. For one aim of modern poetry is surely to make the enormously extended knowledge of the universe gained by science, conscious and significant in our minds. In Prometheus Unbound Shelley links up scientific discovery with the struggle for human liberty (Shelley, 1952, p. 29) ,82 And so the tides of opinion have ebbed and flowed about the coves and promontories of thought that form the world of Shelley's poem. It is a 82It should be added, however, that this group of critics has been seriously challenged, N. I. White was convinced that the scientific influence "is limited to the imagery and does not extend to the general philosophy of the poem. Also it is largely the result of remembered, rather than current, reading" (Shelley, 1940, II, 578). Ellsworth Barnard commented: "It is true that Shelley in his youth was greatly attracted by sensational or striking scientific experiments and theories; but the records of his later life offer practically no evidence that he remained so, or that the use in his poetry of the informa- tion which he had earlier acquired was more than incidental. Nor is it clear that Mrs. Shelley's statement in her note on Prometheus Unbound— that 'Shelley develops, more particularly in the lyrics of this drama, his abstruse and imaginative theories with regard to the Creation' — is to be applied to the kind of theory which Mr. Grabo dis- cusses" (Edition, 1944, p. 178). And Douglas Bush held that "the validity of particular 112 Introduction challenging poem. In many respects it is a great poem, for only a work of art touched with greatness invites and bears without diminution the range and intensity of interpretation here outlined. But finally all criticism must give way to the work of art itself, and in the survey just concluded, as well as in the pages to follow, it will be clear that the figure chosen by Matthew Arnold for his sonnet on Shakespeare is not inept when applied to Prometheus Unbound: For the loftiest hill That to the stars uncrowns his majesty, Planting his steadfast footsteps in the sea, Making the heaven of heavens his dwelling-place, Spares but the cloudy border of his base To the foiled searching of mortality. scientific data and images has nothing to do with the validity of the poet's vision of life, and that, to a good many readers, remains dubious. . . . But Shelley himself supplies a comment on his scientific Utopia when, speaking of the way in which scientific know- ledge has circumscribed the imagination, the poetry of life, he says: 'Man, having enslaved the elements, remains himself a slave' " (Science and English Poetry, 1950, pp. 1034). Carlos Baker did not believe that Shelley's interest in science was uncommon. He was "an intelligent amateur," but this was "hardly a reason for supposing that he might have developed into a pioneer of modern physical science" (Shelley's Major Poetry -, 1948, p. 287). Graham Hough commented on Whitehead: "To the shoemaker there is nothing like leather: but the literary critic, to give that unscientific observer his due, is perhaps more likely than the scientist in a literary moment to notice how fragmentary and capricious were Shelley's dealings with science. The important substratum of truth in this way of thinking about Shelley is that he does not see a dualism between material and spiritual life; each is one aspect of the same reality; and the rejuvenation of the one can only be accomplished (though not by any process expressible in scientific terms) by the parallel regeneration of the other. Thus the cosmic and natural imagery of Prometheus is not inessential to it, an additional lyrical rhapsodizing, as is sometimes said: it is a vital part of the whole imaginative concept" (Romantic Poets, 1953, p. 138). The most penetrating statement, however, was that of Charles G. Hoffman: "The claim that a poet is expounding, such-and-such a specific doctrine, philosophic or scientific, leads to over -simplification; the very process of creation and the techniques of the medium demand of a poem its own kind of emotional truth and not the logical or empirical truth of scientific or philosophic discourse. . . . Shelley had a definite and keen interest in science, and yet the Nature of his poetry is not the Nature of scientific materialism. . . . Furthermore, his interest in science was not purely 'scientific': his moralistic and humanitarian concern for human progress saw in science the answer to and the hope for advances in human welfare. He did make use of some scientific facts as a basis for some of his imagery, but the large part of his imagery by necessity and by choice comes from traditional and romantic sources" ("Whitehead's Philosophy of Nature," 1952, pp. 261-62). Shelley's Prometheus Unbound Explanatory Note1. THE TEXT is THAT of the first edition of 1820 (see above, p. xvii), and it has been reproduced with verbal exactness, even to typographical errors and obvious misreadings. Line numbers and manuscript page references have been supplied. Running heads follow the format of the present edition. Variant readings have been limited to the principal editions, draft ab- stracts, and the E manuscript. This manuscript has previously been re- ferred to as B (for Bodleian), but with the Shelley- Rolls material now added to the collection it seems advisable to draw a clearer distinction between parts of the Bodleian holdings. I have therefore adopted E (the Bodleian catalogue code for this item) for Shelley's final manuscript copy of the poem. Because of the complex nature of the draft materials, only confusion could result from attempting their detailed inclusion in the Variant Read- ings or Textual Notes. They have, therefore, been abstracted here. Full transcriptions will be found in Appendix A. In the Textual Notes all manuscript readings are from E unless specific- ally identified as draft materials. Square brackets as part of manuscript readings indicate deletions by the poet; shaped brackets in these readings indicate editorial comment. Text of parallel passages in other works (where line reference only has been given by the critic) has been supplied. In these notes short titles of critical works have been used in most refer- ences. For notes which follow the line order of the poem (such as in the Zupitza-Schick articles or in Freeman's dissertation) and can thus be located easily, reference is to the editor's or critic's name only; other items (such as those in introductions, etc.) have been identified. Variant readings for Freeman are from the published edition of the poem; references to Free- man in the Textual Notes are to the dissertation. References to Woodberry in the Textual Notes are to the Centenary Edition unless otherwise indicated. In the Textual Notes, also, grammatical nicety has been sacrificed for *See also pp. xvn-xx for full details of textual procedure. 115 116 Explanatory Note fidelity to punctuation in the manuscript. Thus commas and periods have been omitted when they do not follow the words, numbers, or letters in the original. Adequate spacing has been allowed to prevent confusion. KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS SD Stage Direction Dr Draft MSS (See Appendix A for full transcriptions and MSS identi- fications) E Bodleian MSS E.I, E.2, E.3 (Shelley's final extant copy of the poem) M Mrs. Shelley edition (1839) M2 Mrs. Shelley second edition (1839) Fs G. G. Foster edition (1845; the first American edition) R William Michael Rossetti edition (1870) Fo Harry Buxton Forman edition (1876) R2 Rossetti second edition (1878) D Edward Dowden edition (1890) Fo2 Forman second edition (1892) W George Woodberry edition (1892) H Thomas Hutchinson edition (1904) H2 Hutchinson second edition (1905) A Richard Ackermann edition (1908) L Charles D. Locock edition (1911) J Julian edition (Roger Ingpen and Walter Peck; 1927) Fr Martin Joseph Freeman and Carl Grabo edition (1942) For the above (except for Dr), full variant readings have been given. The following editions adhere closely to one or another of the foregoing, but where significant deviations have been found they have been indicated in the Textual Notes: Galignani (1829), Cuningham (1839), Blind (1872), Scott (1873), Shepherd (1874), Scudder (1892), Alexander (1898), Dickin- son (1898), Woodberry Cambridge Edition (1901), Dole (1905), Koszul (1907), Frowde (1910), Hughes (1910), Herford (1922). Hyphenation in the variant readings indicates that all editions so in- cluded give the reading (e.g., H-Fr means that Hutchinson, Ackermann, Locock, Julian, and Freeman agree) ; while hyphenation followed by a square bracket indicates that all except those bracketed give the reading (e.g., M-Fr[Fo] means that all editions from Mrs. Shelley's to Freeman's, except for Forman, agree on the reading). Where a given editor alters a reading in a second edition the change is indicated by a shaped bracket (e.g.5 Speak! M R J<Speak: R2>); otherwise the two editions agree. PROMETHEUS UNBOUND A LYRICAL DRAMA IN FOUR ACTS WITH OTHER POEMS BY PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY AUDISNE EUEC, AMPHIARAE, SUB TEKRAM ABDITET LONDON C AND J OLLIER VERE STREET BOND STREET 1820 PREFACE. THE Greek tragic writers, in selecting as their subject any portion of their national history or mythology, employed in their treatment of it a certain arbitrary discretion. They by no means conceived themselves bound to adhere to the common interpretation or to [5] imitate in story as in title their rivals and predecessors. Such a system would have amounted to a resignation of those claims to preference over their competitors which incited the composition. The Agamemnonian story was exhibited on the Athenian theatre with as many [10] variations as dramas. I have presumed to employ a similar licence. The "Prometheus Unbound" of -^Eschylus supposed the reconciliation of Jupiter with his victim as the price of the disclosure of the danger threatened to his empire [15] [E.1 14V] by the consummation of his marriage with Thetis. 1 writers E 9 Agamemnonian < sic > E 2 of the history or mythology of their 10 the Greek theatre Dr nation, Dr 3 thier < sic > E 12 license— E 4-5 felt themselves obliged Dr 13 "Prometheus unbound" of ^Eschy- 5 interpretation, M lus, E 6 story, as in title, M & E 15-16 to the Empire of Heaven by his 7 Such a plan would have been no more marriage Dr than the resignation Dr w£ E Preface omitted in Cuningham and Scott. 1-47 For a full transcription of Shelley's draft of these lines and relevant unused passages, see Appendix A. All MS readings below are from E unless specifically identified as from the draft. 6 as in [th] title 9 Violet written with different pen above period. Zupitza thought it was probably on the page before the Prometheus Unbound passage was written, 13 Quotation mark spacing unique throughout 1820. 119 120 Preface Thetis, according to this view of the subject, was given in marriage to Peleus, and Prometheus, by the permis- sion of Jupiter, delivered from his captivity by Her- cules. Had I framed my story on this model, I should [20] have done no more than have attempted to restore the lost drama of ^Eschylus; an ambition, which, if my preference to this mode of treating the subject had incited me to cherish, the recollection of the high comparison such an attempt would challenge might [25] well abate. But, in truth, I was averse from a catas- trophe so feeble as that of reconciling the Champion witih. the Oppressor of mankind. The moral interest of the fable, which is so powerfully sustained by the sufferings and endurance of Prometheus, would be [30] [E.1 15r] annihilated if we could conceive of him as unsaying his high language and quailing before his successful and perfidious adversary. The only imaginary being resembling in any degree Prometheus, is Satan; and Prometheus is, in my judgement, a more poetical cha- [35] racter than Satan, because, in addition to courage, and majesty, and firm and patient opposition to omni- potent force, he is susceptible of being described as exempt from the taints of ambition, envy, revenge, and a desire for personal aggrandisement, which, in [4£] the Hero of Paradise Lost, interfere with the interest. 17' on this view Dr subject E successful adversary. Dr language, & E 18 Pelias, < sic >& Prometheus E his perfidious & successful E 19 Jupiter E Hercules. — E 33-36 Prometheus is I think a more po- 20 model E etical character than Satan, because Dr 24 the thought Dr 35 judgment, M 25 comparison I should so challenge Dr 36 Satan E courage & majesty E challenge, E 26 But in truth E 37 & & E 29-30 the fable so powerful in the suffer- 39-40 ambition & revenge & injustice ings & the endurance Dr fable E which Dr envy revenge, & E which E 30 & the endurance E and the endur- 41-42 interest Satan engenders Dr ance A 41 perpetually interfere Dr A hero of 32-33 quaking before his perfidious & Paradise lost perpetually interfere E Running heads: centered, punctuated, small roman capitals in 1820. 17 Shelley copied on this view from the draft, then according to above [on] 18-19 Draft at first: & Hercules by the permission of Jupiter delivered Prometheus from the vulture & the chains. 24-25 Draft at first: the consideration of the unfavourable comparison I challenged 28 In the draft Shelley followed this sentence with (undeleted) : Nor can I imagine how such a scene could ever have excited any thing but disappointment < sic >on the st <s tage? > 31 15r opens with ceive of him 39 A caret directs to envy above the line. 40 A caret directs to a desire for above the line. Preface 121 The character of Satan engenders in the mind a per- nicious casuistry which leads us to weigh his faults with his wrongs, and to excuse the former because the latter exceed all measure. In the minds of those who [45] [E.1 15V] consider that magnificent fiction with a religious feel- ing it engenders something worse. But Prometheus is, as it were, the type of the highest perfection of moral and intellectual nature, impelled by the purest and the truest motives to the best and noblest ends. [50] This Poem was chiefly written upon the mountainous ruins of the Baths of Caracalla, among the flowery glades, and thickets of odoriferous blossoming trees, which are extended in ever winding labyrinths upon its immense platforms and dizzy arches suspended in the [55] air. The bright blue sky of Rome, and the effect of the vigorous awakening spring in that divinest climate, and the new life with which it drenches the spirits even to intoxication, were the inspiration of this drama. [60] The imagery which I have employed will be found, [E.1 16*] in many instances, to have been drawn from the opera- tions of the human mind, or from those external actions by which they are expressed. This is unusual in modern poetry, although Dante and Shakspeare are [65] 44 wrongs & E ever-winding M 46 read that magnificent Dr 55 & E 47 feeling, EM 56 & E 49& E 57 of spring E M Fs R A L 50& &E 61 found E 53 & E trees E 62 instances E 54 extending R <extended R2 > 65 Poetry; E & Shakespeare E 42 Shelley copied Satan engenders from the draft, then in E inserted The character of with caret, in pencil above the line. 43-44 Draft at first: leads us to excuse his faults in return for his 46 15V opens with magnificent fiction 51-73 These lines were written with finer pen and smaller letters, probably at another time inasmuch as line 74 begins on a later page. 51 upon out of in above [among] 54 Shelley wrote which [has] are stretched out [am] upon A caret after out directs to in ever winding labyrinths in darker ink above the line. Then, in pencil, stretched out is deleted and a penciled caret after are directs to extended in pencil above the line. Zupitza suggested that [am] was a start on among 56 sJcy ahove [air] 61 The imagery which I have above [There will be found] Zupitza read Then for There 62 16r opens with the operations The bottom one-third, following singularity <sic>of line 73, is blank. Preface full of instances of the same kind: Dante indeed more than any other poet, and with greater success. But the Greek poets, as writers to whom no resource of awakening the sympathy of their contemporaries was unknown, were in the habitual use of this power; [70] and it is the study of their works, (since a higher merit would probably be denied me,) to which I am willing that my readers should impute this singularity. [E.338V] One word is due in candour to the degree in which the study of contemporary writings may have tingedmy com- [75] position, for such has been a topic of censure with re- gard to poems far more popular, and indeed more de- servedly popular, than mine. It is impossible that any one who inhabits the same age with such writers as those who stand in the foremost ranks of our own, can con- [80] scientiously assure himself that his language and tone of thought may not have been modified by the study of the productions of those extraordinary intellects. It is true, that, not the spirit of their genius, but the forms in which it has manifested itself, are due less to the pe- [85] [E.3 38r] culiarities of their own minds than to the peculiarity of ; the moral and intellectual condition of the minds among which they have been produced. Thus a number of writers possess the form, whilst they want the spirit of those whom, it is alleged, they imitate; because the [90] 67 poet E writers as stand in the ranks of literature 70 power, E of the present day assure themselves or 71 and it sfrom<«c>E works (since others that their language Dr EM 81 himself, E &E 72 me) E me), M 83 of these Dr 73 singular tity < sk > E 84 thier < sic > E 74 One word in candour on the manner 85 due, E Dr no paragraph E ., 86 peculiarity Dr minds, E 75 writing may have modified Dr 87 & E 77 & E and, indeed, M 88 they were produced. Dr 78 popular E 89 have the form, Dr E form while Fs 78-81 any one contemporary with such 90 imitate, E 70 What looks like powers is, I am sure, power[s] , 74-178 For a full transcription of Shelley's draft of these lines and relevant unused passages, see Appendix A. All MS readings helow are from E unless specifically identified as from the draft 75-78 my . . . mine not in the draft. 86 38r opens with peculiarity of Note that Shelley had inverted the notebook and was writing from hack to front at this point, their in this as in other instances may be thier The e and i are formed alike, and the dot rests between the two letters. 90 Draft at first: those whom they are supposed to imitate Shelley, without de- leting, wrote the received reading ahove the draft line. Preface 123 former is the endowment of the age in which they live, and the latter must be the uncommunicated lightning of their own mind. [ E.3 37V] The peculiar style of intense and comprehensive imagery which distinguishes the modern literature of [95] England, has not been, as a general power, the pro- duct of the imitation of any particular writer. The f E.3 38r] mass of capabilities remains at every period materially the same; the circumstances which awaken it to action perpetually change. If England were divided into [100] forty republics, each equal in population and extent to Athens, there is no reason to suppose but that, under institutions not more perfect than those of Athens, each would produce philosophers and poets equal to those who (if we except Shakspeare) have [105] E.337V] never been surpassed. We owe the great writers of the golden age of our literature to that fervid awaken- ing of the public mind which shook to dust the oldest and most oppressive form of the Christian religion. We 92&E 93 thier<sic>E 94 no paragraph E & E 95-96 distinguishes modern writers* has not been, Dr 96 power E 97 any particular one Dr 98-99 capabilities is probably at every period the same, Dr essentially Fr 101 in extent & population Dr repub - lies each aequal E & E 102 hut that each Dr 103 -4 institutions similar to those of Athens, would produce Dr 104&E 105 to those which have never if we may except Shakespeare, Dr Shakespeare) E 107 the Elizebethan <sic> age to the fervid Dr 108-9 shook the most oppressive form of the Christian Religion to the dust, Dr 109 &E Religion. E 94 The first sentence of this paragraph was written on the opposite page, with a line to indicate its insertion after mind It appears to have been written before the paragraph was completed, inasmuch as line 112 was written around it. It was probably put in after revision of the draft, which begins with (undeleted) : / am undeniably pursuaded <sic> that 98 remains above [ins] , the latter from £5 of the draft. Zupitza read in changed to is and then deleted. Freeman did not indicate his authority for essentially In his transcription of E he gave materially and in his transcription of the draft he gave inevitably (the latter, I believe, in error; see Appendix A). 102 is [every] no reason 103 institutions [equally] not more [es] perfect Zupitza read [equally] but the a is quite distinct (almost a capital in size), with the joined e debatable. He also read [ex] with the x but half written. This is more defensible, since Shelley may have s tarted excellent before perfect was written. 106 In the draft Shelley followed this sentence with (undeleted) : So much experience warrants; & theory may surmise & imagine more Draft at first: We owe, probably to the Reformation 108 Draft at first: mind which overthrew the hierarchy of Religion 124 Preface owe Milton to the progress and developement of the [110] same spirit: the sacred Milton was, let it ever be re- membered, a republican, and a bold inquirer into morals and religion. The great writers of our own age are, we have reason to suppose, the companions and forerunners of some unimagined change in our [115] social condition or the opinions which cement it. The cloud of mind is discharging its collected lightning, and the equilibrium between institutions and opinions [E.336r] is now restoring, or is about to be restored. As to imitation, poetry is a mimetic art. It creates, [120] but it creates by combination and representation. Poetical abstractions are beautiful and new, not because the portions of which they are composed had no previous existence in the mind of man or in nature, but because the whole produced by their combination [125] has some intelligible and beautiful analogy with those sources of emotion and thought, and with the contem- porary condition of them: one great poet is a master- piece of nature which another not only ought to study 110 & E development M 120 imitation; Poetry E 111 spirit; E 121 & E 112 Republican E enquirer E 122 & E 113 & E 123-24 portions of them have no previ- 114-15 the forerunners of some Dr ous Dr 114 age, E suppose E 124 man, M 115 or forerunners E A L 125-26 the whole has an intelligible 116 condition, & in the Dr E condi- analogy Dr & E tion, M or in the A 127-28 & thought. One Great Poet E 118 & &E 129 nature, EM 110 We owe [Pa] Milton Zupitza conjectured a start on Paradise Lost 111-13 the sacred . . . religion not in the draft, which has instead (deleted): Chaucer was contemporary with Wickliff 113 morals & religion above [faiths] . 116-19 The cloud . . . restored not in the draft. 116 in above caret after & , 119 Second is above caret after or 123 because [they had no previous] the [parts] portions above [parts] Note that Shelley had written portions in the draft. 124 of man or [of] in nature 125 whole [which these parts] produced followed by a caret directing to by their com- bination above the line, these possibly those 127-37 and with . . . ineffectual not in the draft. After thought the draft has (unde- leted) : it abstracts from all that has been imagined, or is the object of sensation that which is most beautiful 128 One over something illegible, which Zupitza conjectured to be The 129 which another almost illegible, written above the line. Preface 125 but must study. He might as wisely and as easily [130] determine that his mind should no longer be the mirror of all that is lovely in the visible universe, as exclude from his contemplation the beautiful which [E.335r] exists in the writings of a great contemporary. The pretence of doing it would be a presumption in any [135] but the greatest; the effect, even in him, would be strained, unnatural, and ineffectual, A poet is the combined product of such internal powers as modify the nature of others; and of such external influences as excite and sustain these powers; he is not one, but [140] both. Every man's mind is, in this respect, modified by all the objects of nature and art; by every word and every suggestion which he ever admitted to act upon his consciousness; it is the mirror upon which all forms are reflected, and in which they compose [145] one form. Poets, not otherwise than philosophers, painters, sculptors, and musicians, are, in one sense, the creators, and, in another, the creations, of their age. From this subjection the loftiest do not escape. [E.332r] There is a similarity between Homer and Hesiod, be- [150] 130 must R & E 142-43 by every word & sentence Dr 132 lovely— E 142 & art, E 136 greatest, the effect even in him E 143 & E 137-38 the joint product Dr 145 many outward forms Dr & E 137 strained unnatural & E A Poet, E 146 philosophers E 139-40 & of external influences which 147 or painters sculptors or musicians, excite Dr others, & E are in one sense E or musicians, A 140 & E 148 creators & in ano ther the creations E 141 is in this respect E 150 similarity, E &