her out for independent admiration, was rather a disqualification than otherwise for the editing of texts. Still, she must, through her intimate acquaintance with the mind and heart of Shelley, have been enabled to preserve and supply much of the spirit of his works that no one else could have seized in a situation similar to that in which she worked; and it is also fair to assume that some of the more important variations between the original and posthumous editions of his poems rest on something more than the intuition of his widow,that she had, in some instances, manuscript authority for modifying passages in his poetry. That she also modified without such authority, there is no reasonable doubt; so that a re-editor has, necessarily, to use his own judgment, and whatever means are at his command, to discriminate between the authoritative and unauthoritative variations of Mrs. Shelley's editions from the originals. Having come to the definite conclusion that the changes in orthography and punctuation shewn by the posthumous editions are as a rule unauthoritative, I have not generally deemed it necessary to discuss or even note them; but I have carefully collated every page of the originals with the two collected editions of 1839, and sometimes with later editions, and have not failed to note all variations of importance to the sense, of course adopting them when they seem to be decided improvements, and seemingly authoritative. I have also noted in many instances variations which seem to me destructive or subversive of the sense, and which I do not think can possibly have any authority; and this has been done because, in an edition

like the present, which aims at putting together all possible material for study of the text, it is important to have the evidence on both sides as to the value of Mrs. Shelley's text merely as a text, and independently of extrinsic considerations. The extrinsic considerations are in this case so very important that Mrs. Shelley's editions will never be superseded, however fully they may be supplemented by editions brought out under different auspices, and which must in the nature of things be heavily indebted to hers. One thing we must bear clearly in mind, beside the fact that Mrs. Shelley's edition is the only authority for much of the text of the posthumous works,-namely that it is impossible to say how much of revision may have been floating in her mind from old experience of her husband's personal utterances,-what he may have noted in copies of his poems belonging to her, or what he may have said to her about general or special imperfections to be amended. And this consideration should make us careful in rejecting important changes made in her editions. I will not say that the two editions. of 1839 must hold quite the same position in Shelley literature as Heming and Condell's folio of 1623 holds and will ever hold in Shakespeare literature, because, for the bulk of Shelley's works, the earlier editions are certainly more authoritative than the later; but I do say that there is an analogy between the editions of 1839 and the folio of 1623,-which analogy will remain as long as the study of English literature lasts.

That Mrs. Shelley did not think in 1839 that she could

ever thenceforth add "a word or line" to the poetical works of her husband reflects nothing but honour upon the loving industry bestowed by her upon a mass of materials of great intricacy; and that, as late as 1862, Mr. Garnett should have discovered additions sufficient to form, with related documents, a volume of the highest interest, indicates a great advance in the price at which Shelley is held by a later generation of students. That much material was still forthcoming when Mr. Rossetti gave us the result of his labours in 1870 was fortunate for all concerned,-equally so that Miss Blind in the same year, through the further research and courtesy of Mr. Garnett, was enabled to supply omissions, make authoritative emendations, and controvert erroneous changes, as she did in The Westminster Review for July, 1870; and that, in 1876, another editor should be enabled to add, in Mrs. Shelley's literal phrase, “a word or line" in more than one instance where one was sorely wanted, and from sources that were certainly open to her, is less easy to explain than the discovery of some few complete small poems that may well have escaped her notice, though they would certainly have been available for her use had they happened to lie at the surface.

The constant references to the edition of Mr. Rossetti, which I have been obliged to make in the foot-notes, arise mainly from the different opinions which he and I entertain of the duties of an editor; and while regretting the controversial character of so many of these notes, I conceive that the great services of Mr. Rossetti in elucidating various

matters connected with Shelley's life and works render it superfluous to apologize for the amount of space bestowed here on the discussion of his views of the text. It was not to be expected that any two editors should be wholly in agreement on a subject of this kind; but the attempt to undo what has been done by an able predecessor must always be an ungrateful undertaking. Mr. Rossetti's position as a critic, however, and the amount of work he has done in connection with Shelley, make it peculiarly necessary that another editor should not flinch from trying to undo whatever he thinks ought to be undone, however distasteful the task, and however laborious. The references are, of course, to the two-volume edition, published by Messrs. Moxon in 1870. It did not seem incumbent on me to search through the unannotated (and undated) “popular” edition with the view of ascertaining whether the Editor has varied the text materially from that of the two-volume (annotated) edition; but in regard to that, I have carefully weighed every change made or proposed, and which is considered by Mr. Rossetti to be important enough for a note. I have also done the same in regard to many of his unspecified changes; but it did not seem necessary to collate the original editions line by line with his as I have done with Mrs. Shelley's.

To make the present edition easy of reference, the lines have been numbered in the margin, throughout, wherever the poems were not already, in Shelley's editions, divided into numbered stanzas; but no new numeration of

stanzas has been introduced. Such helps as the insertion. in the head-lines of "Canto I" &c., "Act I, Scene I" &c., are invariably given whether Shelley's editions give them or not; and I have sought to make the wording of the head-lines as useful as possible.

To Sir Percy Shelley I am largely indebted for enabling me to make this edition of his illustrious father's works complete by the reproduction of the various pieces of recent issue, whereof the copyright still remains in the hands of the poet's family. Among these are the whole of the Relics of Shelley; and, in regard to that highly important volume, I have to include in my acknowledgment Mr. Richard Garnett, who entirely concurs in my making unrestrained use of his labours in that volume. But I am also very greatly indebted to Mr. Garnett not only for help in revision of proof-sheets, but for freely imparting his valuable knowledge on numerous points connected with Shelley's works, and for rendering me

more assistance than I can well detail, in various difficult matters.

My grateful acknowledgments are due to Mr. S. R. Townshend Mayer for unreservedly placing at my disposal the Shelley manuscripts formerly in the possession of Leigh Hunt, and which have yielded, beside the long-lost poem of Mrs. Shelley on her husband's death, some small inedited poems by Shelley, several fragments, including the greater part of the lost review of Peacock's Rhododaphne, and several important manuscripts of works already published. Nothing could exceed the frank courtesy with which Mr.