fled Affrighted, etc.  Ruining, in the sense of ‘streaming,’ ‘trailing,’ occurs in Coleridge’s “Melancholy:  a Fragment” (Sibylline Leaves, 1817, page 262):—­ Where ruining ivies propped the ruins steep—­ “Melancholy” first appeared in “The Morning Post”, December 7, 1797, where, through an error identical with that here assumed in the text of 1839, running appears in place of ruining—­the word intended, and doubtless written, by Coleridge.

4.  Line 349.  With Mr. Stopford Brooke, the editor substitutes here a colon for the full stop which, in editions 1816, 1824, and 1839, follows ocean.  Forman and Dowden retain the full stop; Rossetti and Woodberry substitute a semicolon.

5.  And nought but gnarled roots of ancient pines Branchless and blasted, clenched with grasping roots The unwilling soil. (lines 530-532.) Editions 1816, 1824, and 1839 have roots (line 530)—­a palpable misprint, the probable origin of which may be seen in the line which follows.  Rossetti conjectures trunks, but stumps or stems may have been Shelley’s word.

6.  Lines 543-548.  This somewhat involved passage is here reprinted exactly as it stands in the editio princeps, save for the comma after and, line 546, first introduced by Dowden, 1890.  The construction and meaning are fully discussed by Forman ("Poetical Works” of Shelley, edition 1876, volume 1 pages 39, 40), Stopford Brooke ("Poems of Shelley”, G. T. S., 1880, page 323), Dobell ("Alastor”, etc., Facsimile Reprint, 2nd edition 1887, pages 22-27), and Woodberry ("Complete P. W. of Shelley”, 1893, volume 1 page 413).

1.  THE REVOLT OF ISLAM.

The revised text (1818) of this poem is given here, as being that which Shelley actually published.  In order to reconvert the text of “The Revolt of Islam” into that of “Laon and Cythna”, the reader must make the following alterations in the text.  At the end of the “Preface” add:—­

’In the personal conduct of my Hero and Heroine, there is one circumstance which was intended to startle the reader from the trance of ordinary life.  It was my object to break through the crust of those outworn opinions on which established institutions depend.  I have appealed therefore to the most universal of all feelings, and have endeavoured to strengthen the moral sense, by forbidding it to waste its energies in seeking to avoid actions which are only crimes of convention.  It is because there is so great a multitude of artificial vices that there are so few real virtues.  Those feelings alone which are benevolent or malevolent, are essentially good or bad.  The circumstance of which I speak was introduced, however, merely to accustom men to that charity and toleration which the exhibition of a practice widely differing from their own has a tendency to promote. (The sentiments connected with and characteristic of this circumstance have no personal reference to the Writer.—­[Shelley’s Note.]) Nothing indeed can be more mischievous than many actions, innocent in themselves, which might bring down upon individuals the bigoted contempt and rage of the multitude.’