"Thus the old Eagle, drowsy with great grief, Sat moulting his weak plumage, never more To be restored or soar against the sun; While his three sons upon Olympus stood." In line 30, for "stay'd Ixion's wheel" stood "eased Ixion's toil". In line 48, for "tone" stood "tune". In line 76, for "gradual" stood "sudden". In line 102, after the word "Saturn," stood the cancelled words-- "What dost think? Am I that same? O Chaos!" In line 156, for "yielded like the mist" stood "gave to them like mist." In line 189, for "Savour of poisonous brass" stood "A poison-feel of brass." In line 200 for "When earthquakes jar their battlements and towers" stood "When an earthquake hath shook their city towers." After line 205 stood the cancelled line "Most like a rose-bud to a fairy's lute." In line 209, for "And like a rose" stood "Yes, like a rose." In line 268, for "Suddenly" stood "And, sudden." BOOK II. In line 128, for "vibrating" stood "vibrated." In line 134 for "starry Uranus" stood "starr'd Uranus" (some friend doubtless called Keats's attention to the false quantity). BOOK III. After line 125 stood the cancelled lines:-- "Into a hue more roseate than sweet pain Gives to a ravish'd nymph, when her warm tears Gush luscious with no sob; or more severe." In line 126, for "most like" stood "more like." In these omissions and corrections, two things will be apparent to the student: first, that they are all greatly for the better; and second, that where a corrected passage occurs again in the _Vision_, it in every case corresponds to the printed _Hyperion_, and not to the draft of the poem preserved by Woodhouse. This of itself would make it certain that the _Vision_ was not a first version of _Hyperion_, but a recast of the poem as revised (in all probability at Winchester) after its first composition. Taken together with the statement of Brown, which is perfectly explicit as to time, place, and circumstances, and the corresponding statement of Woodhouse as recollected by Mr Garnett, the proof is from all sides absolute: and the 'first version' theory must disappear henceforward from editions of and commentaries on our poet. p. 193, note 2. A more explicit refutation of Haydon's account was given, some years after its appearance, by Cowden Clarke (see Preface, no. 10), not, indeed, from personal observation at the time in question, but from general knowledge of the poet's character:--