No More Learning

On the other hand
it became clear that if as wide a collation as possible of extant
manuscripts were made one would be able to establish in many cases
what was, whether right or wrong, the traditional reading before any
printed edition appeared.

A few experiments further showed that one, and a very important,
result of this collation would be to confirm the trustworthiness of
1633, to show that in places where modern editors had preferred the
reading of some of the later editions, generally 1635 or 1669, the
text of 1633 was not only intrinsically superior but had the support
of tradition, i. e. of the majority of the manuscripts. If this were
the case, then it was also possible that the traditional, manuscript
text might afford corrections when 1633 had fallen into error. At the
same time a very cursory examination of the manuscripts was sufficient
to show that many of them afforded an infinitely more correct and
intelligible text of those poems which were not published in 1633 than
that contained in the printed editions.

Another possible result of a wide collation of the manuscripts soon
suggested itself, and that was the settlement of the canon of Donne's
poems. One or two of the poems contained in the old editions had
already been rejected by modern editors, and some of these on the
strength of manuscript ascriptions. But on the one hand, no systematic
attempt had been made to sift the poems, and on the other, experience
has shown that nothing is more unsafe than to trust to the ascriptions
of individual, unauthenticated manuscripts. Here again it seemed to
the present editor that if any definite conclusion was to be obtained
it must be by as wide a survey as possible, by the accumulation of
evidence. No such conclusion might be attainable, but it was only thus
that it could be sought.

The outcome of the investigation thus instituted has been fully
discussed in the article on the _Text and Canon of Donne's Poems_ in
the second volume, and I shall not attempt to summarize it here. But
it may be convenient for the student to have a quite brief statement
of what it is that the notes in this volume profess to set forth.

Their first aim is to give a complete account of the variant readings
of the original editions of 1633, 1635, 1639, 1649-50-54 (the text in
these three is identical), and 1669. This was the aim of the edition
as originally planned, and though my opinion of the value of many
of the variants of the later editions has undergone considerable
abatement since I was able to study them in the light afforded by the
manuscripts, I have endeavoured to complete my original scheme; and I
trust it may be found that nothing more important has been overlooked
than an occasional misprint in the later editions.
But I know from the
experience of examining the work of my precursors, and of revising
my own work, that absolute correctness is almost unattainable. It has
been an advantage to me in this part of the work to come after Mr.
Chambers and the Grolier Club editors, but neither of these editions
records changes of punctuation.

The second purpose of the notes is to set forth the evidence of the
manuscripts. I have not attempted to give anything like a full account
of the variant readings of these, but have recorded so much as is
sufficient for four different purposes.

(1) To vindicate the text of 1633. I have not thought it necessary
to detail the evidence in cases where no one has disputed the 1633
reading. If the note simply records the readings of the editions it
may be assumed that the manuscript evidence, so far as it is explicit
(the manuscripts frequently abound in absurd errors), is on the side
of 1633. In other cases, when there is something to be said for the
text of the later editions, and especially when modern editors have
preferred the later reading (though I have not always called attention
to this) I have set forth the evidence in some detail. At times I
have mentioned each manuscript, at others simply _all the MSS. _,
occasionally just _MSS. _ This last means generally that all the
positive evidence before me was in favour of the reading, but that my
collations were silent as to some of the manuscripts. My collators,
whether myself or those who worked for me, used Mr. Chambers' edition
because of its numbered lines. Now if Mr. Chambers had already adopted
a 1635 or later reading the tendency of the collator--especially
at first, before the importance of certain readings had become
obvious--was to pass over the agreement of the manuscript with this
later reading in silence.