No More Learning

SECOND The various Readings, or variations of text, made by Wordsworth
during his lifetime, or written by him on copies of his Poems, or
discovered in MS. letters, from himself, or his sister, or his wife, are
given in footnotes in this edition. Few English poets changed their text
more frequently, or with more fastidiousness, than Wordsworth did. He
did not always alter it for the better. Every alteration however, which
has been discovered by me, whether for the better or for the worse, is
here printed in full. We have thus a record of the fluctuations of his
own mind as to the form in which he wished his Poems to appear; and this
record casts considerable light on the development of his genius. [7]

A knowledge of these changes of text can only be obtained in one or
other of two ways. Either the reader must have access to all the
thirty-two editions of Poems, the publication of which Wordsworth
personally supervised; or, he must have all the changes in the
successive editions, exhibited in the form of footnotes, and appended to
the particular text that is selected and printed in the body of the
work. It is extremely difficult--in some cases quite impossible--to
obtain the early editions. The great public libraries of the country do
not possess them all. [8] It is therefore necessary to fall back upon the
latter plan, which seems the only one by which a knowledge of the
changes of the text can be made accessible, either to the general
reader, or to the special student of English Poetry.

The text which--after much consideration--I have resolved to place
throughout, in the body of the work, is Wordsworth's own final 'textus
receptus', i. e. the text of 1849-50, reproduced in the posthumous
edition of 1857; [9] and since opinion will doubtless differ as to the
wisdom of this selection, it may be desirable to state at some length
the reasons which have led me to adopt it.

There are only three possible courses open to an editor, who wishes to
give--along with the text selected--all the various readings
chronologically arranged as footnotes.
Either, 1st, the earliest text
may be taken, or 2nd, the latest may be chosen, or 3rd, the text may be
selected from different editions, so as to present each poem in its best
state (according to the judgment of the editor), in whatever edition it
is found. A composite text, made up from two or more editions, would be
inadmissible.

Now, most persons who have studied the subject know that Wordsworth's
best text is to be found, in one poem in its earliest edition, in
another in its latest, and in a third in some intermediate edition. I
cannot agree either with the statement that he always altered for the
worse, or that he always altered for the better. His critical judgment
was not nearly so unerring in this respect as Coleridge's was, or as
Tennyson's has been. It may be difficult, therefore, to assign an
altogether satisfactory reason for adopting either the earliest or the
latest text; and at first sight, the remaining alternative plan may seem
the wisest of the three. There are indeed difficulties in the way of the
adoption of any one of the methods suggested; and as I adopt the latest
text--not because it is always intrinsically the best, but on other
grounds to be immediately stated--it may clear the way, if reference be
made in the first instance to the others, and to the reasons for
abandoning them.

As to a selection of the text from various editions, this would
doubtless be the best plan, were it a practicable one; and perhaps it
may be attainable some day. But Wordsworth is as yet too near us for
such an editorial treatment of his Works to be successful. The
fundamental objection to it is that scarcely two minds--even among the
most competent of contemporary judges--will agree as to what the best
text is. An edition arranged on this principle could not possibly be
acceptable to more than a few persons. Of course no arrangement of any
kind can escape adverse criticism: it would be most unfortunate if it
did. But this particular edition would fail in its main purpose, if
questions of individual taste were made primary, and not secondary; and
an arrangement, which gave scope for the arbitrary selection of
particular texts,--according to the wisdom, or the want of wisdom, of
the editor,--would deservedly meet with severe criticism in many
quarters. Besides, such a method of arrangement would not indicate the
growth of the Poet's mind, and the development of his genius. If an
editor wished to indicate his own opinion of the best text for each
poem--under the idea that his judgment might be of some use to other
people--it would be wiser to do so by means of some mark or marginal
note, than by printing his selected text in the main body of the work.
He could thus at once preserve the chronological order of the readings,
indicate his own preference, and leave it to others to select what they
preferred.