Whoever was responsible for this collection of Donne's poems, it was evidently made with care, at least as regards the canon. Very few poems that are not certainly by Donne are included, and they are correctly initialled. The only uninitialled doubtful poems are A Paradox, 'Whoso terms Love a fire,' which in all the four manuscripts follows 'No Lover saith, I love', and Beaumont's letter to the Countess of Bedford, which begins, 'Soe may my verses pleasing be.' In N, TCD this follows Donne's letter to the same lady, 'You that are she and you.' It is regrettable that the text of the poems is not so good as the canon is pure. The punctuation is careless. There are numerous stupid blunders, and there are evidences of editing in the interest of more regular metre or a more obvious meaning. At times, however, it would seem that the copyist is following a different version of a poem or poems (e.g. the Satyres) from that given in D, H49, and other manuscripts, and is embodying corrections perhaps made by the author himself. It is quite credible that Donne, in sending copies of his poems at different times to different people, may have revised and amended them. It is quite clear, as my notes will show, that of certain poems more than one version (each correct in itself) was in circulation.
Was A18, N, TC, or a manuscript resembling it one of the sources of the edition of 1633? In part, I think, it was. The most probable case at first sight is that of the Satyres. These, we have seen, Marriot was at first prohibited from printing. Otherwise they would have followed the Epigrams, and immediately preceded the Elegies. As it is, they come after all the other poems; they are edited with some cautious dashes; and their text is almost identical with that of N, TCD. In the first satire the only difference between 1633 and N, TCD occurs in l. 70, where N, TCD, with all the other manuscripts read—
Sells for a little state his libertie;
1633,
Sells for a little state high libertie;
'high' is either a slip or an editorial emendation. There are other cases of similar editing, not all of which it is possible to correct with confidence; but a study of the textual notes will show that in general 1633 follows the version preserved in N, TCD, and also in L74 (of which later), when the rest of the manuscripts present an interestingly different text. But strangely enough this version of the Satyres is also in Lec. This is the feature in which that manuscript diverges most strikingly from D and H49. Moreover in some details in which 1633 differs from A18, N, TC it agrees with Lec. It is possible therefore that the Satyres were printed from the same manuscript as the majority of the poems.
Again in the Letters not found in D, H49, Lec there is a close but not invariable agreement between the text of 1633 and that of this group of manuscripts. Those letters, which follow that To Sir Edward Herbert, are printed in 1633 in the same order as in this edition (pp. 195-226), except that the group of short letters beginning at p. 203 ('All haile sweete Poet') is here amplified and rearranged from W. Now in A18, N, TC these letters are also brought together (N, TCD adding some which are not in A18, TCC), and the special group referred to, of letters to intimate friends, are arranged in exactly the same order as in 1633; have the same headings, the same omissions, and the same accidental linking of two poems. In the other letters, to the Countesses of Bedford, Huntingdon, Salisbury, &c., the textual notes will show some striking resemblances between the edition and the manuscripts. In the difficult letter, 'T'have written then' (p. [195]), 1633 follows N, TCD where O'F gives a different and in some details more correct text. In 'This twilight of two yeares' (p. [198]) the strange reading of l. 35, 'a prayer prayes,' is obviously due to N, TCD, where 'a praiser prayes' has accidentally but explicably been written 'a prayer praise'. In the letter To the Countesse of Huntingdon (p. [201]) the 1633 version of ll. 25, 26 is a correct rendering of what N, TCD give wrongly:
Shee guilded us, But you are Gold; and shee
Vs inform'd, but transubstantiates you.
On the other hand there are some differences, as e.g. in the placing of ll. 40-2 in 'Honour is so sublime' (p. [218]), which make it impossible to affirm that these poems were taken direct from this group of manuscripts as we know them, without alteration or emendation. The Progresse of the Soule or Metempsychosis, as printed in 1633, must have been taken in the first instance from this manuscript. In both the manuscripts and the edition, at l. 83 of the poem a blank space is left after 'did'; in both, l. 137 reads, 'To see the Prince, and soe fill'd the waye'; in both, 'kinde' is substituted for 'kindle' at l. 150; in l. 180 the 'uncloth'd child' of 1633 is explicable as an emendation of the 'encloth'd' of A18, N, TC; and similarly the 'leagues o'rpast', l. 296 of 1633, is probably due to the omission of 'many' before 'leagues' in A18, N, TC—'o'rpast' supplies the lost foot. It is clear, however, from a comparison of different copies that as 1633 passed through the press this poem underwent considerable correction and alteration; and in its final printed form there are errors which I have been enabled to correct from G.