If the manuscripts are to help us it must be by collating them, and establishing what one might call the agreement of the manuscripts whether universal or partial, noting in the latter case the comparative value of the different groups. When we do this we get at once an interesting result. We find that in about nine cases out of ten the agreement of the manuscripts is on the side of those readings of 1633 which are supported by the tests of intrinsic probability referred to above,[42] and on the other hand we find that sometimes the agreement of the manuscripts is on the side of the later editions, and that in such cases there is a good deal to be said for the later reading.[43]
The first result of a collation of the manuscripts is thus to vindicate 1633, and to provide us with a means of distinguishing among later variants those which have, from those which have not, authority. But in vindicating 1633 the agreement of the manuscripts vindicates itself. If B's evidence is found always or most often to support A, a good witness, on those points on which A's evidence is in itself most probably correct, not only is A's evidence strengthened but B's own character as a witness is established, and he may be called in when A, followed by C, an inferior witness, has gone astray. In some cases the manuscripts alone give us what is obviously the correct reading, e.g. p. [25], l. 22, 'But wee no more' for 'But now no more'; p. [72], l. 26, 'his first minute' for 'his short minute'. These are exceptionally clear cases. There are some where, I have no doubt, my preference of the reading of the manuscripts to that of the editions will not be approved by every reader. I have adopted no rigid rule, but considered each case on its merits. All the circumstances already referred to have to be weighed—which reading is most likely to have arisen from the other, what is Donne's usage elsewhere, what Scholastic or other 'metaphysical' dogma underlies the conceit, and what is the source of the text of a particular poem in 1633.
For my analysis of this edition has thrown light upon what of itself is evident—that of some poems or groups of poems 1633 provides a more accurate text than of others, viz. of those for which its source was a manuscript resembling D, H49, Lec, but possibly more correct than any one of these, or revised by an editor who knew the poems. But in printing some of the poems, e.g. The Progresse of the Soule, a number of the letters to noble ladies and others,[44] the Epithalamion made at Lincolns Inne, The Prohibition, and a few others, for which D, H49, Lec was not available, 1633 seems to have followed an inferior manuscript, A18, N, TC or one resembling it. In these cases it is possible to correct 1633 by comparing it with a better single manuscript, as G or W, or group of manuscripts, as D, H49, Lec. Sometimes even a generally inferior manuscript like O'F seems to offer a better text of an individual poem, at least in parts, for occasionally the correct reading has been preserved in only one or two manuscripts. Only W among eleven manuscripts which I have recorded (and I have examined others) preserves the reading in the Epithalamion made at Lincolns Inne, p. [143], l. 57:
His steeds nill be restrain'd
—which is quite certainly right. Only three manuscripts have the, to my mind, most probably correct reading in Satyre I, l. 58, p. [147]:
The Infanta of London;
and only two, Q and the Dyce MS. which is its duplicate, the tempting and, I think, correct reading in Satyre IV, l. 38, p. [160]:
He speaks no language.
Lastly, there are poems for which 1633 is not available. The authenticity of these will be discussed later. Their text is generally very corrupt, especially of those added in 1650 and 1669. Here the manuscripts help us enormously. With their aid I have been able to give an infinitely more readable text of the fine Elegie XII, 'Since she must go'; the brilliant though not very edifying Elegies XVII, XVIII, and XIX; as well as of most of the poems in the Appendixes. The work of correcting some of these had been begun by Dr. Grosart and Mr. Chambers, but much was still left to do by a wider collation. Dr. Grosart was content with one or two generally inferior manuscripts, and Mr. Chambers mentions manuscripts which time or other reasons did not allow him to examine, or he could not have been content to leave the text of these poems as it stands in his edition.
One warning which must be borne in mind when making a comparison of alternative readings has been given by Mr. Chambers, and my examination of the manuscripts bears it out: 'In all probability most of Donne's poems existed in several more or less revised forms, and it was sometimes a matter of chance which form was used for printing a particular edition.' The examination of a large number of manuscripts has shown that it is not probable, but certain, that of some poems (e.g. The Flea, A Lecture upon the Shadow, The Good-Morrow, Elegie XI. The Bracelet) more than one distinct version was in circulation. Of the Satyres, too, many of the variants represent, I can well believe, different versions of the poems circulated by the poet among his friends. And the same may possibly be true of variants in other poems. Our analysis of 1633 has shown us what versions were followed by that edition. What happened in later editions was frequently that the readings of two different versions were combined eclectically. In the present edition, when it is clear that there were two versions, my effort has been to retain one tradition pure, recording the variants in the notes, even when in individual cases the reading of the text adopted seemed to me inferior to its rival, provided it was not demonstrably wrong.