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.  Besides, the compiler of such an edition would often find himself in doubt as to what the best text really was, the merit of the different readings being sometimes almost equal, or very nearly balanced; and, were he to endeavour to get out of the difficulty by obtaining the judgments of literary men, or even of contemporary poets, he would find that their opinions would in most cases be dissimilar, if they did not openly conflict.  Those who cannot come to a final decision as to their own text would not be likely to agree as to the merits of particular readings in the poems of their predecessors.  Unanimity of opinion on this point is indeed quite unattainable.