Wordsworth Response

Having not known (or forgotten) about the different versions of this poem, my initial reading experience was shaped by attempts to place each version in historical/literary context. My readings were altered by printing style (antique vs. modern), and by digital layouts, not to mention the hilarious Julie Andrews-as-Mary Poppins impression on the voice recording for the Poetry Foundation Web site. Nineteenth-century printings felt more like artifacts than books of poetry, and twenty-first century print editions felt more accessible, if a bit studious (akin to a high-school assignment). The Poetry Foundation offered interesting and pertinent links for further exploration, while the Wordsworth Trust offered both valuable context (Dorothy’s journal) and inanity (comments on Wordsworth’s favorite flower and possible motivations for revising the poem were both farfetched). The Wordsworth Trust site was also poorly designed and I actively ignored other links because of this.

Each facsimile version was insightful, though the online version offered more context and a helpful transcript. In both cases, their appearance as the last selection in each batch of reading material for class (print and online), effectively withheld context regarding authorial intent and its interaction with editorial and publishing/printing choices. I read the intrusive 1815 edition note as a failed attempt to influence/undermine the poem’s meaning, though I thought the modernization of vocabulary (i.e. shew to show), as well as the modernization of punctuation in the 1965 edition to be more useful. I don’t think the essential meaning of the poem changed across presentations, but it did deepen with the addition of the note about Dorothy’s journal and with Wordsworth’s facsimile notes. This indicates that I am more interested in authorial intent than editorial intent; the former seems less susceptible to changes in aesthetics and/or format.