^{Note 1 in page 122} My references throughout to the earlier version of the Confessions are to the 1822 volume. They are followed, in parentheses, by page references to Edward Sackville-West's edition, Confessions of an English Opium-Eater together with Selections from the Autobiography … (London, 1950; reprinted from 1822, but without the Appendix). My references to the revised text are to Vol. v of Selections Grave and Gay, from Writings … of Thomas De Quincey (Edinburgh: James Hogg, and London: R. Groombridge & Sons, 1856), this being the 1st edition of the revised text. The page references which follow these, in parentheses, are to Vol. iii of the Collected Writings, ed. David Masson (1890).

The Confessions were first published in 2 instalments in the London Magazine for Sept. and Oct. 1821. In the Oct. issue the editorial part of the magazine, ‘The Lion's Head,’ contained the ‘Notice to the Reader,’ placed at the beginning of the book in 1822. A letter from the anonymous author in the Dec. issue promised a 3rd part, but this was never written. In 1822 the Confessions were reprinted as a small book. As well as the LM material this included a 20-page Appendix. I have collated the LM text with that of the 1st edition in volume form. The LM subtitle, ‘Being an Extract from the Life of a Scholar,’ was dropped in the book. Apart from that, and excluding slight changes of spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation which in no way affect the sense, I have found only the following variants: LM page LM reading 1822 page (1950) 1822 reading (1) 296 on such a constitution 12 258 such a constitution (2) 299 county 26 264 country (3) 300 a far better Grecian 31 267 a better Grecian (4) 300 the very same hour 32 267 the same hour (5) 302 long-sufferings 36 269 long sufferings (6) 310 eight, o'clock 70 285 eight o'clock (7) [353] since then 80 291 since (8) [353J for that 82 292 and that (9) 354 thoughtst 83 292 thoughtest (10) 362 persecutions 117 308 persecution (11) 370 Sampson 148 322 Samson (12) 373 at last 158 328 at least (13) 373 feelings. I 159 328 feelings, I (14) 379 a most innocent 183 339 the most innocent

Three of these variants are clearly LM misprints corrected in 1822: (5), (6), and (13). Others appear to be due to a very slight revision of the text. (1) sets right a syntactical error after a long parenthesis; (3) represents a slight retreat from his original claims about his Greek—a process which was to be carried further in 1856; (4) eliminates a clumsy repetition of the word ‘very’; (7) is designed to improve the rhythm of the carefully-wrought opening of Pt. n; (8) improves the logic; (9) gets rid of an ugly form; (11) corrects the spelling of Samson Agonistes; (10) is probably a revision, to avoid an excess of sibilants, but it may be a misprint in 1822; (14) is probably an error introduced in 1822; (2) and (12) almost certainly are errors.

It is surprising that a passage of garbled Greek survived even this very slight revision. On p. 96 (p. 298 in Sackville-West; p. 357, LM) should be and should be. In the 2nd edition (1823), the first word is put right, but not the second; while a motto now for the first time appears on the title page:

To weep afresh a long since cancell'd woe,

And moan the expense of many a vanish'd sight.

—Shakspeare's Sonnets

I should like to thank Mr. Kenneth Forward for his very careful reading of my article, and his comments on it.

^{Note 2 in page 123} Page 1 (253); p. 3 (254); p. 9 (256), and pp. 180, 183 (p. 338–339).

^{Note 3 in page 124} Page 9 (256); pp. 180–181 (338); p. 91 (296).

^{Note 4 in page 124} Page x (215). In effect Masson reprints only the real ‘original’ Preface (and that not with absolute accuracy). He also quotes the paragraphs which were added at the end of the ‘original’ Preface in 1856, and the new footnotes; but he does not notice the numerous verbal revisions which De Quincey introduced in the body of the Preface. It therefore remains necessary to consult the 1856 edition itself.

^{Note 5 in page 124} Page viii in 1856. Since this revision occurred in the remodelling of the ‘original’ Preface, it is not to be found in Masson.

^{Note 6 in page 124} Page 5 (255): p. v in 1856. For the same reason, this is not to be found in Masson.

^{Note 7 in page 124} Masson calls ‘The Pleasures of Opium’ Part II and ‘The Pains of Opium’ Part III; De Quincey does not.

^{Note 8 in page 125} Page 166 (331); p. 133, n. (316, n.); p. 183 (339); p. 180 (338).

^{Note 9 in page 126} Page 189 in 1822 (not in Sackville-West) : Masson, p. 467; p. 201 in 1822: Masson, p. 470; p. 204 in 1822: Masson, p. 472.

^{Note 10 in page 126} Page 235 (415); p. 234 (414); p. x (215).

^{Note 11 in page 126} Page 155 (326); p. xi (219).

^{Note 12 in page 126} Page x (215); p. xiv (221). In Blackwood's Magazine for March 1845 De Quincey had already claimed that the Confessions ‘were written with some slight secondary purpose of exposing this specific power of opium upon the faculty of dreaming, but much more with the purpose of displaying the faculty [of dreaming] itself’ (Masson, xiii, 335). This is more nearly applicable to the revised version which he was later to write than to the original version.

^{Note 13 in page 127} E.g., the remarkable ‘dream’ in the Whispering Gallery at St. Paul's is an addition made in 1856 (pp. 90–91 [296]). 14 Page 33 in 1856: Masson, p. 249.

^{Note 15 in page 128} Kenneth Forward has suggested that this and other alterations were due to the ridicule of William Maginn in John Bull Mag. (July 1824). See his article, “ ‘Libellous Attack’ on De Quincey,” PMLA, LII (1937), 244–260.

^{Note 16 in page 128} Page 58 (270); p. 61 (271).

^{Note 17 in page 128} Pages 62–64 (272–274).

^{Note 18 in page 129} Page 117 (318); p. 120 (320).

^{Note 19 in page 130} Page 36 (269); p. 144 (339).

^{Note 20 in page 130} It may be as well just to mention one or two further types of revision. Whereas in 1822 proper names are exceptional, in 1856 they are the rule. His Etonian friends, Lord

—and the Earl of D— are revealed as Lord Altamont and the Earl of Desart. The

Jewish moneylender, who in 1822 is called D —, is given his real name— ‘or at least the name which he adopted in his dealings with the Gentiles’ (Dell)—in 1856. Similarly, in 1856 it is revealed that Brunell is the name of the friendly attorney. We also learn a great deal about De Quincey's family which we did not know before, including the fact that his home was called ‘The Priory.‘ Further examples of this type of revision are hardly necessary.

In 1856 De Quincey also corrects a number of factual errors. He now states that Lord Altamont was reputed to be heir to £30,000, not £70,000. He now believes that the story of Otway's killing himself by eating greedily after a long fast is untrue. The passage about birth being as painful as death, attributed to Jeremy Taylor in 1822, is now correctly assigned to Bacon.

Certain features of life familiar to everyone in 1822 require some explanation by 1856. Hounslow Heath was then ‘really a heath,’ as De Quincey pointed out when he revised the book, ‘entirely unenclosed, and exhibiting a sea-like expanse in all directions, except one.’ The habits of the mail coaches had changed a good deal, too, and this necessitated some elucidation. Changing taste is illustrated particularly well by one of the new footnotes: ‘The reader of this generation will marvel at these repeated references to “Anastasius” : it is now an almost forgotten book, so vast has been the deluge of novel writing talent, really original and powerful, which has overflowed our literature during the lapse of thirty-five years from the publication of these Confessions. “Anastasius” … was in 1821 a book both of high reputation and of great influence amongst the leading circles of society’ (p. 216 n. [398 n.]). Another interesting note throws light on ‘the strange history of Wordsworth's reputation’ (p. 264 n. [439 n.]). At the other end of the scale, a small detail of social history which is illuminated is a change in the size of teaspoons. After discussing a dose of opium in a footnote, De Quincey added the following words in 1856: ‘But large modern tea-spoons hold very much more’ (p. 220 n. [402 n.]; cf. p. 127 n. in 1822 and p. 313 n. in Sack ville-West). An explanation for the change in size is offered on p. 234 n. (414n.–415n.).

^{Note 21 in page 132} Pages 150–151 (324); p. 153 (325); p. 255 (431).

^{Note 22 in page 133} Pages 151–152 (324); p. 255 (432). 23 Page 97 n. (299 n.); p. 199 n. (384 n.).

^{Note 24 in page 133} The 1822 text contains an interesting reference which is undoubtedly to Hazlitt (p. 12 n. [258 n.]). As this footnote (omitted in 1856) has been ignored by most writers on Hazlitt, it may be useful to give it here. After saying that Coleridge and Ricardo are the only pre-eminently subtle thinkers that England has produced ‘for some generations,’ he appends a note: ‘A third exception might perhaps have been added: and my reason for not adding that exception is chiefly because it was only in his juvenile efforts that the writer whom I allude to expressly addressed himself to philosophical themes; his riper powers having been all dedicated (on very excusable and very intelligible grounds, under the present direction of the popular mind in England) to criticism and the fine arts. This reason apart, however, I doubt whether he is not rather to be considered an acute thinker than a subtle one. It is, besides, a great drawback on his mastery over philosophical subjects, that he has obviously not had the advantage of a regular scholastic education: he has not read Plato in his youth (which most likely was only his misfortune); but neither has he read Kant in his manhood (which is his fault).’

^{Note 25 in page 133} Pages 13 ff., 26 ff., 51 ff., 112 ff., 124 ff., 133 ff. (233 ff., 243 ff„ 264 ff., 314 ff., 323 ff., 331 ff.).

^{Note 26 in page 133} Page 50 (262); p. 57 (268).

^{Note 27 in page 134} A few of the stylistic revisions are improvements by any standard, and hardly require to be discussed: e.g., 1 or 2 clumsy repetitions of a word or phrase are avoided; ‘rather farther’ becomes ‘further’ to avoid the ugly sound (p. 66 [283]: p. 181 [369]). Like Hazlitt, De Quincey came to dislike the conjunction ‘however‘—he cut it on several occasions.

^{Note 28 in page 135} Page 13 (233). The ‘moment's pause’ lasts for several pages.

^{Note 29 in page 135} E.g., in 1856 the words ‘under one neutral disguise’ take the place of the following complicated clause: ‘the vast and multitudinous compass of their several harmonies reduced to the meagre outline of differences expressed in the gamut or alphabet of elementary sounds’ (p. 65 [283]: cf. p. 180 [369]).

Another passage which De Quincey deleted was this: ‘I do not often weep: for not only do my thoughts on subjects connected with the chief interests of man daily, nay hourly, descend a thousand fathoms “too deep for tears”; not only does the sternness of my habits of thought present an antagonism to the feelings which prompt tears—wanting of necessity to those who, being protected usually by their levity from any tendency to meditative sorrow, would by that same levity be made incapable of resisting it on any casual access of such feelings:—but also, I believe that all minds, which have contemplated such objects as deeply as I have done, must, for their own protection, from utter despondency, have early encouraged and cherished some tranquillizing belief as to the future balances and the hieroglyphic meanings of human sufferings. On these accounts, I am cheerful to this hour; and, as I have said, I do not often weep’ (pp. 52-53 [277]). It would be most interesting to know whether this passage was suppressed because it was too egotistical, or because it was too rhetorical, or for some other reason. The most likely explanation is perhaps the decline in the tradition of ‘feeling’ and sensibility. Another reference to the tears of feeling is cut elsewhere (p. 172 [334–335]: cf. p. 269 [443]).

^{Note 30 in page 136} Page 86 (294); p. 193 (379).

^{Note 31 in page 136} Page 129 (314); p. 221 (402). The ugly repetition of the word ‘business’ in the revised text is no doubt deliberate.

^{Note 32 in page 137} Pages 230–231 (410–411). Cf. p. 142 in 1822 (320). 33 Pages 177–178 (337); p. 272 (446).

^{Note 34 in page 138} Page 119 (309): cf. p. 215 (397).

^{Note 35 in page 138} Page 97 (299); p. 199 (384)—the alliteration is characteristic.

^{Note 36 in page 138} Page 103 (301); p. 204 (388).

^{Note 37 in page 138} Pages 91-92 (296); p. 196 (381).

^{Note 38 in page 138} Page 64 (282); p. 180 (369).

^{Note 39 in page 139} Page 73 (286); p. 185 (373).

^{Note 40 in page 139} Perhaps it should also be mentioned that in 1856 De Quincey tended to invert the order of the words in certain phrases. ‘I now’ becomes ‘Now I’ on several occasions (p. 62 [281]: p. 178 [367]; p. 69 [285]: p. 183 [371]; p. 79 [289]: p. 189 [375]). ‘I sometimes’ becomes ‘Sometimes I’ (p. 159 [328]: p. 259 [435]; p. 172 [334]: p. 268 [443]). ‘I had no appetite’ becomes ‘Appetite I had none’ (p. 73 [287]: p. 185 [373]). ‘Though not handsome’ becomes ‘Handsome she was not’ (p. 78 [289]: p. 188 [375]). ‘An absolute refusal’ becomes ‘a refusal peremptory and absolute’ (p. 75 [287]: p. 186 [373]). ‘My agitation was infinite’ becomes ‘Infinite was my agitation’ (p. 167 [332]: p. 266 [441]). ‘I thus give … some slight abstraction’ becomes ‘some slight abstraction I thus attempt’ (p. 171 [334]: p. 268 [443]). ‘I heartily wish him’ becomes ‘Heartily I wish him’ (p. 184 [340]: p. 275 [448]).

^{Note 41 in page 139} Page46 (274); p. 168 (359).

^{Note 42 in page 139} Page 46 (274); p. 168 (359).

^{Note 43 in page 139} Page 46 (274); p. 168 (359).

^{Note 44 in page 140} Page 47 (274); p. 169 (360).

^{Note 45 in page 140} Page 49 (275); p. 170 (360).

^{Note 46 in page 140} Page 49 (275); p. 64 (282). Cf. p. 179 (368).

^{Note 47 in page 140} In this list the main references are to the editions of 1822 and 1856. Those which follow in parentheses are to Sackville-West and Masson.

^{Note 48 in page 142} Page 58 n. (279 n.). Cf. p. 176 n. (365 n.). The following very laboured passage—‘This is the dilemma: the first horn of which would be sufficient to toss and gore any column of patient readers, though drawn up sixteen deep and constantly relieved by fresh men: consequently that is not to be thought of—becomes simply: ‘This is the dilemma, the first horn of which is not to be thought of (p. 122 [310]; p. 217 [399]).

^{Note 49 in page 143} Page 132 (315); p. 224 (405).

^{Note 50 in page 143} Page 208 (392). The 1822 reading is: ‘What you say is unanswerable’ (p. 108 [304]).

^{Note 51 in page 143} Page 69 (285); p. 183 (371).

^{Note 52 in page 143} Page 180 in 1822 (338).

^{Note 53 in page 143} Page xi in 1856 (219).

^{Note 54 in page 143} Page 180 in 1822 (338).

^{Note 55 in page 143} Page xi in 1856 (219).

^{Note 56 in page 144} Page xiv in 1856 (221).

^{Note 57 in page 144} This passage from a letter is quoted from Alexander H. Japp, Thomas De Quincey: His Life and Writings: With Unpublished Correspondence, “A New Edition … with Additional Matter” (1890), pp. 387–388.

^{Note 58 in page 144} Page xii in 1856 (220).

^{Note 59 in page 145} Pages xi-xii (219–220).

^{Note 60 in page 145} In A Flame in Sunlight: The Life and Work of Tlwmas De Quincey (1936), pp. 298–301. See also the introduction to his edition of the Confessions, particularly pp. xvi–xvii.