respectively 'The Thrush at Twilight', and 'The Thrush at Dawn'.
Possibly Wordsworth would have approved of both of those titles: but,
that they are not his, should have been indicated.

I do not think it wise, from an editorial point of view, even to print
in a "Chronological Table"--as Professor Dowden has done, in his
admirable Aldine edition--titles which were not Wordsworth's, without
some indication to that effect. But, in the case of Selections from
Wordsworth--such as those of Mr. Hawes Turner, and Mr. A. J.
Symington,--every one must feel that the editor should have informed his
readers 'when' the title was Wordsworth's, and 'when' it was his own
coinage. In the case of a much greater man--and one of Wordsworth's most
illustrious successors in the great hierarchy of English poesy, Matthew
Arnold--it may be asked why should he have put 'Margaret, or the Ruined
Cottage', as the title of a poem written in 1795-7, when Wordsworth
never once published it under that name? It was an extract from the
first book of 'The Excursion'--written, it is true, in these early
years,--but only issued as part of the latter poem, first published in
1814.

The question of the number, the character, and the length of the Notes,
which a wise editor should append to the works of a great poet, (or to
any classic), is perhaps still 'sub judice'. My own opinion is that, in
all editorial work, the notes should be illustrative rather than
critical; and that they should only bring out those points, which the
ordinary reader of the text would not readily understand, if the poems
were not annotated. For this reason, topographical, historical, and
antiquarian notes are almost essential. The Notes which Wordsworth
himself wrote to his Poems, are of unequal length and merit. It was
perhaps necessary for him to write--at all events it is easy to