The publication of these first two volumes of the correspondence of Dante Gabriel Rossetti marks the culmination of an editorial hegira that began nearly 25 years ago. Launched as a result of a pair of “Mack the Knife” reviews (a genre in which I have attained an altogether undeserved reputation) of the Doughty–Wahl edition of Rossetti’s letters, published in four volumes (sans index), by Clarendon in 1965–67, in which I exposed the surprising lacunae of the edition, pointed to a few of the editorial shortcomings, and suggested that Clarendon might like to consider publishing an “Aladdin” edition, offering new lamps for old. When Dan Davin, then English Literature editor at Clarendon, who had more than a disinterested stake in the earlier edition, invited me to re-edit the letters in 1973, after it became clear that simple surgery, in the form of a supplement, was not viable, I was too flattered to recognize the quagmire into which my enthusiasm and inexperience would lead me. When I began I had only the vaguest idea of the enormity of the task ahead, even in terms of the extensiveness, range, and dispersement of the letters themselves or the editorial headaches that the sheer handling of the physical objects would involve.

All editors of letters share common logistical tasks relating to the location of manuscripts and the securing of copyright and owner permissions. Depending on the extent of the correspondence, the accessibility of the copyright owner, and the cooperation of private collectors and public repositories, this phase of the editing may prove relatively easy or frustratingly complex. Once assembled, however, letters pose similar, though certainly not identical, problems, involving provenance, publication history, transcription, formatting, attribution, dating, arrangement, and the question of how to treat incoming letters. The need to achieve easy access to the letters requires systematic processing and control, and consistency of presentation necessitates the creation of a set of editorial principles that, however seemingly encompassing when formulated, never seem quite to satisfy the demands of the next letter encountered. And, of course, the letters themselves, collectively and individually, inevitably raise problems involving format, dating, and conjectural readings.