hat has scattered the
controversy-following public. It is much to be regretted that the laws
of copyright and the methods of publication stand in the way of
annotated editions of works of current controversial value. For example,
Mr. Andrew Lang has assailed the new edition of the "Golden Bough." His
criticisms, which are, no doubt, very shrewd and penetrating, ought to
be accessible with the text he criticizes. Yet numerous people will read
his comments who will never read the "Golden Bough;" they will accept
his dinted sword as proof of the slaughter of Mr. Fraser, and many will
read the "Golden Bough" and never hear of Mr. Lang's comments. Why
should it be so hopeless to suggest an edition of the "Golden Bough"
with footnotes by Mr. Lang and Mr. Fraser's replies? There are all sorts
of books to which Mr. Lang might add footnotes with infinite benefit to
every one. Mr. Mallock, again, is going to explain how Science and
Religion stand at the present time. If only some one would explain in
the margin how Mr. Mallock stands, the thing would be complete. Such a
book, again, as these "Anticipations" would stand a vast amount of
controversial footnoting. It bristles with pegs for discussion--vacant
pegs; it is written to provoke. I hope that some publisher, sooner or
later, will do something of this kind, and will give us not only the
text of an author's work, but a series of footnotes and appendices by
reputable antagonists. The experiment, well handled, might prove
successful enough to start a fashion--a very beneficial fashion for
authors and readers alike. People would write twice as carefully and
twice as clearly with that possible second edition (with footnotes by X
and Y) in view. Imagine "The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture" as it
might have been edited by the late Professor Huxley; Froude's edition of
the "Grammar of Assent;" Mr. G. B. Shaw's edition of the works of Mr.
Lecky; or the criticism of art and life of Ruskin,--the "Beauties of
Ruskin" annotated by Mr. Whistler and carefully prepared for the press
by Professor William James. Like the tomato and the cucumber, every book
would carry its antidote wrapped about it. Impossible, you say. But is
it? Or is it only unprecedented? If novelists will consent to the
illustration of their stories by artists whose chief aim appears to be
to contradict their statements, I do not see why controversial writers
who believe their opinions are correct should object to the c