PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 763 
conceive no more efficient method of diverting the attention 
of the learner from what is essential to what is extraneous 
and incidental in works of literary art, than that supplied 
by the ordinary ‘“‘ annotated edition.” The notes are not 
only superfluous and irrelevant—(I have seen, for instance, 
a ‘“note’’ on one of Macaulay’s Essays explaining gravely 
that ‘“‘ Bob” is short for ‘‘ Robert’”’; and another on a 
passage in which the mole happened to be referred to, con- 
sisting of a long account of the appearance and habits of 
the animal, lifted bodily from a dictionary of natural 
history)—they are not only very frequently compiled by 
incompetent persons and done in a hurry (this kind of work 
not being highly paid)—but such passages as do really 
need a word of explanation or comment are too often 
explained and commented upon at such length, with such 
solemnity and parade of authorities, such copious reference 
to folios, and quartos, and Hanmer, and Steevens, and 
Malone, that no pupil can really be blamed for thinking 
that after all the notes are the chief thing, and that the 
examiner will certainly ask questions based upon them and 
not upon the text. It is by no means uncommon for 
students in higher classes than those I am referring to, to 
go up for examination in a given text without having read 
the text itself, but full charged with the thunder of the 
notes. To be honest with you, I will confess that I have 
done it myself, when pressed for time, with success, which 
is a poor compliment to my examiners. I made a practice, 
as a reviewer of school editions, of comparing the bulk of 
the text and of the notes in all cases, and I frequently found 
cases where the notes outbulked the text by twice or three 
times its volume, the notes, be it observed, being printed 
modestly in smaller types. These facts speak for them- 
selves. I can hardly trust myself to speak of the results 
which I believe to follow, almost inevitably, the study of 
‘ our great classics in this manner. Nobody will, of course, 
deny that in the case of Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century 
authors some explanatory and glossaria]l assistance is neces- 
sary for the comprehension of the text. What we must 
demand is that this assistance be reduced to a minimum, 
that the attention of the reader be not drawn off incessantly 
to irrelevant and subsidiary matters, however interesting 
these may intrinsically be; and that as far as possible in 
the schools explanations should proceed from the teacher 
rather than from the text-book. I need hardly add that a 
wise and competent teacher knows how to cause his pupils 
to explain difficulties for themselves, and obtrudes himself 
as little as possible upon the attention of his class. 
