The rhetoric of citation systems—Part I: The development of annotation structures from the renaissance to 1900Footnote*

Readers will notice that this essay violates Rhetoric Review‘s own citation style, which follows New MLA in asking for endnotes rather than footnotes. I specifically requested this change of the editor, and she has graciously assented. As I will detail in the second part of the article, endnotes were a system that MLA went to in 1977 as the field of English became more populist and the main concern in manuscripts began to be ease of typing and cheapness of typesetting; no one argued, then or since, for any rhetorical superiority of endnotes over footnotes. Indeed, most people agree that from a reader's point of view, endnotes are a pain, whether they are citational or discursive. They force you to search and flip pages when a footnote would allow you to glance at the bottom of the column. The only virtue of endnotes is that they are easier to type on a typewriter.

This move to endnotes was a situational decision by the MLA. The great word‐processing revolution, which would within ten years create a technology that automatically measures and sets footnotes, came just a few years too late; now, of course, all WP programs and graphic programs used by printers can set footnotes automatically and without extra cost. So we're still living in the backwash of a pragmatic decision about note placement that predates our current typographic abilities. Of course, some authors, like Gibbon, may prefer to have their manuscripts run clean‐page, without footnotes, as if they were not scholarship. That should be the call of each individual author. The reason I asked specifically that footnotes be used here is the same reason most literary journals have refused to switch to New MLA: I want to make my decisions about how my page will look to readers on a “rhetorical”; basis. I have simply found footnotes a more precise system, allowing for a text/note dialogism that endnotes kill completely. And given the fact that the only footnotes still allowed by New MLA are discursive, that dialogism is even more important.

Works cited

• Achtert , Walter S. and Gibaldi , Joseph . 1985 . The MLA Style Manual. , New York : MLA .
   Google Scholar
• Agger , Ben . 1989 . Soci(onto)logy: A Disciplinary Reading. , Urbana : U of Illinois P .
   Google Scholar
• Barney , Stephen A. , ed. 1991 . Annotation and Its Texts. , New York : Oxford UP .
   Google Scholar
• Browne , Thomas . 1658 . Urn‐Burial. , London : Henry Brome .
   Google Scholar
• Burton , Robert . 1621 . Anatomy of Melancholy. , Oxford : John Litchfield .
   Google Scholar
• 1982 . The Chicago Manual of Style, , Thirteenth Edition , Chicago : U of Chicago P .
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane , J. A. 1964 . Dr. Johnson's Printer: The Life of William Strahan. , Cambridge : Harvard UP .
   Google Scholar
• Conarroe , Joel . 1982 . “Editor's Column.” . PMLA , 97 May : 307 – 08 .
   Google Scholar
• Conference of Biological Editors . 1960 . Style Manual for Biological Journals. , Washington, DC : CBE .
   Google Scholar
• _____ . 1994 . Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers, 6th Edition. , Cambridge : Cambridge UP .
   Google Scholar
• Croffut , W. A. 1892 . Preparation of Manuscript and Illustrations for Publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. , Washington, DC : USGS .
   Google Scholar
• Gibaldi , Joseph and Achtert , Walter S. 1984 . The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, , 2nd ed. , New York : MLA .
   Google Scholar
• Gibbon , Edward . 1969 . Memoirs of My Life. , Edited by: Bonnard , Georges A. New York : Funk and Wagnalls .
   Google Scholar
• Grafton , Anthony . 1997 . Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Texts and Renaissance Readers. , Ann Arbor : U of Michigan P .
   Google Scholar
• _____ . 1997 . The Footnote: A Curious History. , Cambridge : Harvard UP .
   Google Scholar
• Harvey , Gabriel . 1884–85 . Four Letters and Certain Sonnets. The Works of Gabriel Harvey. , Edited by: Grosart , Alexander B. 3 vols , London : Privately printed .
   Google Scholar
• Heilbrun , Carolyn G. 1982 . “Report of the Advisory Committee on Documentation Style.” . PMLA , 97 May : 318 – 24 .
   Google Scholar
• Howell , John Bruce . 1983 . Style Manuals of the English‐Speaking World: A Guide. , Phoenix : Oryx .
   Google Scholar
• Hume , David . 1932 . Letters of David Hume. , Edited by: Greig , J. Y. T. Oxford : Oxford UP .
   Google Scholar
• 1929 . “Instructions in Regard to Preparation of Manuscripts.” . Psychological Bulletin , 26 Feb. : 57 – 63 .
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln , Bruce . 1994 . Authority: Construction and Corrosion. , Chicago : U of Chicago P .
   Google Scholar
• Lipking , Lawrence . 1977 . “The Marginal Gloss.” . Critical Inquiry , 3 Summer : 609 – 55 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewenstein , Joseph F. 1990 . Idem: Italics and the Genetics of Authorship.” . Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies , 20 Fall : 205 – 24 .
   Google Scholar
• Louttit , Chauncey M. 1929 . “The Use of Bibliographies in Psychology.” . Psychological Review , 36 July : 341 – 47 .
   Google Scholar
• 1906 . Manual of Style: Being a Compilation of the Typographical Rules in Force at the University of Chicago Press, To Which are Appended Specimens of Types in Use. , Chicago : U of Chicago P .
   Google Scholar
• Melanchthon , Philip . 1834 . “Inaugural Lecture.” . In Melanchthonis Opera, Corpus Reformatorum. , Edited by: Bretschneider , Carolus . Vol. xi , 21 – 30 . Halis Saxonum : C. A. Schwetschke .
   Google Scholar
• Modern Language Association . 1977 . The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. , New York : MLA .
   Google Scholar
• _____ . 1951 . “The MLA Style Sheet.” . PMLA , 66 April : 3 – 31 .
   Google Scholar
• _____ . 1970 . The MLA Style Sheet, Second Edition. , New York : MLA .
   Google Scholar
• McFarland , Thomas . “Who was Benjamin Whichcote? or, The Myth of Annotation.” . Edited by: Barney . 152 – 77 .
   Google Scholar
• Nashe , Thomas . 1958 . Have with you to Saffron‐Walden. The Works of Thomas Nashe. , Edited by: McKerrow , Ronald B. III. 1 – 139 . Oxford : Basil Blackwell .
   Google Scholar
• Ong , Walter J. 1967 . The Presence of the Word. , Minneapolis : U of Minnesota P .
   Google Scholar
• _____ . 1971 . Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology. , Ithaca : Cornell UP .
   Google Scholar
• Pollard , Alfred W. , ed. 1911 . Records of the English Bible. , London : Oxford UP .
   Google Scholar
• 1944 . “Preparation of Articles for Publication in the Journals of the American Psychological Association.” . Psychological Bulletin , 41 June : 345 – 76 .
   Google Scholar
• 1952 . “Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.” . Psychological Bulletin , 49 July : 389 – 449 .
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rose , Mark . 1988 . “The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson vs. Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship.” . Representations , 23 Summer : 51 – 85 .
   Google Scholar
• Smalley , Beryl . 1969 . “The Bible in the Medieval Schools.” . In The Cambridge History of the Bible. , Vol. 2 , 197 – 219 . Cambridge : Cambridge UP .
   Google Scholar
• Sprat , Thomas . 1667 . The History of the Royal Society of London. , London : J. Martyn .
   Google Scholar
• Timperley , C. H. 1838 . The Printer's Manual. , London : H. Johnson .
   Google Scholar
• Tribble , Evelyn B. 1993 . Margins and Marginality: The Printed Page in Early Modern England. , Charlottesville : U of Virginia P .
   Google Scholar
• Turabian , Kate L. 1937 . A Manual for Writers of Dissertations. , Chicago : U of Chicago P .
   Google Scholar
• Turabian , Kate L. 1955 . A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, , 2nd ed. , Chicago : U of Chicago P .
   Google Scholar
• Readers will notice that this essay violates Rhetoric Review‘s own citation style, which follows New MLA in asking for endnotes rather than footnotes. I specifically requested this change of the editor, and she has graciously assented. As I will detail in the second part of the article, endnotes were a system that MLA went to in 1977 as the field of English became more populist and the main concern in manuscripts began to be ease of typing and cheapness of typesetting; no one argued, then or since, for any rhetorical superiority of endnotes over footnotes. Indeed, most people agree that from a reader's point of view, endnotes are a pain, whether they are citational or discursive. They force you to search and flip pages when a footnote would allow you to glance at the bottom of the column. The only virtue of endnotes is that they are easier to type on a typewriter. This move to endnotes was a situational decision by the MLA. The great word‐processing revolution, which would within ten years create a technology that automatically measures and sets footnotes, came just a few years too late; now, of course, all WP programs and graphic programs used by printers can set footnotes automatically and without extra cost. So we're still living in the backwash of a pragmatic decision about note placement that predates our current typographic abilities. Of course, some authors, like Gibbon, may prefer to have their manuscripts run clean‐page, without footnotes, as if they were not scholarship. That should be the call of each individual author. The reason I asked specifically that footnotes be used here is the same reason most literary journals have refused to switch to New MLA: I want to make my decisions about how my page will look to readers on a “rhetorical”; basis. I have simply found footnotes a more precise system, allowing for a text/note dialogism that endnotes kill completely. And given the fact that the only footnotes still allowed by New MLA are discursive, that dialogism is even more important.
   Google Scholar