I love footnotes. I won’t read a historical article if it does not have proper footnotes; why waste my time? When thumbing a book and contemplating a purchase I thumb from the back. The book must have an index and it must have footnotes. If there is no index or no foot/endnotes then I lay the book down with disgust.
Why, one may ask. The answers are simple. First, the footnote will clearly tell me what source the author used for his information. I’m not fool enough to believe everything I read so why should I believe what an author puts in his text without knowing exactly where that information came from? I must be able to weigh the source, the evidence, to determine whether it is accurate and credible or not. Therefore, the citation must spell out the source specifically, including the page when applicable, so I can go to that source and see it for myself.
The concept of revealing the details of one’s research sources is a matter of intellectual honesty. An author can write about any subject, but unless the specific citation as to where the information came from is in the footnote the reader must conclude that the author made up the information, or, for some reason, the author does not want the reader to know the source of the information, or the author is careless. All are reasons enough for me to stop reading and throw the article or book away. Literally, throw it away as it has no value.
However, footnotes are used for more than simply citing the source. They are the place to put secondary material including the author’s comments, digressions, explanations of sources, suggestions for further readings, perhaps conflicting evidence and how the author made his editorial choices of what to put in the text.
Footnotes need not hinder the reader in the slightest. The casual reader will not be disturbed by a small superscript in the text and pass it by. However, that small superscript to the interested reader is the key to the treasure chest. A glance at, hopefully, the bottom of the page will give the reader specific information he wants to know. The reader must have the means to clearly be aware of how the author reached his conclusions or to locate the information mentioned in the text.
“Footnotes are, in a sense, the footprints of the author in the sands of research, analysis and writing. They make it possible for each reader to follow the author’s physical steps in research as well as the progress of her analysis. Each new element of complementary information, which the author thought was necessary to her own understanding of her topic, can be found by the reader, as well.” That to me is the perfect summation of the importance of the footnote. And, there is no better guide to the writing, and appreciation, of footnotes than The Art of the Footnote by Francis A. Burkle-Young and Saundra Rose Maley. It lays out the reasoning behind footnotes and their various types as well as providing many examples. Simply reading this slim volume makes me want to do some research, write, and document it properly.
One of the best historians of our age, who also knows how to make the most of footnotes, is Ray Raphael. Casually looking at the footnotes in Raphael’s excellent The First American Revolution, Before Lexington and Concord , I find the expected detailed citations which allow me to seek out the specific source materials he used. But, there is more, much more. Take for example footnote number 7, on page 226. After giving the source citation, Raphael adds the comment, “Early statistics listing the number of ‘artisans’ give a misleading impression, since many, and perhaps most, artisans at the time still engaged in some farming. A man who worked on shoes was listed in the records as a shoemaker, even if he continued to work a farm.” Interesting additional information.
On page 231, footnote number 45, Raphael tells the reader, “For the importance of Boston’s leadership with respect to revolutionary thinking at the local level, see also Richard D. Brown, Knowledge Is Power: The Diffusion of Information in Early America, 1700-1865, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). How very thoughtful of him to make this suggestion.
One of the real joys of Raphael’s footnotes is that he uses them as an opportunity for further clarification of the text; something others far too often neglect. On page 257, footnote number 3, Raphael engages in a discussion that encompasses various points of view and references to several other sources. This wonderful footnote is over 1000 words long.
Having looked at the excellent footnotes of Ray Raphael it behooves us to look as the other end of the spectrum. [See The Myth of Rifleman Timothy Murphy, http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/03/the-myth-of-rifleman-timothy-murphy-and-the-power-of-the-written-word/] where I wrote about how faulty research, and very poor footnotes, led to the false myth/legend of Timothy Murphy having killed General Fraser at Saratoga.
Very briefly, in this case, 19th century author Jeptha R. Simms wrote a dramatic account of how Murphy shot General Fraser. Simms started the myth and it was picked up and repeated for 160 years by others, some of whom were, and are, respected historians. Blindly, the story became accepted as fact; yet there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
When “reputable” historians tell the story they often cite Simms as their source as if doing so makes themselves and the story credible. However, the reader is thus enabled, as I was, to go back to the original source of the story and discover to their horror that the story has no basis in fact. That is the power, and purpose, of the footnote. The footnote allows the reader to weigh the evidence, if any, and make the determination as to whether the source is credible and trustworthy and if the historian has understood the source correctly. Without the footnote the reader must rely on the judgment, the thoroughness and even the integrity of the author. That is more power than I want to give any author.
I want the ability to make my own determinations and not just blindly accept what is placed in front of me. To accept the written word without the means to question it is very uncomfortable and allows the reader to be led in any direction the author wishes. We as discerning readers ought to demand that authors always give us the proper footnotes that we deserve.
 And, the index must be comprehensive. If it’s not comprehensive how can it help me to find what I’m seeking within the book?  I much prefer footnotes, at the bottom/foot of the page, to the now more common “endnotes” which appear at the end of the chapter or the end of the book. I cannot understand the ignorance of publishers. The poor reader who wants to follow the thoughts and research processes of the author must by necessity use two bookmarks, one for the text and another for the endnotes as the reader must flip between them.  A true aggravation is the author who cites his source as “John Smith, The History of the World, volumes 1-40.” What good is that? Sure, it’s a footnote and it’s a citation but it has no value as I cannot be expected to examine 40 volumes seeking the information the author used.  Francis A. Burkle-Young and Saundra Rose Maley, The Art of the Footnote, the Intelligent Student’s Guide to the Art and Science of Annotating Texts (Lanham, Maryland: University of America Press, 1996), 2.  I am pleased to say that Ray Raphael is also a contributor to Journal of the American Revolution.  Ray Raphael, The First American Revolution, Before Lexington and Concord (New York: The New Press, 2002). Ray Raphael has written other fine books, too. I chose this one as it was within reach of my arm.  The Journal of the American Revolution article is an abbreviated version of Hugh Harrington and Jim Jordan, “The Other Mystery Shot of the American Revolution: Did Timothy Murphy Kill British Brigadier General Simon Fraser at Saratoga?,” Journal of Military History, vol. 74, no. 4 (October 2010), 1037-1045.  Jeptha R. Simms, History of Schoharie County and Border Wars of New York (Albany, NY: 1845; reprinted Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1991), v, 259.