What are the rules for explanatory notes?
April 4, 2015 7:47 AM Subscribe
I was reading a book of petry by T.S. Eliot with notes in the back half by Frank Kermode explaining the references, which got me wondering—what's the style for writing these kinds of footnotes?
For example, when it comes to notes like:
2. Epigraph: Virgil, Aeneid, I.327: "What should I call thee, maiden?"
or
2. etherised: anesthetized.
...the logic is easy enough to follow. But then you get to notes like these, where Kermode is referring to longer bits of poetry:
8. To have squeezed . . .: cf. Marvell, "To His Coy Mistress": "Let us roll all our strength and all / Our sweetness up into one ball . . . "
16. part . . . behind: a daring new hairstyle?
3. see nothing . . .: cf. Laforgue, "Pierrots": "ces yeuz! mais rien n'existe / Derrière" ("These eyes! / But there is nothing behind them").
5. Smells . . .: Adapted from an expression in Marie Donadieu, a novel by Charles-Louis Philippe: "des odeurs de filles publiques mêlées à des odeurs de nourriture" ("smells of prostitutes mingled with smells of food"). Eliot admired this author, especially for his Bubu de Montparnasse (1901), also concerned with Parisian lowlife; in 1932 he wrote a preface to an English translation of the novel.
6. shoes at the door: Until quite recently one left one's shoes outside the hotel-room door for the "boots" to clean before morning. (This may suggest a rather better class of hotel than might have been expected in the circumstances.)
21. To soon / Into weak hands: Shelley, Adonais, 257, "Too soon, and with weak hands."
At first I, skimming through the notes, I supposed the rule was to quote three words from the relevant part, though I couldn't figure out what decided where the ellipses went (i.e. whether it went over the first word or after the second). But then you have these notes where only two words are quotes, or one, or more than four. What the heck formatting or style is Kermode using, or is it just arbitrary? I haven't a clue.
(Note that I've selected notes from all over the back half of the book to more easily point out which parts I'm having trouble with, which is why the numbers are all hopping around. Sorry if that caused confusion.)
For example, when it comes to notes like:
2. Epigraph: Virgil, Aeneid, I.327: "What should I call thee, maiden?"
or
2. etherised: anesthetized.
...the logic is easy enough to follow. But then you get to notes like these, where Kermode is referring to longer bits of poetry:
8. To have squeezed . . .: cf. Marvell, "To His Coy Mistress": "Let us roll all our strength and all / Our sweetness up into one ball . . . "
16. part . . . behind: a daring new hairstyle?
3. see nothing . . .: cf. Laforgue, "Pierrots": "ces yeuz! mais rien n'existe / Derrière" ("These eyes! / But there is nothing behind them").
5. Smells . . .: Adapted from an expression in Marie Donadieu, a novel by Charles-Louis Philippe: "des odeurs de filles publiques mêlées à des odeurs de nourriture" ("smells of prostitutes mingled with smells of food"). Eliot admired this author, especially for his Bubu de Montparnasse (1901), also concerned with Parisian lowlife; in 1932 he wrote a preface to an English translation of the novel.
6. shoes at the door: Until quite recently one left one's shoes outside the hotel-room door for the "boots" to clean before morning. (This may suggest a rather better class of hotel than might have been expected in the circumstances.)
21. To soon / Into weak hands: Shelley, Adonais, 257, "Too soon, and with weak hands."
At first I, skimming through the notes, I supposed the rule was to quote three words from the relevant part, though I couldn't figure out what decided where the ellipses went (i.e. whether it went over the first word or after the second). But then you have these notes where only two words are quotes, or one, or more than four. What the heck formatting or style is Kermode using, or is it just arbitrary? I haven't a clue.
(Note that I've selected notes from all over the back half of the book to more easily point out which parts I'm having trouble with, which is why the numbers are all hopping around. Sorry if that caused confusion.)
Best answer: There is no rule about how much to quote; you quote as much as you need to in order to identify the text you're discussing. The rules involve things like when to use italics, whether to abbreviate page numbers, that sort of thing.
posted by languagehat at 8:14 AM on April 4, 2015
posted by languagehat at 8:14 AM on April 4, 2015
Best answer: I'm not able to consult the specific book to which you are referring, so some of what follows has the status of surmise.
This style of note avoids the use of superscript numerals in the text to denote that there is a corresponding footnote or endnote (some rules of 'house style' will govern the precise placing of superscripts).
The rules regarding cue words from the text are not cast-iron, more 'rules of thumb' (again, there will be a publisher's 'house style' that might, or might not, specify what they are and how they are to be applied, and with what degree of rigour or latitude).
1. A single italicised word (your 'etherised' example). This means that the note is principally designed to explain that word.
2. A phrase or word-string ending with an ellipsis (your 'to have squeezed . . .' example). This means the note refers to the material which begins with that string. Where it ends, you'll be able to determine from the content of the editor's (i.e., Kermode's) note. The point is, it's a means of locating the place in the text which represents the starting-point of the material to which the note refers.
3. A word/phrase/word-string with an ellipsis and a single word (your 'part . . . behind', 'vacant shuttles . . . wind' and numerous other examples). This denotes the beginning and the end-point of the item being commented on by the editor (i.e., Kermode).
4. A phrase/word-string with no ellipsis (your 'shoes at the door' example). A complete thought unit (for want of a better description) which is then elucidated by the editor. Conceivably it could have been treated as my 3 above (thus 'shoes . . . door'), but that would be less friendly to the reader/user.
The use of the forward slash (your 21) is a convention which indicates where there is a break between two lines of poetry.
posted by davemack at 10:20 AM on April 4, 2015
This style of note avoids the use of superscript numerals in the text to denote that there is a corresponding footnote or endnote (some rules of 'house style' will govern the precise placing of superscripts).
The rules regarding cue words from the text are not cast-iron, more 'rules of thumb' (again, there will be a publisher's 'house style' that might, or might not, specify what they are and how they are to be applied, and with what degree of rigour or latitude).
1. A single italicised word (your 'etherised' example). This means that the note is principally designed to explain that word.
2. A phrase or word-string ending with an ellipsis (your 'to have squeezed . . .' example). This means the note refers to the material which begins with that string. Where it ends, you'll be able to determine from the content of the editor's (i.e., Kermode's) note. The point is, it's a means of locating the place in the text which represents the starting-point of the material to which the note refers.
3. A word/phrase/word-string with an ellipsis and a single word (your 'part . . . behind', 'vacant shuttles . . . wind' and numerous other examples). This denotes the beginning and the end-point of the item being commented on by the editor (i.e., Kermode).
4. A phrase/word-string with no ellipsis (your 'shoes at the door' example). A complete thought unit (for want of a better description) which is then elucidated by the editor. Conceivably it could have been treated as my 3 above (thus 'shoes . . . door'), but that would be less friendly to the reader/user.
The use of the forward slash (your 21) is a convention which indicates where there is a break between two lines of poetry.
posted by davemack at 10:20 AM on April 4, 2015
Response by poster: languagehat, Davemack, thanks for the information! Actually, the text I'm reading from does have superscripts in the poetry itself, but I don't think that changes too much what I've told me. (The numbers attached to the notes don't refer to the lines in the poetry itself, just what number note they are. They go 1, 2, 3, all the way to however notes there are for a particular poem.)
To tell the truth, it was Davemack's number three I was most confused about—what governs what's a "beginning" and "end point", in particular. For example, in "part . . . behind" just "part" is okay to indicate the beginning, but "vacant shuttles . . . wind" needs two words? That was the part that confused me, and languagehat telling me it was basically ruleless was a big comfort.
Again, thanks a lot.
posted by KChasm at 10:57 AM on April 4, 2015
To tell the truth, it was Davemack's number three I was most confused about—what governs what's a "beginning" and "end point", in particular. For example, in "part . . . behind" just "part" is okay to indicate the beginning, but "vacant shuttles . . . wind" needs two words? That was the part that confused me, and languagehat telling me it was basically ruleless was a big comfort.
Again, thanks a lot.
posted by KChasm at 10:57 AM on April 4, 2015
Best answer: These are known as lemmas (or lemmata) and their function is to indicate, as precisely and economically as possible, the chunk of text to which the commentary refers. Here's a sample set of protocols for using lemmas, from an editorial project I'm working on at the moment:
Lemmas:
a) immediately follow the line number(s) to which they belong, separated by a full-stop and one space
b) are given in italic irrespective of the font of the original in the main text, but otherwise exactly the same
c) contain no more than three words
d) contain no more than two ellipses
e) conclude with an unitalicised colon
f) clarity is paramount – the lemma must exactly match the main text, and must be specific enough not to be confused with anything else (like words repeated) in the same line
g) DO NOT use a single word as your lemma if your commentary refers to more than that alone (single word lemmas = definitions or commentary on single words); instead, use a carefully chosen ellipsis to identify exactly what part of the text your commentary addresses.
h) lemmas can, therefore, stretch across several, or occasionally many lines
posted by verstegan at 2:29 PM on April 9, 2015
Lemmas:
a) immediately follow the line number(s) to which they belong, separated by a full-stop and one space
b) are given in italic irrespective of the font of the original in the main text, but otherwise exactly the same
c) contain no more than three words
d) contain no more than two ellipses
e) conclude with an unitalicised colon
f) clarity is paramount – the lemma must exactly match the main text, and must be specific enough not to be confused with anything else (like words repeated) in the same line
g) DO NOT use a single word as your lemma if your commentary refers to more than that alone (single word lemmas = definitions or commentary on single words); instead, use a carefully chosen ellipsis to identify exactly what part of the text your commentary addresses.
h) lemmas can, therefore, stretch across several, or occasionally many lines
posted by verstegan at 2:29 PM on April 9, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
11. Signs . . . sign!":
12. The word . . . word:
18. vacant shuttles . . . wind:
7. For I shall meet . . .:
15. Kentish Town . . . Golder's Green:
See, if there's a rule there, I definitely don't get it.
posted by KChasm at 8:14 AM on April 4, 2015