Sources and Footnotes, Part II
This posting is an adjunct to the previous discussion(s) regarding the use of footnotes in historical writing, particularly paying attention to the use of them, and how many, in John Elting's Swords Around a Throne especially since that volume has been criticized by some on this forum and elsewhere as not being sufficiently sourced.
I spent time yesterday going through the book and found sourcing in the text which, although not footnoted, referenced specific sources as in naming who said specific items or subjects.
I found 552 references in the text to named individuals including Napoleon (84 instances-in two he is not referred to by name, but as 'the Emperor'), Coignet (34 instances), Marbot (27 instances), de Brack (21 instances) Blaze-both Elzear and Sebastien (18 instances), Berthier (6 instances), Amiel (5 instances), Prince Eugene (4 instances), and Pilloy (5 instances). Further, Teste, Auvray, Saint-Chamans, Grouchy, Bugeaud, Bigarre, Caulaincourt, Barres, Bourgogne, Thiebault, Oyon, Wilson, Gunn, Fezensac, Marmont, von Funck, Odeleben, Davout, Lejeune, Lauthonnye, Larrey, Desaix, Bussell, Massena, Mortier, Lambry, Rapp, Parquin, Gleig, Steininger, Girault, Soultrait, Carnot, are mentioned at least twice each (for a minimum of 62 more citings.
The question remains, why weren't all of these paraphrases cited in the endnotes. I have no idea, but that is the author's prerogative. If they were cited as endnotes, that would have significantly lengthened the endnotes by about 35 pages, allowing for 15 notes per page. That isn't that long, but it is somewhat significant.
The bottom line is that these 552 paraphrased references in the text increase the sourcing in the book to over 1300 when assed to the over 800 endnotes. And the overwhelming majority of the references in the text are primary source material.
That being the case, the idea that Swords is not well-sourced is 'counter-factual.'
@john fortune it is perhaps the very heart of an interpretive discipline to be wrong, because in an interpretation there is no real right. To be so requires two things. The acceptance of the rights of others to make a contrary interpretation. The admission of the inherent fallibility of one own’s. Both of these steps can be too far for some, who prefer the illusion of absolutes. This is why the discipline of proper referencing as opposed to merely attribution is so important. Saying ‘Napoleon said’ is of little value when we see the sheer volume of what he said (and the even greater volume of what people have subsequently said he said). Proper references allows follow up, and potentially therefore the reader to make their own (counter factual?) differing interpretation. I think it depends on the relationship the author is trying to have with the reader. A hectoring arrogant lecturer or a knowledgeable but respectful companion on a journey of discovery. I know which style I prefer to give my money to, but I could of course be counter factual.