Q. I am looking without success for guidance on citing a specific chapter in a book with just an author. Of course, one can cite the whole book, but sometimes it is more appropriate to drill down on a particular chapter.
A. You can find examples of such citations at CMOS 14.106, which specifically treats the case of a chapter in a single-author book.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a bibliography, is it ever appropriate to give the title of the work first and then the name of the author, if the title of the work is known better than the author or editor?
A. Yes, it’s occasionally appropriate to file a bibliography entry under the title. Be sure to cite by the title in the text or notes as well, so the reader knows where to look in the bibliography.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi—I am a student from Montreal and I am trying to cite an online dictionary and cannot find the proper citation format.
A. Online dictionaries are cited like their print versions, with the addition of a URL or DOI and (if required) access date. If a DOI for the article is available, use that. The facts of publication are often omitted, but entries with bylines may include the name of the author. Well-known online reference works, such as major dictionaries and encyclopedias, are normally cited in notes but not in bibliographies. See CMOS 14.7, 14.8, and 14.232–34 for details and examples.
1. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Sibelius, Jean,” accessed August 25, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Sibelius.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello—For my dissertation, I am citing many Italian books from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Many contain prefaces, but they are almost never called by that name. Most of the time, they are dedications to so and so. What is worse, they often do not have page numbers. So if I take a specific quote from somewhere in the dedication, should I write the name of the dedication and then the page number (based on the pages I counted)? This is from a preface, so shouldn’t I then use roman numerals in the lower case, iii? So the entry might look like this:
Giovanni B. Donado, Raccolta curiosissima d’adaggi turcheschi (Poletti, 1688). (“Illustriss. Sig. Sig. e Patron Colendissimo”), iii.
I would greatly appreciate your help on this.
A. There is usually no need to include the title of a preface or dedication in a citation or to identify it as such, but when there are no page numbers, it is probably a good idea:
Giovanni B. Donado, “Illustriss. Sig. Sig. e Patron Colendissimo,” dedication in Raccolta curiosissima d’adaggi turcheschi (Poletti, 1688), [3].
Cite the page number in the same way you normally would, but put brackets around any page number that is not expressed. If the entire book is unpaged, it would confuse things to use roman numerals for the front matter, especially if you go on to cite another page in arabic numerals, since readers would have no way to know for sure on which page your imaginary numbers change from roman to arabic. If the main part of the book has expressed arabic numerals, however, then to avoid confusion with the expressed page 3, use roman numerals in brackets for the unpaginated front matter.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a history of a jazz label and many of my source documents are contracts that were negotiated with the American Federation of Musicians. I am following The Chicago Manual of Style but do not see any specific reference regarding how these contracts should be listed in my bibliography.
A. It’s usual to cite documents like these in notes but not list them in the bibliography. If you must list them, try to put the information in an order that makes sense, modeling your citation on other items in the bibliography. Likewise for note citations. You can find examples of relevant note citations at CMOS 14.219.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m trying to directly quote a source that includes a word typed in bold lettering, but the bold word is rather distracting within my paper. Is there a way for me to unbold the word and cite my alteration of the original text?
A. Yes. Unbold the word and in a note (or in square brackets at the end of the quote) write “Emphasis removed.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a text in which it is necessary to cite the source of several illustrations from an unpaginated book published in Asia. The author and I agreed that it would be useful to count the leaves and then cite the page number as a folio, for instance, “ff42v–43r.” We disagree on where to begin counting: the title page (English) or the first page with print. This first page might be interpreted as a half title page: it has just the Chinese name of the artist, who is the subject of the book. The verso might be considered a frontispiece: it has a photograph of the artist and a quotation. So which would be folio 1?
A. To leave no doubt as to how to find the page you cite, use the simplest and most obvious numbering: the first recto page is 1; its verso is 2. (Page numbers like “ff42v” are unnecessarily complicated and may give the impression that the pages are actually numbered that way.) In your citation use brackets [42–43] to indicate that the numbers are not expressed in the book itself.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I cite a handwritten document that was originally written in 1781, but was copied in 1849? I viewed the copied version. Thanks.
A. You can add “copy, 1849” to the end of your citation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello, I would really appreciate it if you could please explain the difference between citations plus commentary (14.37) and substantive notes (14.39). They appear to address the same issue, but 14.37 says the source should come before the substantive notes, and 14.39 says it should come afterward, following usage in 14.38. I’m finding this confusing.
A. The two sections treat different situations. The position of a citation makes it clear whether that source is in support of something you wrote in the text (in which case the citation should be the first thing in the note, per CMOS 14.37, and your extra comments should follow the citation), or whether the source is in support of something you wrote in the note (in which case the citation should follow the comment that it supports, per 14.39). In short, the citation should follow closely whatever statement it is meant to support.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello! I’m currently editing a paper that will be submitted to a journal and have come across a very odd endnote in which the client has cited a number of authors and publications within the same note. It is not a direct reference; rather these are all sources in which a general argument has been made. I am confused as to whether this is proper endnote style. I was thinking perhaps they should all be listed separately, then the in-text endnote number could be listed as 1–5, or 1,2,3,4,5. Or perhaps an endnote is unnecessary, given that this refers to a more general philosophical argument of which there are many proponents?
A. It’s normal to list many sources in a single note, whether as direct references or general source notes. For an introduction to notes, please see CMOS chapter 14. For this matter in particular, please see paragraphs 14.28 and 14.57.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]