Q. In a published work, we often come across various end-of-chapter material such as “References,” “Bibliography,” etc. What is the exact difference between “References” and “Bibliography”? What do the terms really stand for?
A. When a writer uses the author-date (or parenthetical) method to refer to books or articles (Jones 1999), she puts the full citations of those works (author, date, title of the work, publisher, etc.) in an alphabetical list called a reference list, or list of works cited, at the back of the book. It must include every work cited. Another method is the notes/bibliography system, in which citations are relegated to footnotes or endnotes. The bibliography at the back consists of full citations of the works that the author researched in order to write the book, but may also include titles for further reading that are not referred to in the book. Bibliographies may also omit works that are tangential to the topic, even if they are cited. Scholars in the humanities tend to use the notes/bibliography system, and scholars in the social sciences tend to use the author-date in-text citation method. Please see CMOS 14.1–5 and 15.1–4 for overviews of both systems. You can find samples of these types of citation at this site in the “Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am a graduate student in history, and many of my primary sources were printed in Massachusetts during the seventeenth century.
During this time, Cambridge and Boston were part of many entities (Massachusetts Bay Colony, Dominion of New England, et cetera).
How do I cite the city of publication for these documents? Clearly, I cannot use “Cambridge, MA”
since the state did not exist yet! However, I need to distinguish between the two Cambridges, and I don’t
want to be anachronistic. A similar problem exists for publications from English cities before the official advent of the
“UK.”
A. It’s conventional to cite the place as it is printed on the title page of a work. If you want to clarify,
add an explanation at the end of the citation. You can also write a general note in your introduction or a headnote to the
notes section explaining this difficulty and your plan for addressing it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m an editor in an academic publishing house. I’ve been advised by our best-selling
author to use “eadem” (fem.) in place of “idem,”
where appropriate. Recently I had an instance in which I needed to use “idem”
(within the same note) in reference to two male authors. The masculine plural is “eidem.”
Then I realized we might potentially need the feminine plural form some day! Yikes! Do we really want to go down this road?
A. More to the point, how would authors and editors determine the gender of every author in a bibliography? “Idem”
is the standard term, and to attempt further clarification invites inaccuracy and possible offense (not to mention restraining
orders).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello. When the author uses the same source for five consecutive notations, should I give each a number and list it five times consecutively in the notes, or should I put only one number at the beginning (or end) of the paragraph, thereby listing it only once in the notes? Also, if the notations are apart from one another, I would have to give the source multiple numbers, I’m sure, but then do I re-reference the source, or can I say, for example, “113. See note 72,” or some such? Thanks!
A. Within a single paragraph, one note number will do. In subsequent paragraphs, use “ibid.” to refer to the work most recently cited. You can read about how to use the Latin abbreviation “ibid.” (from ibidem, “in the same place”) in CMOS 14.29 [16th ed.].
[Update: Chicago now prefers shortened citations in favor of ibid. For examples, see CMOS 14.34.]
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I cite a number of works that were written long ago, such as Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. The straightforward way to cite such a work is by the date of the edition employed (Locke, 1987: 201). I find this ugly and uninformative, however. Is there a permissible way to indicate the date of original publication, such as (Locke, 1689 [1987]: 201)? Thank you for your assistance.
A. Yes, you can do that. Please see CMOS 15.40. Chicago style puts the original date in brackets and omits the comma after the author’s name. The first date determines placement in the reference list.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. CMOS says to use the city listed for the publisher on the title page or copyright page of the book. If more than one city is listed, use the first one. Our magazine publishes a list of science books in each issue. One of the major publishers is Springer. Most of the Springer books we list have “Berlin Heidelberg New York” on the copyright page—the only place I can find a location listed. We traditionally have listed New York, as we are an American publication. However, some Springer books we list say only “Dordrecht, The Netherlands” on the copyright page. Should we cite different cities depending on what is listed on the copyright page? This looks inconsistent to me—to list different cities for the same publisher.
A. It may be annoyingly inconsistent for Springer to publish books in different countries, but no, it wouldn’t be right to say that a book was published in New York if in fact it were published in Dordrecht, or vice versa.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I was recently penalized by my history professor for conforming to the CMOS even though we are required to do so. His comment: “Footnotes require a full reference for the first citation of a source—then subsequent footnotes/endnotes utilize the form you employed.” I appealed, citing CMOS. In reply, my appeal was summarily denied: “Sorry, but there is no history prof I know who would accept footnotes in that form at the undergraduate or graduate level . . . just the Americans being their usual sloppy selves, I guess. . . . If I teach the course again I will have to present a more rigorous set of rules, of the sort employed in actual practice.” Your comment would be appreciated.
A. I doubt that comment from a Chicago editor would make an impression on your professor, who seems rather sure of himself. Students are always at the mercy of their professors, who may consider any changes to be a sign of decaying standards, even changes designed to make text more concise or consistent or reader-friendly. The fact is, there are contexts where full citations at the first instance are important (for instance, if offprints are likely to be made of individual chapters without the inclusion of the bibliography), but in other contexts, they can be considered a duplication of effort. Your professor has admitted fault in not giving clear instructions, but to be safe, perhaps next time you can ask for approval of your citation method before you finish your paper.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am copyediting a scholarly journal in the humanities and have a question about footnotes referencing a website. I always
check the URL to ensure that it is still accessible and still goes to the appropriate information. Typically the author provides
an access date as part of the footnote. My question is: When the URL is still accurate, should I revise the access date to
the date that I checked the URL, or leave the author’s original date in place?
A. Since the author is citing information that appeared on a particular date, it’s important that you
not change it. One purpose in giving a date is to let the reader know that the author didn’t have access
to information that may have been posted at the site after that date.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am doing a research paper for my history class in college and I am supposed to put in the Chicago form of bibliography
and citations. I am trying to find the way that I am supposed to put this in but it is proving very difficult at the moment.
Can you help on this?
Q. I would like to document, in a bibliography, information received in an academic class. Please send me the format for this application. Thank you for this service.
A. Please see CMOS 14.217 (“Lectures and papers or posters presented at meetings”): “The sponsorship, location, and date of the meeting at which a speech was given or a paper, slides, or poster presented follow the title. This information is put in parentheses in a note but not in a bibliography.” E.g.,
D’Erasmo, Stacy. “The Craft and Career of Writing.” Lecture, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, April 26, 2000.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]