The Footnote Analysis

Anthony Grafton’s work, The Footnote, begins with an analysis of Leopold von Ranke and his use of footnotes. Over the course of the book, Grafton takes the reader backward in time to explore the various changes in history that influenced the development of the footnote. Grafton chose this unique chronology in order to help him reveal to the reader “where, when, and why historians adopted [the footnote’s] distinctive form of narrative architecture.” In choosing a non-linear chronology, Grafton is not constrained by the need to show the evolution of the footnote from a single, “primitive” form to the modern form used today. Rather, he is able to show the history of the footnote as a web where authors and works were in constant dialogue with …show more content…
For instance, David Hume’s critique that the reading of the endnotes in Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall was too tedious a process spurred the author to change to the format of footnotes. These historians were not writing in a vacuum, they were aware of one another’s work and either built from these examples or strove to create something that they felt improved upon the work of their peers. The dialogue that occurred between historians is best exemplified in de Thou’s method of collecting facts. De Thou willingly sent his work to his peers in the hopes that his facts could be refined and even added upon with the help of these historian’s own knowledge. The chronology of The Footnote makes it clear that the history of footnotes is both long in rich in interconnections between authors because the theme is repeated throughout vastly different time periods and …show more content…
Philosophers were not interested in the extreme detail of history, rather they wanted to explore large concepts and how time affected the progress of various institutions. At first glance this method of thinking seems to be in direct opposition to fact-based historical research as well as the attention to detail needed for the creation of extensive footnotes. On the contrary, historians like Edward Gibbon were able to “… [combine] the irony and broad viewpoint of the philosophes with the minute erudition of the antiquaries”. This blend of sweeping ideas and extreme detail brought together these two forms of history as well as bolstering the use of footnotes. As a result of this combination, histories that were both supported by cited facts and that had an overarching narrative began to become more common. It was this tradition that Ranke drew from as he was creating his own works. Ranke’s own approach to history is characterized through his condemnation of Francesco Guicciardini who he believed lacked both a cohesive narrative and first-hand facts regarding the events he described. The fact that Ranke finds fault in Guicciardini’s information and narrative show that he felt that both were intrinsic to the study of