A couple of days ago, a Facebook friend I seldom interact with posted a C.S. Lewis quote. I’ve seen this quote before. It seems to be politically conservative, would seem to support certain memes you see on social media. The quote was not attributed except to say it was by C.S. Lewis. Having seen it so posted at least three times, I decided to not let it go this time. I asked the poster what the source was, where Lewis wrote this. She came back with a fuller quote and said it was from “God In The Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (1948).

Fine, I thought, I have a copy of God In The Dock. I’ll just go there and see if I can find the place. Alas, as I looked through it, I re-discovered (having seen some time ago but forgotten) that GITD is collection of essays. As I looked further, I discovered that not only was GITD the title of a book, it was also the title of an essay. “God In The Dock” was an essay from 1948. God In The Dock was a book, a collection of Lewis’s essays published posthumously in 1970. Which did she mean? Since she said 1948 in the source, I figured it was the essay. So I went to it in the book and…the quote wasn’t in the essay.

A little bit of searching—something I’m getting good at these days—revealed “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”, an essay that appeared first in an Australian periodical in 1949 and republished in an Australian legal journal in 1953. So her source as presented was technically incorrect.

All of which got me to thinking about sources, which in turn got me to thinking about footnotes and citations. I do a lot of reading and research in the older writers, those who are long out of copyright. You can find lots of their works on line at no cost, though not the more modern reprints. a book I’m reading right now has a lot of quotes and citations in footnotes. In quotes from the writings of John Wesley, they refer to a specific set of collected works. Here’s an example.

4. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 12 (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1978)

If I wanted to find this particular quote, perhaps to read it in context and see if the author had used Wesley’s words correctly, I would have to go somewhere and get that specific set of his collected works and find the specific volume, the specific page—oops, he didn’t give the page. Shame on the author and the publisher. Let’s try a different citation in a footnote.

16. Wesley, Works, vol VI, 512

A footnote immediately prior to this one identifies which of Wesley’s collected works is meant. That’s a little more helpful, but, again, only if I have that specific volume. But, all of Wesley’s works are out of copyright. They are all available in a great on-line library called the Internet, both pictures of them from the 18th and 19th centuries and electronic versions newer than that. Why not just say where it’s found? Why not say, for example:

John Wesley, “Sermon No. 17”

or whatever of Wesley’s writing you need. How easy it would be to find the original document and do the research you want to do.

So I am making the proposal that we start modernizing citations and footnotes to recognize how data is accessed these days.

Back to the C.S, Lewis quote in question. Here are two ways to do that citation, first the old way, then my proposed new way.

• C.S. Lewis, The Timeless Writings of C.S. Lewis, 2003 (New York, NY, Inspirational Press), 499
• C.S. Lewis, “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”, 1949, paragraph 10

I ask you, which would be easier to find? You can go to whatever Lewis collection you have, find the essay, thumb to the paragraph, and read the quote. You can read the whole essay to get the context, and make up your mind if those posting the quote are using Lewis correctly. Or, if you don’t have it, you know what to look for in a library or a book store. Want a little more information? You could expand it as follows.

• C.S. Lewis, “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”, paragraph 10. Anthologized in God In The Dock,

Since God In The Dock, the book, has been published several times in several formats, you don’t even need to give the year of publication of who the publisher is. The name of the book is sufficient for any reader or researcher of reasonable intelligence to find the work, verify the quote, and go on with whatever project had caused him to look the information up.

I followed this system, at least somewhat, in my two family history/genealogy books. I referenced works without getting into specific printed matter, publishers, and dates of publication. I like the way it turned out.

And, while I’m at it about citations/footnotes, how about we once and for all bury Latin references and abbreviations? Sure, I can look up what op cit and ibid mean and learn them. But with the cost of printing as cheap as it is nowadays, why not just repeat the work, perhaps in a slightly shorter form, and change the page number? Give complete references in a Bibliography at the end. This I also did in my two genealogy books.

Well, that’s my proposal. I don’t expect it to catch on in my lifetime, but I made it and put it out there for public scrutiny. I’d like to hear what everyone things of it.

Oh, to be fair, the book I’m reading for church does include some footnotes as I suggest. For example:

12. Wesley, “Sermon 85, On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” III.2

So maybe my proposal isn’t so far out.