Documentation: A History and Critique of Attribution, Commentary, Glosses, Marginalia, Notes, Bibliographies, Works-Cited Lists, and Citation Indexing and Analysis (review)

Robert Hauptman never gives a precise definition of documentation, and with good reason. By considering documentation in 'the broadest sense of the term' (7), Hauptman frees himself to explore many different types of references, from unattributed allusions to precise scholarly citations. Documentation accomplishes this task in eleven chapters in three main parts. The first two chapters trace the history and development of documentation. The second part, chapters 3–6, discusses the different forms of documentation (commentary, footnotes, endnotes, marginalia, and illustrations). The third part, chapters 7–10, considers current issues surrounding documentation and citation. A final chapter reiterates the limits of the study and offers some concluding remarks. Documentation contains much useful and interesting research and analysis, though biases and problems with the writing sometimes interfere with transmission.

Anyone interested in the history of scholarship or books will find Hauptman's research fascinating. Chapter 2, 'Development,' traces documentation and its use from ancient times to the twentieth century. After some discussion of ancient and medieval documentary methods, Hauptman makes the argument that modern scholarly documentation began with the Renaissance and grew to resemble modern academic practice with the scholarly journals of the eighteenth century (22–6). Among the examples that support these points the reader will find arcane but interesting facts: the first instance of documentation, broadly defined, occurs as a quotation in a Sumerian history text ca. 2400 BCE (16), for example, and the first footnote was printed in 1568 CE (22). But, more substantially, this chapter and the subsequent chapters on commentary, marginalia, footnotes, and illustration give detailed information about when these forms of documentation were first used, how they evolved, and how they are currently used (or not used), along with some well-reasoned explanation of why and how these developments occurred.

Hauptman's discussions of the history and current state of documentation bring with them many cogent observations and analyses. For instance, Hauptman examines how the physical layout of documentation affects reading, an issue that we, as scholars, writers, readers, and instructors, should all consider. Marginalia, he asserts, provide the most immediacy and accessibility for readers (71, 74), while other formats, such as endnotes and online bibliographies, actively discourage or inconvenience readers (114, 124); in-text formats, such as APA, can sometimes interrupt (155). Literary academics will appreciate the analysis of author-generated documentation. Hauptman concludes that self-documentation of literary and historical works can equally assist reading and scholarly research or, more pretentiously, seek to impress or mystify readers (58–60). This analysis contrasts neatly with Hauptman's later discussion of reader-generated marginalia, which function to aid the reader and record his or her responses (91, 84–6). This discussion rendered me self-conscious about the handwritten marginalia that I was currently producing in response to Documentation and prompted me to question how I myself use marginalia in general.

Some of Documentation's analyses call for more depth and development. Hauptman explores two competing theories of footnotes, but he does not actually privilege one or offer his own (116–21), and he practically dismisses the very relevant observation that scholarship, and therefore documentation and its requirements, vary from culture to culture and may exist in parallel traditions within the same culture (15). Hauptman discusses the decline of reader-generated marginalia only briefly, though one of the reasons behind this trend—the unwillingness and inability of people to read closely and respond to texts (79)—not only could generate much worthwhile analysis but also dovetails with his discussions of sloppy documentation practices and his repeated remarks about how people read depending on documentation and layout. Hauptman's later criticism that plagiarists face varying degrees of punishment depending on their wealth, status, and fame deserves far more discussion (182, 186). Certainly, this keen observation demands...