PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE

Garry L. Hagberg, Editor

Philosophy Program
Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504
[email protected]

Articles must be submitted as e-mail attachments (in Microsoft Word). Please include a
100-word abstract (instructions below). Address submissions to: [email protected]

Style Guide
Philosophy and Literature follows the specifications of the Chicago Manual of Style,
preferably the most recent edition. Authors who are unable to locate a copy of this
valuable book should carefully study the bibliographic style of previous issues of the
journal as well as this guide. Among the most important aspects to note: The journal uses
endnotes rather than footnotes, and does not use Works Cited lists.

We urge authors to cooperate in careful manuscript preparation and adherence to this

guide and the Chicago Manual. Such assistance will expedite the appearance of your
manuscript.

***********
Your abstract: some friendly advice. We like to see abstracts, of 100 words or fewer,
with submitted papers (though some sections of P&L do not include abstracts). Please
give us an abstract that manages to entice, intrigue, and perhaps even entertain. We want
an abstract that people will read and think of the ensuing paper, “I must check this one
out!” Try to use strong verbs, avoid Latinate words wherever possible, make it
descriptive, give it color and punch. If you are stuck, consider a problem/solution
statement: “Was Jane Austen actually a man? In recent years this conjecture has been
argued loudly, if unconvincingly, at every meeting of the MLA. What claptrap! My
examination of gynecological records…”. You get the point: drive straight to the issue
and make it pluperfectly clear where you stand and what you reject.

***********

Please submit your manuscript to us as an editable .doc or (preferably) .docx file. We

cannot deal with .pdf files.
***********
(1) Quotation. Check and double check all quotations. In general, avoid very long block
quotations; readers come to your article because they want to know what you have to say.
Never begin an article with a quotation longer than one sentence. Quotations of up to
seven lines in typescript should be run in as part of the main text. Over seven lines,
they can be set as block extract quotations.

1
(2) References. Where the same book is to be repeatedly referred to in your article, use
an endnote for the first citation (with all relevant bibliographic information, including
city of publication). Subsequent citations should be given in the text in a shortened form,
using either the name of the author, or an abbreviated form of the book title. Here is an
example with repeated references to two books by the same author.

1. E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press,

1967); hereafter abbreviated VI.

2. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics (Evanston: Northwestern University Press,

1969), p. 60.

3. One should also consult Jesse Kalin, “John Barth and Moral Nihilism,”
Philosophy and Literature 1 (1977): 170–82.

4. One of the most interesting criticisms of Hirsch is that of Monroe Beardsley in

The Possibility of Criticism (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970),
especially pp. 24–31. Joseph Margolis criticizes Beardsley’s ideas in “Robust
Relativism,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 (1976): 37–46; hereafter
abbreviated “RR.”

5. E. D. Hirsch Jr., The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1976); hereafter abbreviated AI.

And here is how the references appear in the main text:

He calls this “the only practical norm for a cognitive discipline of interpretation”
(AI, p. 7). Again, “the object of interpretation is no automatic given, but a task
that the interpreter sets himself” (VI, p. 25). For Margolis, on the other hand, “a
relativistic conception of interpretation . . . may well be required” (“RR,” p. 44).

Had this author been referring to only one book by Hirsch, it would have been easier to
use the form: (Hirsch, p. 26). Where a single book is being discussed and there is no
ambiguity as to the source of a quotation, the page number alone is enough:

Critical modes are treated “not as positions to be defended but as locations or

openings to be explored” (p. 339). Whatever you do, don’t rule your opponent out
of the community (p. 28); follow Booth in his “simple effort to be a good citizen
in the republic of criticism” (p. 34).

Be careful that the quotation “is followed by the page number in parentheses before the
period” (pp. 23–24). Don’t pepper your page with numbers: if you have many separate
quotations from a one or two-page stretch of text, a single reference at the end of the
paragraph will suffice.

2
(3) Bibliographic style. Again, the aim is simplicity and clarity, consistent with Chicago
style. Avoid “ibid.” and never use “op. cit.” or “loc. cit.” Here are some examples of
bibliographic citations:

Single-author book. Note use of “pp.”

6. Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1957), pp. 115–28.

Translated book. Note volume number in arabic, not roman, numerals:

7. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary of the Book of Genesis, vol. 1, trans.

Israel Abraham (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1961), p. 69.

Multiple references (but not so many to require that they be incorporated into
the main text):

8. Letter to Witold Hulewicz, the Polish translator of Duino Elegies,

November 13, 1925. R. M. Rilke, Briefe (Wiesbaden: Insel, 1950), p. 480
(my translation).

9. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. H. Barnes (New York:

Philosophical Library, 1966), p. 42.

10. Rilke, Briefe, p. 327.

Same article in journal and book. Note that journal references use a colon
before page numbers, books use “pp.”:

11. For an excellent discussion of this ode see C.P. Segal, “Sophocles’ Praise
of Man and the Conflicts of the Antigone,” Arion 3 (1964): 46–66; reprinted in
Sophocles: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. T. Woodard (Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1966), pp. 62–85.

Mixed references. Note again use of colon and “pp.” Publishers like to point
to their offices in various cities, but we limit our references to one principal
city of publication:

12. See W. T. Jones, “Philosophical Disagreements and World View,”

Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 43
(1969–70): 461–83; “World Views: Their Nature and Their Function,”
Current Anthropology 13 (1972): 79–109; “Talking about Art and Primitive
Society,” in The Study of Primitive Art, ed. A. Forge (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1973), pp. 256–77; “World Views and Asian Medical
Systems,” in Towards a Comparative Study of Asian Medical Systems, ed. C.
Leslie (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 383–404.

3
 Reference to a daily or monthly. Use date of issue instead of standard journal
citation:

13. Since I developed this notion of Descartes as a tentative magician I have

read Frances Yates’s review of Brian P. Copenhaver’s Symphorien Champier
in the New York Review of Books (Nov. 22, 1979).

(4) Reference to a webpage. We request that authors only cite URLs when they deem it
absolutely necessary. Otherwise, it should be enough for most readers simply to say that
an article already identified and quoted is on the Internet. Readers can then go out and
find it for themselves.

(5) Miscellaneous matters.

The editor has noticed the increasing misuse of “cf.” “Cf.” stands for “confer,” and it
means “compare with.” It is never italicized. Do not use “cf.” when you mean “see also.”
“See” and “see also” are perfectly acceptable. We also do not use “ff.”; please indicate
full range of page references.

All commas and periods “fall within quotation marks.” The only exception is where a
page reference is given “at the end of the sentence” (pp. 463–64). (Note en-dash instead
of hyphen in page citation.)

When you cite an article or a book for the first time in a numbered endnote, do not supply
only partial information about the source, even if you repeat some of what is already
given in the main text. Provide complete information, including author’s full name and
the work’s full title, in the first appearance of the information in a note. In other words,
we do not want a reference to Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to take the reader to an
endnote that reads: “17. (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1958), pp. 132–33.” Instead, give
all the normal information about author and title in the note.

Only in extremis will we place a capital or lower-case letter in brackets. “[T]edious,

academic bracket-mongering must be avoided!” A way around such nonsense can almost
always be found, as for example quoting in mid-sentence the Editor proclaiming that
“tedious, academic bracket-mongering must be avoided!” Rarely in the history of this
journal have we been driven to this pedantic fussiness—and in those cases only because
we didn’t have the original source material needed to accurately recast the quotation
ourselves.

Avoid references to political or other current events and names that would tend to date
your article.

Provide English translations of all but the most obvious quotations in foreign languages.

4
And finally, jargon. The natural home for jargon is the natural sciences, where the need
for technical language is undisputed. The farther we move into soft sciences and the
humanities, the more does a reliance on jargon become a matter of trying to attain
prestige by using big words.

Jargon does have a place in humanistic studies—in the history of grammar, rhetoric,
linguistics, and philosophy generally, to name some instances. In literary theory,
however, reliance on it has become in the last generation a form of intellectual kitsch and
a replacement for hard thinking. Since Philosophy and Literature deals with technical
philosophers from Aristotle and Kant to Heidegger and Derrida, we do not “outlaw”
jargon as some popular publications might. On the other hand, we do not appreciate it
where it is used to obscure and mystify. Nor do we enjoy jargon when it is employed to
achieve the rhetorical effect of identifying the writer with fashionable positions. In our
opinion, the most erudite and sophisticated writers in humanistic studies find fresh ways
to argue their positions. Writers who need jargon in order to express themselves can find
countless journals that will welcome their work. Philosophy and Literature will not.

A remark that the elderly Kant made about jargon is as good today as it was when he
wrote it, about 1790: “One doesn’t know whether to laugh harder at the charlatan who
spreads all this fog . . . or at the audience which naively imagines the reason it cannot
clearly recognize and grasp [his] masterpiece of insight is that new masses of truth are
being hurled at it.” (Critique of Judgment, section 47)