Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current

WEBLOG

December 6th, 2025 (Permalink)

How to Lie With Notes 3¹: Anatomy of a Citation

As a reader of research, once you understand the purposes of notes and the cryptic abbreviations used, the structure of the note itself will be self-explanatory. Exactly how a note is formatted is unimportant as long as sufficient information is included to allow you to identify the source cited and consult it.

There are a few common citation styles for scholarly publications, such as those of the Modern Language Association, the American Psychological Association, and the University of Chicago. There are also specialized styles for some disciplines, and publications or publishers may have their own styles. I won't discuss any of these in detail because the differences between them are unimportant to the reader or researcher². Most style choices are arbitrary, like which side of the road you drive on, and will get you where you want to go. So, if you're the writer choose one and stick to it, or if you're writing for a specific publication, find out what style it uses and follow that.

As a reader or researcher, all that you need to know is how to use a citation to check a source, and to do that you need the following information:

• Author's or authors' full name(s): There are many writers with the same last name, such as Stephen King, Florence King, Laurie King, et al. So, a first name should be included except for some rare writers known by a single name, such as Plato, Voltaire, Trevanian, et al. If first and last names are not enough to distinguish two writers, then a middle name or initial is needed. For instance, there were two writers of detective stories named John MacDonald: John Dann MacDonald―usually known by his middle initial―and John Ross Macdonald―who dropped the "John" later and became known as just Ross Macdonald³.
• The publication's full title: The full title of the work cited is needed for the same reason as for the author's full name: there may be more than one work with the same title. There may even be more than one book with a seemingly unusual title. For instance, there are at least three books entitled The Third Bullet by three different authors: John Dickson Carr⁴, Stephen Hunter⁵, and Arnold C. Stream⁶. The full title of Carr's book is The Third Bullet and Other Stories, so that should be included in the citation to distinguish it from the other two books. If the book has a subtitle, it can be included to distinguish it from others. In some cases, the title alone is not enough to differentiate two or more works, in which case the authors' names or date of publication will have to do the job. For example, Hunter's and Stream's books have the same full title and no subtitles⁷.

  If the work is an article published in a magazine, journal, or newspaper, then the title of the article itself should be included along with the full title of the periodical. As with books, there are often multiple periodicals with the same title. In particular, there are many newspapers called "The Times", "The Herald", "The Tribune", etc., so newspapers are usually differentiated by their place of publication. For instance, there are the London Times, New York Times, and Washington Times. In some cases, the name of the city is incorporated into the title, as in The New York Times, but in other cases it is not, as in The Times of London.

• The date of publication: There are two reasons to include the date a work is published in a citation:
  1. To make it possible to find the specific edition of a book or the particular issue of a periodical. For books, only the year of publication is usually needed, since it would be unusual for more than one edition to appear in a year. For periodicals, the information needed is determined by their frequency of publication. For example, for monthly magazines, the month and year should be cited; for daily newspapers, the full date should be included. Such information is needed to track down the source cited; there's nothing more frustrating than trying to find an article in a periodical for which only the year of publication is given.
  2. Knowing when a work is published is often useful information even if you never consult the work itself. For instance, an old work might be too out-of-date to be useful, or a very recent work might suffer from current faddish biases and parochialism that an older work would lack. In both cases, the date of publication might lead you to look for a different source.
• Edition number: For books that go through multiple editions, the edition number may be needed. Some books, such as textbooks, may change significantly from edition to edition⁸, so it's important to know which edition is cited; others, such as novels, may not change significantly between editions, especially if the author is dead. When in doubt, if there is an edition number it should be cited.
• Page number(s): The only thing as frustrating as trying to track down a newspaper article when you lack a day of publication is looking for something in a large book when you don't have a page number. The main purpose of a note is to make it possible for the reader to check quotes or references that supposedly confirm claims, and failing to give sufficient information to do so defeats that purpose.

That's it. That is all that's needed in a citation. Many notes, as well as citation styles, include the name of the publisher and the place of publication, but I've never found these useful. Theoretically, if you want to get hold of a book you could contact the publisher directly, but who does that nowadays? This information was perhaps useful in the past, but today you can easily find almost any published book from an online bookseller. The place of publication is even less likely to be of value than the publisher's name; who needs to know that a book was published in Evanston, Illinois? For these reasons, I suggest omitting this information from citations, which would save some space at the foot of the page; that it continues to be recommended by style guides is, I suspect, the result of scholarly inertia.

---

Notes:

1. ↑ Previous entries in this series:
   1. Introduction, 10/23/2025
   2. Latin Abbreviations, 11/13/2025
2. ↑ For a side-by-side comparison of the three styles, see: " Side by Side Comparison Chart―APA, Chicago, and MLA", Stonehill College, 7/2018.
3. ↑ John D. MacDonald was the author's real name; (John) Ross Macdonald was a pseudonym for Kenneth Millar. In addition to the middle initial and middle name, the two authors spelled their common last name differently: John D. with a capital "D" and Ross with a lowercase "d". See: "John D. MacDonald", Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed: 12/6/2025 and "Ross Macdonald", Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed: 12/6/2025.
4. ↑ John Dickson Carr, The Third Bullet and Other Stories (1954).
5. ↑ Stephen Hunter, The Third Bullet (2013).
6. ↑ Arnold C. Stream, The Third Bullet (1986).
7. ↑ However, Hunter's book is referred to as "A Bob Lee Swagger Novel" and, though I'm unsure whether that counts as a subtitle, it could be used to distinguish it from Stream's book.
8. ↑ However, one of the dirty little secrets of textbook publishing is that many such books are reprinted in new editions every few years with the only significant changes in the exercises. This is done to try to undercut the resale market in texts and to defeat students trying to cheat on exercises. Also, obviously, it makes a lot of money for the publisher.

---

December 1st, 2025 (Permalink)

Book Review: An Over-Abundance of Caution

Quote: "…[T]he long list of claims, the filibuster of excuses about why schools could not open that were made repeatedly by politicians, union leaders, influencers, the media, and health authorities―and others in the medical field who had no expertise on viral transmission or mitigation, but whom journalists treated as experts anyway―was a systematic fiction. Even more than two years later, in the fall of 2022, after the reckoning of abysmal academic outcomes from school closures became an acceptable admission in polite society, many epidemiologists, other public health professionals, and pundits simply framed this as the unfortunate consequence of a wrenching decision between saving lives from COVID or harming kids by keeping them out of school. But this damned if you do, damned if you don't narrative was a false binary, representing a fundamental misunderstanding about the lack of benefit of school closures. Much of Europe, and many areas of the US where schools were kept open the longest in aggregate, suffered no greater numbers of cases, or subsequent morbidity and mortality, than areas where schools were closed the longest."¹

Title: An Abundance of Caution

Subtitle: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions

Author: David Zweig

Date: 2025

Summary: This book tells the story of only one aspect of the coronavirus pandemic, namely, the effect of the virus on children and the misguided efforts to protect them by closing schools.

Review: There will be another pandemic, probably sooner than expected, and little has been done to prepare for it. The first step in doing so is to review what happened, and especially what was done wrong, during the last one. We probably won't make exactly the same mistakes again since it may be an influenza virus, or some other kind of virus, rather than a coronavirus, that causes the next one. But if we don't understand how those mistakes came about, new mistakes will be made in the same old ways.

I was already familiar with much that Zweig covers in this book, and even wrote about some of it at the time², but one thing still surprised me: how early in the pandemic the basic facts about the coronavirus and its effects were known. This was a triumph for the science of epidemiology, but a miserable failure of journalists and public health authorities to communicate those facts to the public. In this book, Zweig exposes that failure by thoroughly documenting what was known about the coronavirus and when, as opposed to what was said about it by politicians and reporters. He explains:

…[N]early all of the evidence I present in this book was known in real time or in advance. The single most important myth that this book seeks to debunk is the notion that various interventions―most specifically related to schools and kids―were reasonable of even necessary to be employed because "we didn't know" at the time about their lack of benefit, or the relatively benign course for children from the virus. On the other side of the coin, it was similarly false to say "we didn't know" about the harms that would accrue from these largely ineffective interventions.³

Throughout the pandemic, we were often told to "follow the science", yet government bureaucrats and journalists repeatedly failed to tell us where the science was headed. As a result, ineffective and harmful measures, such as school closings, were taken.

Here, based on this book and my own research, and illustrated with some quotes from the book under review, are what I think were the primary sources of error during the pandemic:

• Computer Modelling

  Models are a useful and necessary part of epidemiology; they're one tool scientists use to try to predict what will happen. But the Achilles' heel of models is that they are always based on sets of statistical assumptions, which are then plugged into mathematical formulas that spit out results or ranges of results. The formula itself might be valid, but if you insert the wrong numbers then you get the wrong result. Researchers tartly call this problem "garbage in, garbage out."⁴

• Public Health Bureaucrats

  …[F]or journalists at prestigious outlets, the majority of whom are politically aligned with those in the public health establishment, investigating or critiquing the policies espoused by the people on their team was tantamount to helping the enemy. Many in public health shared with their peers in the media this instinct against tolerating any public dissent with the tribe.⁵

• Junk Journalism

  Since much of the public relies on the media for information about policies and practices, journalists have an epistemic duty to investigate on their own or to press the experts they are quoting for the evidence behind their claims. …[I]n many circumstances neither of these functions were performed. Succinctly: there was an astonishing lack of curiosity by professionals whose job is to be curious. Which raises the question: Why is it that journalists, and the broader educated elite traditionally, or at least ideally, bring great skepticism to the claims made by and the motives of every major institution in society, from religion to big business to government, yet when it came to the pandemic policies espoused by Fauci, the CDC, and the public health establishment…in so many instances their skepticism vanished?⁶

I believe this is the first time I've recommended a book as "Recommended Reading", since usually I just recommend articles and essays, but that shows just how important this book is. Zweig obviously put an enormous amount of time and energy into it, and I think that the book deserves at least a little of our own effort in return.

Nitpicking: This is an important book but not a perfect one; of course, no book is. One of Zweig's greatest strengths is, perhaps, his greatest weakness, namely, his thoroughness. Zweig marshalls so much evidence in favor of his thesis that it's overkill―not in the sense that it undermines his own argument, but that it's just too much. Zweig makes his point seven ways to Sunday, when six would have sufficed. If you're not convinced by the arsenal of evidence that Zweig presents here, then nothing will convince you; whereas, if you're as convinced as I am, the excess can become tedious⁷.

I'm not suggesting that you use its length as an excuse not to read it, rather that you don't need to read the whole thing to get its benefits. In particular, there are three sections in the book labelled "Deep Dives":

1. Peanuts, Lemons, and Evidence-Based Medicine

   This section is a history of some previous medical mistakes; specifically, about peanut allergies, scurvy, and in what position babies should sleep. I didn't need any convincing that medical experts are fallible, but I still found the section fascinating.

2. "Basic Physics"―Mitigation Misinformation, and the Case of HEPA Filters

   This section is primarily a debunking of the unfounded claim, made repeatedly by the teachers' unions, that schools shouldn't open until they had expensive ventilation systems using HEPA filters, which would have taken months if not years to implement. I found this section less interesting than the previous one.

3. Harms of School Closures

   Unlike the previous two "deep dives", this one is directly related to the main thesis of the book. However, of all the policies adopted during the pandemic, this is the only one that seems to be now widely admitted to have been both unnecessary and harmful―see the quote at the beginning of this review. So, if you're already convinced that closing schools harmed children, you might just as well skip this section, which makes terribly depressing reading. In contrast, all those politicians and teachers' union officials who pushed for school closings and resisted their reopening should be forced to read it.

I've nitpicked the book above, not because I want to discourage you from reading it, but because I want to encourage you. There is an almost overwhelming amount of important information in this volume, and I don't want you to use that as an excuse to avoid it. In addition, the emotions that the book may evoke―the regret, anger, even guilt―may also at times feel overwhelming. But we need to face the facts, as unpleasant as they may be, about what went wrong during the last pandemic if we're not to go through an even worse future one. If you should open the book and find yourself feeling overwhelmed, keep in mind that you can skip the "Deep Dives" without losing track of the book's main thread.

Recommendation: Highly recommended, but with the proviso that you needn't read the whole thing.

---

Notes:

1. ↑ Pp. 520f. Paragraphing suppressed. Citations to just page or chapter numbers are to the electronic edition of the book reviewed.
2. ↑ The following is not a complete list of entries dealing with the pandemic, but some of those dealing with its effect on children or the closing of schools:
   • Mayday! Mayday!, 5/1/2020.
   • The Tank Man & Speaking Out Against Lockdowns, 6/30/2021.
   • A Sign of The Times, 10/8/2021.
   • True Lies, 10/12/2021.
   • Unmasking the CDC & Manufacturing Fear, 12/28/2021. This entry is about one of David Zweig's articles in The Atlantic.
   • The Pandemic of Pseudoknowledge, 1/11/2022.
   • A Tendentious Top Ten, 2/21/2022.
   • Rigging the Debate & Over-counting the Dead, 1/31/2023. Another Zweig article, this time based on the Twitter files.
   • Q&A, 6/24/2023.
   • Magic Scarecrows & the Authoritarian Impulse, 9/30/2023.
   • The Penalty for Humility & Magna Est Veritas, 4/3/2024.
3. ↑ Pp. 806f.
4. ↑ Pp. 68f. See also:
   • The Good News is that the Bad News was Wrong, 7/1/2020.
   • Have you heard of herd immunity?, 2/24/2021.
   • Tax Day Reading, 5/17/2021.
5. ↑ P. 578.
6. ↑ Pp. 577f. Paragraphing suppressed.
7. ↑ In his "Acknowledgments", Zweig writes: "Without Susan [Buckley] this book would be 1,000 pages, so anyone reading this owes her a thanks as well." Thanks, Susan! My electronic copy of the book is actually over a thousand pages, so I assume he is referring to the paper version.

---

November 27th, 2025 (Permalink)

Thanksgiving with the Blancs

Mrs. Blanc had once again¹ agreed to host a family Thanksgiving dinner this year and to cook the meal herself. How much food did she need to prepare? She had invited the following Blanc family members: a husband, a wife, a grandfather, a grandmother, two fathers, two mothers, four children, two grandchildren, two siblings, one brother, one sister, two sons, two daughters, one father-in-law, one mother-in-law, one son-in-law, and one daughter in law―Mrs. Blanc herself is included in this list. 26 family members!²

Assuming that all of the invitees attend, what is the minimum number of people―including the hostess―who will need to be fed?

Hint

Solution

---

1. ↑Previous Thanksgiving puzzles at the Blanc house:
   • A Puzzle to be Thankful For, 11/23/2023
   • Thanksgiving Chez Blanc, 11/28/2024
2. ↑ When family members are described by a family relationship it means that they bear that relation to some other family member at the dinner party. So, a "son" is not just any male family member, but is the male child of another attendee.
3. ↑ For the lyrics, see: Dwight Latham & Moe Jaffe, "I'm My Own Grandpa", The Demented Music Database, accessed: 11/26/2025. This song has been covered by everybody and his grandpa, including the Muppets, but I like this version: "I'm My Own Grandpa", The Stupids, accessed: 11/26/2025.
4. ↑ See: Robert A. Heinlein, "All You Zombies", (1959).

---

November 22nd, 2025 (Permalink)

Untangle the Nots¹

Here's a quote from a book on quotations by Paul F. Boller, Jr.:

…Admiral Lewis Strauss…chose…to quote Dr. William Neuman…cautiously warning against continued [nuclear] testing: "Our ignorance in this field is so great that we cannot say with any certainty that we have not already put so much strontium-90 into the stratosphere that harmful fall-out is not inevitable."²

Since nuclear testing is back in the news³, this quotation is accidentally topical, but what does it mean? Boller calls it a "triple-negatively worded statement", but I'm not sure how he arrived at the number three, since I count four negations, highlighted above: "-not" on the end of "cannot", "not", "not" again, and "in-" on the front of "inevitable". Given its complex structure and many negations, Neuman's statement is difficult to understand. Boller goes on to say that Neuman was "suggesting danger from nuclear tests", but is that right?

If you'd like to have a go at untangling Neuman's statement, stop here and do so. Click on the button below to see my analysis.

Untangle the Nots

---

Notes:

1. ↑ Previous entries in this series:
   • Untie the Nots, 1/22/2005
   • Untie the Nots, Part 2, 2/1/2005
   • Untie the Nots, Part 3, 2/1/2010
   • Untie the Nots, Part 4, 3/2/2010
   • Untie the Nots, Part 5, 2/11/2013
   • Untie the Nots, Part 6, 10/1/2013
   • Can You Untie the Nots?, 3/24/2016
   • Untying the Nots, 11/14/2022
2. ↑ Paul F. Boller, Jr., Quotemanship: The Use and Abuse of Quotations for Polemical and Other Purposes (1967), p. 44.
3. ↑ Hollie Silverman, "Donald Trump Orders Nuclear Weapons Testing: What To Know", Newsweek, 10/31/2025.
4. ↑ "Radionuclide Basics: Strontium-90", Environmental Protection Agency, 2/6/2025.
5. ↑ "Evitable", Cambridge Dictionary, accessed: 11/21/2025.
6. ↑ At least if the oven is on at a temperature appropriate for cooking turkeys.

---

November 13th, 2025 (Revised: 11/15/2025) (Permalink)

How to Lie With Notes 2¹: Latin Abbreviations

Recent codifiers of scholarly usage tend to prefer repeating the short title² to any use of the Latin abbreviations, and indeed there are indications that the whole apparatus is being simplified as well as Anglicized. But since thousands of books use the older systems dating back as far as the seventeenth century, it behooves the researcher to learn the classic symbols and usages.³

While not as common as they once were, abbreviations of Latin words and phrases still occur in the notes to some scholarly works. Moreover, such notes are ubiquitous in works from previous centuries. In order to detect misleading notes, you have to first understand what the notes mean.

Why Latin? For the same reason that people still wear those silly black robes and square hats during a graduation ceremony: tradition. No one now wears a gown and mortarboard outside of graduation, but in the middle ages it was standard scholarly attire⁴. To don this garb at graduation is to announce that you are now a scholar who is a part of a tradition stretching back many centuries to a time when people dressed funny⁵.

Latin used to be the language of scholarship, so that scholars who spoke different native languages could communicate in a common scholarly tongue. Today, that language is no longer Latin, but English, which is one reason why Latin in notes is diminishing if not disappearing entirely.

Why are the Latin words and phrases used in notes abbreviated? It's not to make them more mysterious, though it may have that effect, but to make them more compact so as to take up less space at the foot of the page―endnotes can afford to be more expansive. For the same reason, footnotes are often printed in a smaller font than the text, which can make them difficult to read. In notes, space is precious.

Here are the most common abbreviations, not in alphabetical order but roughly in frequency of occurrence and importance to understand:

• Ibid.: This is the most common Latin abbreviation you are likely to come across in notes to works with any scholarly pretension. "Ibid." is short for "ibidem", an adverb that means "in the same place" or "at the same time"⁶. Its literal meaning helps a little to understand but doesn't fully explain how it's used in notes. When "ibid." occurs in a note, it refers back to the previous note, so that an entire citation doesn't need to be repeated⁷. If the reference is to the same page or pages as the previous note, then "ibid." alone can do the job. For instance, footnote 9 of chapter 3 in The Modern Researcher is simply "Ibid."⁸ The previous footnote on the same page reads:

  ⁸ Quoted in W. K. Hancock, Country and Calling, London, 1954, 95.⁹

  This says that the quote in the text on the same page that is followed by a superscript "8" is from page 95 of the book Country and Calling by W. K. Hancock, which was published in London in 1954. So, the subsequent quote, followed by a superscript "9", is from the same page of the same book.

  The purpose of "ibid." is to save the scholar and the reader from repeating the same citation as given in the previous note, but what do you do when you want to cite a work you've already cited but not in the immediately preceding note? That's where our next abbreviation comes in:

• Op. cit.: "Op. cit." is an abbreviation of "opere citato", which means "in the work cited"¹⁰. This does the same job as "ibid." except that it jumps over the previous note. If only one work has been so far cited, or only one by the author mentioned in the noted text, then "op. cit." is used followed by the relevant page number(s). For instance, in Charles Stevenson's Ethics and Language, we find the note: "23. Op. cit., p. 268."¹¹ The note refers back to the following note from a few pages earlier:

  16. Methods of Ethics (Macmillan, 1874).…¹²

  We can tell that this is the relevant work because the author, Henry Sidgwick, is mentioned in the text in both places. If multiple authors have already been noted, then "op. cit." would need to be preceded by the author's last name in order to indicate which work is cited.

• Loc. cit.: "Loc. cit." is short for "loco citato", which does not mean "crazy citation" but "in the location cited"¹³. "Loc. cit." is just "op. cit." when the note refers back not only to the work cited, but to the same page(s), that is, the same "location". For instance, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has the following footnote:

  6 Albert Einstein, "Autobiographical Note," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. P. A. Schilpp (Evanston, Ill., 1949), p. 45.¹⁴

  This tells us that the quote of Einstein on the same page comes from page 45 of Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by P. A. Schilpp, and published in Evanston, Illinois in 1949. Several pages later, we see the note:

  14 Einstein, loc. cit.¹⁵

  This indicates that the claim followed by a superscript "14" on the same page comes from the same book and page as the previously cited quote from Einstein.

  Robert J. Gula wrote forty-five years ago about "loc. cit." that: "This abbreviation used to be used in footnotes but has recently been replaced by ibid., or by the author's last name followed by the first words of the title [that is, the "short title"]."¹⁶ As mentioned above, "op. cit." is sometimes used this way, so "loc. cit." can be dispensed with, but you still may come across it, especially in older works such as Kuhn's.

• pass.: "Pass." abbreviates "passim", which is often spelled out in full, and means "here and there".¹⁷ It refers to a reference that occurs "here and there" or scattered throughout the work cited, and is used when there are too many pages to cite individually. For instance, another note of Stevenson's reads in part:

  30. … An instructive study of metaphor has been made by I. A. Richards,… Interpretation in Teaching (Harcourt, Brace, 1938), passim. … ¹⁸

  This means that the "instructive study of metaphor" is found here and there throughout the book cited.

• cf.: This abbreviates the Latin word "confer", which means "compare"¹⁹, and it's occasionally found in notes preceding a citation to a work that the writer suggests be compared with the claim noted. Stevenson makes frequent use of it in footnotes²⁰.
• f. & ff.: A single "f." abbreviates the Latin word "folio" for a page or leaf in a book²¹. Instead of writing, say, "pp. 123-124", "pp. 123f." means the same thing, that is, "page 123 and the following page". The double "f" in "ff." is like the double "p" in "pp.", that is, it means "pages following", so that "pp. 32ff." means "page 32 and the pages following". The double "f" indicates at least two pages following, but it could be more.
• idem: "Idem", sometimes abbreviated "id.", means "the same"²² and is used to avoid repeating a name, title, or reference from the preceding note. As a result, "idem" can be used in the same way as "ibidem", above, and Stevenson seems to use it exclusively instead of "ibid."²³.

Those are the most common Latin abbreviations used in notes that don't also occur in the text itself, or in other contexts. In the next installment, we'll anatomize the structure of a citation.

---

Notes:

1. ↑ Part one is here: How to Lie With Notes: Introduction, 10/23/2025.
2. ↑ By the "short title", Barzun & Graff mean a shortened version of the full title of a scholarly work. For instance, they refer to Charles A. Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution by the short title "Economic Interpretation", see: Jacques Barzun & Henry F. Graff, The Modern Researcher (1977), pp. 267 & 286-287.
3. ↑ Ibid., p. 286.
4. ↑ For the history of the academic cap and gown, see: Jonathan Rapoport, "Pomp and Circumstance", Slate, 6/11/2010.
5. ↑ This is not to say that people don't dress funny nowadays.
6. ↑ Eugene Ehrlich, Amo, Amas, Amat and More: How to Use Latin to Your Own Advantage and to the Astonishment of Others (1985).
7. ↑ Barzun & Graff, loc. cit.
8. ↑ Ibid., p. 42.
9. ↑ Ibid.
10. ↑ Ehrlich, op. cit.
11. ↑ 1965, p. 223.
12. ↑ Ibid., p. 219.
13. ↑ Ehrlich, op. cit.
14. ↑ 3rd edition, 1996, p. 83.
15. ↑ Ibid., p. 89.
16. ↑ Robert J. Gula, Precision: A Reference Handbook for Writers (1980), p. 250.
17. ↑ Jon R. Stone, Latin for the Illiterati (1996).
18. ↑ Op. cit., p. 76.
19. ↑ Stone, op. cit., p. 21.
20. ↑ Op. cit., passim.
21. ↑ Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, edited by Ivor H. Evans (Centenary edition, 1981).
22. ↑ Ehrlich, op. cit.
23. ↑ Op. cit., passim.

---

Previous Entry