Home

THE KEY TO ACADEMIC ADVENTURE:

READ THE FOOTNOTES

© Copyright Irving Hexham 1992, 1999

WHY "BORING" FOOTNOTES ARE EXCITING

Ordinary books don't have footnotes or other forms of references. Academic books do. The importance of references is that they allow the reader to check the accuracy of what is written by revealing the author's sources. You need to learn to pay particular attention to references because they tell you more about an author than almost anything else.

Clearly, the amount of time needed check a reference means that one cannot check the sources in every book you read. But, it is possible to carry out random checks of several references in key texts. In this way one develops the habit of critically examining an author's work.

You will soon learns that some authors are scrupulously reliable while others take liberties with their sources and essentially mislead their readers. Unfortunately, many educated people think that if a book contains footnotes it must be trustworthy, just as the uneducated often think that if something is in print it is true. But, this is not the case. It is important to realize that footnotes can mislead as well as inform because they add an element of authority to a text.

Denying the Holocaust

Suppose for example I write a history of the Second World War in which I try to argue, like the English historian David Irving, that Hitler was a kind hearted man who has been badly misunderstood. It is very easy to find evidence that, in fact, Hitler loved children and dogs. So I can begin my argument using reliable reports about how kind he could be to people he liked. The problem is, apart from the Second World War itself, that I must deal with he Holocaust and the Nazi treatment of the Jews.

One way of overcoming this problem would be to argue that Hitler's actions have been misunderstood and that the Jews presented a real threat to Germany. In other words the I could argue that Jews were a fifth column in German society determined to undermine its economic recovery and ability to defend itself from its enemies.

Therefore, instead of seeing the Jews as innocent victims I try to portray them as traitors working against the German people. To prove my point I argue that as a group the Jews were led by a small band of international financiers who controlled the Germany economy. These people, I tell you, profited by provoking the First World War and later the defeat of Germany and the inflation and Great Depression which followed [Rosenberg 1930:167-178; Mosse 1981:297-298]. I then add that the Jews controlled the German press during the 1920's. This, I tell you, give them power to dictate political and economic policy leading to the inflation of the 1920's and eventually the Great Depression [Mann 1985:699].

Now before you get too angry with this argument look carefully at what I have done. First, I made some outrageous statements about Jews. But, more importantly, I backed up what I said with academic style references. Have a good look at them.

The first reference is to the writings of two authors with Jewish sounding names. Should you check them further you will find that Alfred Rosenberg did say that sort of thing I report. And he meant it, because what I did not tell you is that Rosenberg was not a Jew but a Balt who became the leading theorist of the Nazi party.

The second author, George Mosse, is Jewish, and he did say the things I report. But, in his case he was simply repeating what Rosenberg and other Nazi propagandists said in their propaganda. He does not agree with these sentiments although he does reproduce them in his book for the purpose of refuting them.

Finally, Golo Mann admits that there were many Jewish journalists in the Weimar Republic. Yet, if you look up the original you will find that he is discussing Nazi purges of the press and that he does not say the things about inflation and the Great Depression which I claimed he said. In fact he totally rejects such a view.

 

The danger of sounding academic

These instances have been given to show that it is possible to say many things which are false and deliberately misleading while sounding academic. It is also possible to provide references that look convincing when they are actually false.

Of course, my examples are made up to alert you to the problem. If, however, you were to read a book published by so-called Holocaust Revisionists, who deny the Holocaust, you will find many examples of apparent scholarship that is equally misleading because it is based on the misuse of references.

Thus, even though the argument I made about Hitler was my invention, you can find identical arguments in the growing body of literature discussed by Deborah Lipstadt in her book Denying the Holocaust [1994]. All that I did was adapt some of the arguments used by so called Holocaust Revisionists to provide you with an example of how easy it is to misuse footnotes.

Holocaust deniers deliberately misuse footnotes to deceive their readers. Therefore, many students may doubt that such abuse of research can be found in the standard textbooks used in their courses. In fact, abuses are common. I estimate that between 15 and 30% of academic books contain misleading and false references.

 

The need for caution and the abuse of scholarship

Here we need to be very careful. Abuse must be distinguished from simply carelessness. At one time or another, everyone makes a mistake. Therefore, while the odd mistake is lamentable it should not be taken too seriously. The question is whether the misuse of a source is an isolated incident or part of a systematic pattern of misinterpretation.

If it can be shown that normally the scholar concerned treats evidence in a reliable manner then there is no need to worry. But, if she or he repeatedly misquotes sources then we need to pay attention.

By abuse I mean the systematic misuse of references for ideological or other reasons. For example some people are so keen to prove a pet theory that they deliberately distort the clear meaning of the evidence they cite. When such distortion is done in a systematic manner so that more than 10% of the references cited are misused then we may speak about the abuse of scholarship.

In the previous example the fact that our imaginary scholar was deliberately distorting the truth and manufacturing evidence ought to have been obvious. Indeed, some people were probably very annoyed when they first read what I wrote. Therefore, the chance of people being misled by these types of statement is small. In other, less controversial, fields the same natural checks are not in place and many writers actually get away with equally great misrepresentations.

 

Some real examples

So far we have discusses theoretical examples of bad scholarship. Therefore, you may be tempted to wonder if this sort of abuse really occurs in real life. The answer is that it does. Even some very good authors make big mistakes when they write their books. The following examples are taken from the works of some excellent scholars who have made real contributions to their respective fields. The intention in citing them is to prove that even the best scholars at excellent universities make mistakes as a result of their commitment to theories which distort the facts.

They can, therefore, be faulted for their lack of academic rigor, flawed methods, and general sloppiness. Having said this it must be recognized that because a scholar may make a mistake in one place, it does not mean that all they do is bad. Each work must be tested and, as far as possible, each claim subjected to rigorous analysis. In practice, of course, most students simply don't have the time to check every statement in all the books they read. But, if you make a habit of checking at least some of the footnotes in your books you will be surprised how many mistakes and examples of poor scholarship you will uncover. Checking sources will enhance your essays, impress your professors, and, if everyone does it, help keep the academic profession honest.

 

Trashing missionaries

Jean and John Comaroff's Of REVELATION and REVOLUTION: Christianity, Colonialism and Consciousness in South Africa. Volume One provides a good example of talented scholars who apparently do not realize when they are misusing historical evidence. The book is a study of Christian missions among the Tswana in the nineteenth century Southern Africa. Here the motivation for their mistakes appears to be cleverness and the desire to demonstrate academic prowess. But, the cost they pay for their brilliant theorizing is the misuse of footnotes. Whether this is due to carelessness or to the fact that they are anthropologists writing history is hard to judge. And despite these criticisms this is a dynamic literary work that is provocative and extensively researched.

The book is intended as "a study of the colonization of consciousness and the consciousness of colonization in South Africa" [Comaroff and Comaroff 1991:xi]. As such it is an ambitious attempt to write a new type of "historical anthropology of cultural confrontation-of domination and reaction, struggle and innovation" which relativizes western sensibilities.

The strength of the book, its sophisticated literary style and use of literary theory, is paradoxically its greatest weakness. The issue becomes one of literary license that extends throughout the book. Consider the Comaroff's discussion of missionary descriptions of the South African landscape. The Comaroff's write:

The stylized narratives of these overland travels reveal an important dimension of the evangelical enterprise … The journey, retold in the indicative mood, framed the encounter, stressing the unreconstructed savagery of the land and its inhabitants" [Comaroff and Comaroff 1991:173].

Having prepared their readers for what follows they begin to examine missionary descriptions of the Karoo. This examination is prefaced with the comment:

Notwithstanding, its dryness in comparison to England, the country through which the missionaries passed was hardly a desert, a century later, in fact … Charles Ray, was to remark that even its thirstiest parts, the Kalahari, were 'misnamed Desert' [Comaroff and Comaroff 1991:174]

With this point established they add:

Its extreme lack of fertility to the eyes of the evangelists was a metaphor made matter-of-fact … But it also evoked the long-standing symbolic contrasts between church-as-garden and world-as-wilderness… [Ibid.]

To prove their theory about the missionaries writing trope the Comaroff's provide the readers with the following quotation from the writing's of David Livingstone's father-in-law Robert Mofatt:

The Karoo country, which is the back ground of the colony, is … a parched and arid plain, stretching out to such an extent that the vast hills by which it is terminated, or rather which divide it from to her plains, are lost in the distance. The beds of numberless little rivers (in which water is rarely to be found) cross like veins in a thousand directions this enormous space … Excepting these,...[n]owhere appear any signs of life, nor point on which the eye can dwell with pleasure. The compass of human sight is too small to take in the circumference of the whole-the soul must rest on the horrors of the wide spread desert.[Comaroff and Comaroff 1991:175]

To ensure that the reader has got the point they then add:

This was a desert, in short, because it lacked definition, disconcerting because it defied surveillance.

All of this is very convincing until one reads Moffat's actual words and inserts the missing words that were represented by the dots. These words have been added in italics to Moffat's complete sentence which now reads:

The Karoo country, which is the back ground of the colony, is as Lichtenstein correctly describes it, a parched and arid plain, stretching out to such an extent that the vast hills by which it is terminated, or rather which divide it from other plains, are lost in the distance. The beds of numberless little rivers (in which water is rarely to be found) cross like veins in a thousand directions this enormous space. The course of them might in some places be clearly distinguished by the dark green of the mimosas spreading along their banks. Excepting these, as far as the eye can reach, no tree or shrub is visible. Nowhere appear any signs of life, nor point on which the eye can dwell with pleasure. The compass of human sight is too small to take in the circumference of the whole-the soul must rest on the horrors of the wide spread desert

[Moffat 1842:17. Italics mine]

Then, after a few more descriptive comments, Moffat explains:

It is rare that rains to any extent or quantity fall in those regions. Extreme droughts continue for years together. The fountains are exceedingly few, precarious, and latterly many of these have been dried up altogether [Moffat 1842:17-18].

In other word, as Moffat makes clear in his later passage, that he was traveling through the Karoo after a particularly severe drought. His description, no doubt, has literary overtones, but it is essentially descriptive of the Karoo as he saw it. This fact is ignored by the Comaroffs who delete key passages from Moffat's account to make his words fit their theory.

In particular they remove the reference to Lichtenstein who was a German traveler not a missionary. Thus they ignore both Moffat's own explanation of what he saw and Lichtenstein's independent testimony about the nature of the landscape.

Later the Comaroffs say that missionaries were "obsessed" with the activities of African rainmakers. Once again, they fail to provide the context for the attitude of the missionaries. In fact, Moffat and his companions objected to rainmaking because the rituals involved the murder of small children. But, the Comaroff's are so busy pointing out the narrow mindedness of the missionaries that they merely mention in passing, without even seeming to realize the import of their statement, that Tswana ritual medicine contained "bodily parts" [Comaroff and Comaroff 1991:212]. Willoughby, one of the sources they use to build their argument against the missionaries points out that traditionally rainmaking involved ritual murder. But, the Comaroff's completely overlook this comment and offer no explanation for the source of the body parts which they say were used in these ritual [Cf. Comaroff and Comaforff 1991:158, 212; and Willoughby 1928:211-212].

Recognizing that the use of body parts involved ritual murder of young children puts the rejection of rainmaking rituals by the missionaries in a completely different light. The Comaroff's claim that rainmaking was rejected because of the missionaries embraced a Biblicist ideology which caused them to think in terms of Satan and human evil. Perhaps missionaries did think in these terms. But, to claim that this was the only reason that they opposed such practices overlooks the reality of murder?

Abusing dead white males

If the Comaroffs' enthusiasm for literary theory causes them to be careless in their use of footnotes the badmouthing of nineteenth century Europeans by Michael Adas is even worse. His Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance [Adas 1989] can only be described as mischievous even though the thesis of the book is highly stimulating and one with which it is difficult to disagree. For example Adas writes:

Elspeth Huxley describes similar African reactions to such commonplace objects as matches, wheels, and oil lamps. She puzzled over the fact that these devices made a greater impression on the "ignorant" and "backward" peoples of Kenya than did such modern marvels as airplanes and radios. [Adas 1989:160]

What Huxley actually says is:

Although we were astonished at their ignorance even of lamps, ... It was the very inventions that to us appeared so obvious and simple, like lamps and matches and wheels, and putting water in pipes, that struck these people with the force of wonder and amazement. Later, when Europeans displayed the inventions in which they themselves took so much pride, like aeroplanes and radios, they were often disappointed at the Africans' attitude of indifferent acceptance.

[Huxley 1959:29].

There is a very big difference between saying that someone was ignorant about something and saying the person is stupid. Nowhere in this passage does Huxley call the people "ignorant" in the sense of foolish or stupid. In fact it is her parent's servant from the coast who is said to have held the locals in "contempt" and who called them "savages" [Huxley 1959:30].

Read in context Elspeth Huxley is as critical of her own parent's ignorance of African ways as she is of African reactions to Europeans [Huxley 1959:34]. Her best "friends" are Africans and she is at pains to point out the follies and arrogance of Europeans. Thus Adas gives a completely false impression of Huxley's attitude towards Africa and Africans making her appear racist when she was not.

Similarly when speaking about India Adas invokes a passage from William Arnold's novel Oakfield; of, Fellowship in the East [Arnold 1854]. Here Adas claims:

Edward Oakfield ... remarks n the contrast between the 'mud hovels of the swarming natives' and the swiftly moving steamship on which he is traveling up the Ganges to Calcutta [Adas 1989:172-173]

First, anyone who looks at a map will see that Calcutta is on the Hooghly river not the Ganges. You simply cannot steam up the Ganges to Calcutta. Secondly, Oakfield was not on a steamship nor does not he "contrast" mud huts and steamships. What Arnold wrote is:

He saw little of Calcutta society. It was the month of April, so he was confined to the house ... and in the evening was content to saunter in the magnificent walks by the banks of the river ...new sights and sounds ... met him at every turn ... the white, flat-roofed, hundred-doored palaces of the European inhabitants; the mud hovels of the swarming natives...

[Arnold 1854:13-14].

Contrary, to what Adas argues, Aronld does not make his character Oakfield reflect on the superiority of the British over the Indians. Rather, he muses:

... while it was impossible for him [Oakfield] to fancy the power [of the British] being swept away, it was easy to look round and think of it as gone ... he felt how surely Nemesis attended upon the power which he witnessed, and had doubts whether Nemesis had been altogether satisfied [Arnold 1854:13-14].

Here the reference to Nemesis is critical. Nemesis is a Greek goddess and daughter of Nox. She is the god of vengeance. She rewards virtue and punishes wickedness and injustice. Therefore, for Adas to claim that the passage he cites indicates the arrogance of the English is simply wrong and shows that he hasn't really read his sources carefully enough. This is the type of mistake people make when they rely on speed reading and other techniques linked to a strong commitment to a preexistent theory rather than the closely examining texts which are then allowed to speak for themselves.

Saving a theory

Another example comes from the work of Jonathan Gerstner's The Thousand Generation Covenant [1991] whose style is that of traditional church history written for the specialist. As such it is a very stimulating work which forces the informed reader to think very carefully about the impact of religion on South African history. Gerstner provides his readers with a thorough examination of the development of religious life in the Netherlands during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and many helpful insights into Dutch Reformed theology. This part of his book is excellent. More importantly, for the thesis of the book, he argues that the religious ethos created in the Netherlands was exported to South Africa where it affected both religious and social attitudes on the Cape frontier.

Gerstner's project in an impressive attempt to rehabilitate in a sophisticated manner what following Andre du Toit he calls "the Calvinist Paradigm." [Hexham 1980; du Toit 1983] Gerstner writes "This work will show how Dutch Reformed theology did reach and influence the South African frontier, and argue for a link between covenantal thought and group identity" [Gerstner 1991:3 note 2]. At first sight it seems that he has succeeded in making his case. Upon closer examination, however, his argument is not as strong as it at first appears.

The following example, which could be multiplied, demonstrate the weakness of Gerstner's methods. He uses South African historian Eric Walker to support his view that the old Dutch Bible was commonly used on the South African frontier [Gerstner 1991:111]. The problem with this statement is that Walker provided no evidence whatsoever for his claim which was based on pure speculation [Walker 1938:59].

To support Walker, Gerstner tries to supply evidence for the use of the States Bible from the work of C.I. Latrobe [Gerstner 1991:111 note 9]. When read in context, however, this is precisely what cannot be done. In introducing a family which he found with a Bible Latrobe clearly states "their friendliness and hospitality was rendered the more conspicuous and gratifying, in contrast with the savage conduct of those we had left ..." [Latrobe 1818, 1969:253]. Clearly he was not impressed by the state of religion on the frontier and saw the family with the Bible were an exemplary exception.

Another example of Gerstner's poor use of sources in this particular part of his work is found when he writes tries to argue that Latrobe found another family who used a small edition of the Bible regularly [Gerstner 1991:112: note 12]. Once again this is not what Latrobe says. Writing about the small Bible Latrobe found in the house he states that it was an edition which included long introductory notes of which:

some of the family had torn out the greater part, both of their first and last leaves, and had not yet reached either Genesis or the Revelations, the latter being defended by the translation of Josephus's account of the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus by a timely remonstrance, I hope the bible itself, had been saved [Latrobe 1918, 1969:89]

In other words the book was in a side room where it was being gradually torn up. Although it was being used, as scrap paper, there is no suggestion that it was being read or that the family valued it. Indeed, Latrobe's "timely remonstrance" indicates quite the opposite.

A different type of confusion arises when Gerstner fails to inform his reader about the geographic setting of his evidence. Thus he says catechetical and other works were found on the frontier. To prove this he cites Percival who recorded that the only real task of a female slave was to carry her mistress's prayer book [Gerstenr 1991:155]. Anyone reading, this without checking the original, is bound to gain the impression that Percival is speaking about frontier regions. In fact he is discussing Cape Town. Nobody denies that in Cape Town the church played an important social role. What needs to be shown is that this role carried over into frontier regions.

Gerstner also projects later attitudes backwards in time. As a result he can claim that two Dutch divines, Brakel and Hellenbroek, were frequently cited in nineteenth century correspondence to church newspapers. Having made an interesting point he then goes on to claim that we can assume that if such papers had existed in the eighteenth century we would have found similar references [Gerstner 1991:156]. Actually there is every reason to doubt this when it is seen that Gerstner's footnotes apply to the 1850's and not earlier. It should also be noted that even for the mid-nineteenth century the evidence is very fragmentary and by no means certain.

The biggest flaw in Gerstner's book, however, is his almost complete lack of archival sources dealing with South Africa. Out of 811 footnotes only 14 deal with true archival sources and some of these are either doubtful or so vague as to be useless. Nevertheless, his failure to use archival evidence is not evident because many of his footnotes read as though they use archival material when in fact they do not. For example on page 31 note 5 reads "Minutes of the Stellenbosch Church Council, August 6, 1769..." The careless reader can easily take this as a reference to an original document. Actually the note continues "...in Spoelstra, 2:398-99." This means Gerstner did not use the Cape Archives himself but rather depended on a selection of documents published by C. Spoelstra in 1906 [Spoelstra 1906].

The problem with this is that Spoelstra, who was highly selective, published his documents to keep alive a sense of Boer identity, based on Calvinism, following the defeat of the Second Anglo-Boer War [Spoelstra 1915]. In other words one of Gerstner's main sources for his defense of the Calvinist Paradigm are edited versions of papers found in two volumes of selected documents published by an originator of the Calvinist Paradigm for propaganda purposes [Spoelstra 1915]. Such a mistake is very easy to make. But it is like using Hitler's Mein Kampf as a source for German-Jewish history. It is weak history which seriously detracts from Gerstner's many excellent and highly informative insights into Dutch Reformed theology and popular piety.

Like the Comaroffs, Gerstner has written an exciting and highly suggestive book, based on extensive research, which makes a real contribution to the discipline. Nevertheless, all three authors make some very big mistakes. Further both works originated at the University of Chicago, which is an excellent university, proving that the fact a book or thesis was written at a good university or published by a well known academic press is no guarantee that a careful reader cannot find big flaws in the argument.

The demands of scholarship

Scholarship demands that claims and sources are continually checked. Of course, no one can check the sources of every book they read. But, it is possible to examine footnotes and to carry out random checks to see if an author is using or misusing their sources. Only if this is done can we be sure that what we read is reliable.

All the above examples are taken from books that have considerable merit. None of them are entirely bad books nor are their authors poor scholars in fact all books contain many valuable insights. But, in these and similar instances the authors did engage in poor scholarship which detracts from the good things they have to offer the reader.

This show that it is relatively easy to find faults with works of scholarship provided references are carefully checked. Far too many authors are slipshod in their use of their sources. But, what is really disturbing is that most academic reviewers never comment on such problems. It is the task of academics and students to check sources and to draw attention to their misuse. Otherwise the whole academic enterprise collapses into the writing of fiction.

Does it really matter?

Many students react to the discussion of citations with a shrug and the questions "what does it matter? Why should anyone get excited just because an author is careless or uses misleading quotations?" The answer to this question is that poor or deliberately misleading citations undermine the entire academic project. Mistakes in one boom may not seem important. But, when those mistakes are taken up and reproduced by other authors our understanding of an entire field can be distorted. A good example of the havoc caused by poor citation is found in Edward Rosen's article "Calvin's Attitude Toward Copernicus" [Rosen 1960:431-441, cf. Ratner and Rosen 1961:382-389]. Rosen begins by drawing attention to Bertrand Russell's remark that "Calvin similarly, demolished Copernicus with the text: 'The world also is established, that it cannot be moved' (Psa. Xciii.I), and exclaimed: 'Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above the Holy Spirit?'" [Russell 1962:515; cf. Rosen 1960:431]. The problem, Rosen points out, is that Russell provides no citation for this remark. But, in another book he uses the same argument which he attributes to Andrew Dickenson White, the first president of Cornell University, in his book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology [White 1955; cf. Russell 1935:23; Rosen 1960:432]. When the reader checks White, however, he or she quickly discovers that White himself fails to provide a reference to Calvin's works. Instead, he cites the preface of Canon Frederic William Farrar's (1831-1903) History of Interpretation [White 1955:127-128 note; cf. Farrar 1886:xviii, cited by Rosen 1960:435]. When Farrar is consulted we again find that he provides no reference for his citation. At this point Rosen argues that in fact there are no references to Copernicus in any of Calvin's works. He then cites Farrar's son, who wrote: In judging Farrar's work … it must not be forgotten that there are two orders of scholars, the 'intensive' and the 'extensive' … it was to this latter class that my father belonged. [Farrar 1904:193, cited by Rosen 1960:434] Explaining what he means he adds "expression was easy to him … Quotation with him was entirely spontaneous …" [Farrar 1904:193, cited by Rosen 1960:434]. This means that Farrar cited from memory and not from exact references. But, memory can be misleading as Farrar himself realized when he wrote: In a work which covers such vast periods of time and which involves so many hundreds of references it would b absurd to suppose that I have excepted from errors ... [Farrar 1886:xxix, cited by Rosen 1960:435]. In other words Farrar admitted that his practice of citing from memory could lead to the type of false attribution we find in his Calvin quote [Rosen 1960:431]. From this example by one careless scholar we see how an idea which has a certain immediate appeal because it supports certain prejudices easily becomes an accepted truth. The fact is that many people dislike Calvin. Therefore, it is easy for them to accept that he made the type of statement attributed to him by Farrar. But, once accepted this distortion of the truth becomes general knowledge and an accepted fact. It is unlikely that Calvin's views on Copernicus seriously affect our daily lives. But, when similar mistakes are made in books which influence legal and political decisions the impact of such falsehoods can be very important for society as a whole. For this reason, and because as scholars we are obliged to seek the truth, poor citation must be exposed and the highest standards insisted upon by the reader otherwise the lies of holocaust deniers will soon become accepted truth.

References:

Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press, 1989

William Arnold, Oakfield; or, Fellowship in the East, London : Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1854

Jean and John Comaroff, Of REVELATION and REVOLUTION: Christianity, Colonialism and Consciousness in South Africa. Volume One, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 1991

Andre Du Toit, "No Chosen People: The Myth of the Calvinist Origins of Afrikaner Nationalism and Racial Ideology", American Historical Review, Vol. 88, October, 1983, pp. 920-952

Canon Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation, 1886, cited in Rosen 1960

Jonathan Gerstner, The Thousand Generation Covenant, Leiden, New York, Koebenhavn, Köln, E.J. Brill, 1991

Irving Hexham, "Dutch Calvinism and the Development of Afrikaner Nationalism", African Affairs, Spring, 1980, pp. 195-208

Elzbeth Huxley, The Flame Trees of Thika, London, Chatto & Windus, 1959

C.I. Latrobe, Journal of a Visit to South Africa in 1815 and 1816 with Some Account of the Missionary Settlements of the United Brethren Near the Cape of Good Hope, London, L.B. Seeley, 1818, facsimile reprint Cape Town, C. Struik, 1969: 253

Golo Mann, The History of Germany Since 1789, Harmmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1985

Robert Moffat, Missionary Labours and Scenes in Southern Africa, London, John Snow, 1842

George Mosse, Nazi Culture, New York, Schocken Books, 1981, first published 1966.

Joseph Ratner, "Some Comments on Rosen's 'Calvin's Attitude Towards Copernicus," Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. XXII, No. 3, 1961, pp.382-385

Edward Rosen, "Calvin's Attitude Toward Copernicus", Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. XXI, No. 3, 1960, pp.431-441

Edward Rosen, "Relpy to Some 'Comments on Rosen's "Calvin's Attitude Towards Copernicus,"'" Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. XXII, No. 3, 1961, pp.386-388

Alfred Rosenberg, Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, München, Hoheneichen Verlag, 1935

Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, London, Oxford University Press, 1980, first published 1935

Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1962

C. Spoelstra, Boouwstoffen voor de Geschiedenis Der Nederduitsch-Gereformeerde Kerken in Zuid Africa, Amsterdam, Hollandsch-Afrikaansche Uitgevers-Maatschappij, 1906; cf. vol. 1, xl-liii.

C. Spoelstra, Het kerkelijk en godsdienstig leven der Boeren na den Grooten Trek: historsch kritisch oderzocht, Kampen, Kok, 1915.

Eric Walker, The Great Trek, Adam and Charles Black, London, 1938, p. 59

Andrew D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology, New York, George Braziller, 1955, first published 1895.

W.C. Willoughby, The Soul of the Bantu: A Sympathetic Study of the Magico-Religious Practices and Beliefs of the Bantu Tribes of Africa, London, SCM, 1928.