ENG 6009            Bibliography   for English Studies


Dr. Laura L. Runge    Office: CPR 301J/ 813-974-9496

Spring 2005    email: runge@chuma1.cas.usf.edu

LIB 620A                        Tuesday 3-5:50 PM


Feb. 15            Gibaldi, Ch. 6 and 7 appropriate Harner             

                        References: Dictionaries and Encyclopedias (inc. OED)


Presentations:  Nicole Stodard and William Anderson


Knowledge and Citation


Our reading for this week focuses on the need and methods for documenting sources.  It begins with a brief discussion of plagiarism as an ethical and moral, rather than legal, offense.  How do you distinguish plagiarism?  What is at stake in the documenting of sources in scholarship?  Consider the issue from the perspectives of a student, a professor, a researcher, and a published scholar/writer.


What is the difference between works cited and works consulted and selected bibliography?  Under what circumstances might you use each?


Pay particular attention to section 9: “Citing Electronic Publications.”  Because this is a relatively new practice, and because a tremendous shift toward online references and resources is currently taking place, knowledge of the methods of this section is becoming an increasing priority, both as researchers and as teachers of student-researchers.  What differences do electronic resources pose?   (Organization of material, stability, reliability?)  What practical problems arise from use of electronic sources?  How effective is the documentation?  What particular problems do you need to look out for?


Because it is not always clear to students, I would like you to consider when is citation appropriate or what requires citation.  In general, what is the purpose of citation?  When is parenthetical citation necessary?  What is to be included? 


What is an “indirect source,” and why should you avoid using it?  (See 7.4.7.)


What types of notes are there?  How do you determine which type to use?  What is the purpose of notes?  What do you include in your notes?  What is the difference between endnotes and footnotes?


** To aid discussion, choose a scholarly work (article, book, etc.) that presents an interesting (read “different,” “admirable,” “curious,” whatever) use of documentary notes and citation, and bring it to class.  In this case, do not bring an edition of a literary work.


Consider the two different systems of alphabetizing (see “Alphabetizing” in course documents, or consult The Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition Z253.U69 2003 in Ready Reference, section 18.56-18.60).  What are the benefits and drawbacks of each?  Why is it important to know which alphabetizing system is adopted by a reference work?






The references below demonstrate all the vagaries of our transition from print to online resources.  Some of the print matter remains in the standard reference area, but the plans are to have all of this material removed by the date of this class.  The P call numbers should be moved to the ANNEX, but if you cannot locate them, ask a reference librarian to help you.


Make sure you carefully review all the references listed through Spillers.  When you come to the encyclopedias, you can be more selective.  Look at them all, read about each in Harner, but choose one or two of particular interest to investigate more thoroughly.


(Some of the notes below are borrowed from Dr. Nancy Tyson’s course notes.)


Oxford English Dictionary: Online


This wonderful “old standard” is available online via the USF Library under databases; you can find the OED by word search or through the alphabetical listing.  Build your source notes from the internal OED Help and informational links.  Be sure to examine the Third Edition Preface under “About the OED” and familiarize yourself with the illustrious history of the dictionary, which every student of English should know.



The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature


Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature 3 ed. Vol. 4.



One new blue-bound volume, three dark green rebound volumes and two worn light green ones.  Be sure to read Harner’s commentary on the emerging third edition.


The New CBEL (so-called instead of second edition) was a revision of the original CBEL (1940-1957).  Note not only the separate coverage dates, but also the varying publication dates of each volume. 


A standard reference source of high reputation, in spite of its age, this is both a primary (words by) and a secondary (works about) bibliography.  Discover the largely sensible subject arrangement in each volume, a real asset for the scholar investigating historical or cultural background.  Caution:  Although the list of Contents is thorough, always use the Volume V index.  The individual-volume indexes are inadequate, and the works of minor authors are often scattered under various headings with no cross-referencing.


Useful in the early stages of any fairly elaborate project in British Literature.  Less useful for quick searches.


The NCBEL is one among many, and has its faults, but it is still the best comprehensive bibliography for students of British literature.  There are, of course, innumerable lesser bibliographies for both British and American literature covering various genres, periods, and major authors.  These vary widely in their scope and treatment.  You can seek out British literary bibliographies to 1979 (including separately published bibliographies and those in monographs and periodicals) in Trevor Howard Howard-Hill’s Index to British Literary Bibliography (REF/PR/83/.H68), of which USF has a nearly complete set.



Spiller’s Literary History of the United States 4th ed. Rev. ed., vol. 2



American literature is not as well served with any single comprehensive bibliography.  The best old standard, though quirky to use, is Spiller’s.  If you are seeking an American subject for your project, you can distinguish minor authors by the brevity of their entries in this work.  Browsing in the general sections of LHUS2, you will run across other interesting figures too obscure for a separate author entry, who could be rewarding subjects nonetheless.


“Each generation should produce at least one literary history of the United States, for each generation must define the past in its own terms.  A redefinition of our literary past was needed at the time of the First World War, when the Cambridge History of American Literature was produced by a group of scholars.  It is now needed again; and it will be needed still again” (viii). 


Encyclopaedia Universalis


(Includes index, “Symposium,” and yearbook vols.) 


Although it is anyone’s bet where these are now housed (I couldn’t locate the above) nearby you should find several editions in many volumes of the old standby La Grand Larousse, and several other nationalities of non-English encyclopedias, such as the following:

Enciclopedia Italiana


Revised Edition, and Supplements (1950-95)



Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- ONLINE

ANNEX: REF/B51/.R68/2000


The Encyclopedia of Religion

ANNEX: REF/BL/31/.E46/1987



Also of interest: the several encyclopedias nearby on mythology and the supernatural occult, and (equal time for):  The Encyclopedia of Unbelief in 2 vols. At ANNEX: REF/BL/2705/.E52/1985


New Catholic Encyclopedia  Second edition.

ANNEX: REF/BX/841/N44/2003


Encyclopaedia Judiaica

ANNEX: REF/DS102.8/E496-498


International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences

ANNEX:  REF/H/41/.I5


The New Grove Dictionary Music and Musicians -- ONLINE



The Dictionary of Art  -- ONLINE



Encyclopedia of World Art

ANNEX: REF/N/31/.E533


Lastly, don’t overlook two interesting sources on encyclopedias:  Joy Ryan, ed., First Stop:  The Master Index to Subject Encyclopedias (Phoenix: Oryx, 1989), ANNEX: REF/AE/1/.F57/1989; and Kister’s Best Encyclopedias, 2nd ed. (Phoenix: Oryx, 1994), ANNEX REF/AE/1/.K57/1994.  The former will show the range of coverage available for many complex issues, and the latter how many topics have their own dedicated encyclopedias.