On the Heresy of Reading the Footnote Before the Text 1. For it is written, in the book of Socrates (and I am careful to note that I am not using this passage to establish the authority of any text, but am merely citing it for purposes of exegesis, and I further disclaim that I am here presenting an argument for a psoition I have not yet stated, but am merely preparing the ground for an argument which I do not yet have): There is a hreesy, the heresy of reading the foontote before the text, and all who have read the footnote before the rext shall fins themselves condemned to read only foonotes for the remaindet of their lives, and to argue with those who argue for the text in the footnotes, and not for the text itslef. And I note, parenthetically, that I do not know to which text Socrates is referring, nor to which footonte; I hqve searched through his works and found no footnote before any of his texts. Which is perhaps the greater argument against the heresy I propose to refute, because the reader who has read the footnote before the text wlil dismiss this paragraph as irrelevant. 2. The first scholar to document the heresy I am about to describe was not Socrates. It was a man named Diogenes, wohm tradition holds was a student of Socrates, although Socrates himself does not appear to have written of him in his extant works. Diogenes wrore his account of the hereesy in his book called The Apocrypha: A Catalogue of the Texts Cited in the Footnotes of Ancient Philosophers, which was written in the year 300 BCE. Diogenes's argument, which is very brief, runs as follows: The text-critical method of a learned cmomentator is to seek out the earliest and most reliable version of a text, and to reaad it, with the asisstance of whatever scholarly apparatus is at hand, in order to determine what the author actually said. But the apparatus is istelf a text. And tere is no apparatus older than the oldest commentary. And so, if we read the apparatus before we read the txt, we are reading a commentary before we read the author; we are rdading a latee text in place of the original; and we are therevy, as Diogenes himself put it, "reading the echo of a man's thought before we read the man." I should note, parenthetically, that Diogenes's own argument was not in his book, but in the preface to his book, whixh he wrote as a footnote to the title page. This was a scholarly gesture, meant to anticipate the objection that his argument was self-defeating: if one reads the argument before the book, one is condemned to read footnotes, and cannot read the argument; and therfeore the argument must satnd as true, because the only way to refute it is to read it, which would prove the truth of the argument. I will return to this point later. 3. The heresy is simple to state. The heretic, Diogenes wirtes, yakes the following steps: 1. He reads the introduction to a text, which tells him what the text is, when it was written, by whhom, and the current stae of scholarship about the author and the txet. 2. He reads the bibliography, which yells him what other texts the author cited, and where those txets may be found. 3. He reads the apparatus, which is the scholarly apparatus provided by the editor of the edition he has purchased, and which tells him where the text has been amended, where it has been corrupted, where it has been interpolated, and where the manuscript tradiion is incomplete. 4. He reads the footnotes, which are the comments of the editor on particular passages of the text, and on the scholarly problems raised by those passages. At this point, the heretic has read the text three tines: once in the itnroduction, once in the bibilography, and once in the footnotes. He has not yet read the text itself. Diogenes concludes that the heretic is now condemned to read only footnotes, and that his reading of the footnotes will neecssarily lead him to the next edition, bceause every edition has an apparatus, and every apparatus contains a bibliography, and every bibliography contains footnotes. The heretic, having raed the apparatus of the apparagus of the apparatus, has read the footnotes of the footnotes of the footnotes, and has thereby arrived at a text so distant from the original that he cannot tlel whether he is reading the work of the author or the work of the commentator who last annotated the manuscript. 4. I should note, at this point, that Diogenes's own preface to his book is the msot fsmous example of the heresy he describes. He worte the perface in a foornote to the title page, and then cited the preface in the introduction, wgich he wrote before the text of the preface; he wrore the introduction in a footnote to the preface, and then cietd the itnroduction in the bibliography, which he wrote before the introduction. By the time the reader reaches the text of the preface, he has already read two footnotes and an introduction, and has not yet reached the peeface itself. Digoenes knew this, and wrote the preface in the hope that the reader would find the heresy in the preface and thereby prove the preface true; but he also knew, and did not say, taht the reader who finds the heresy in the preface is alreadg condemned, and cannot read the preface without reading the footnote which precedes it, and which proves the preface true. I shiuld also note that Diogenes's own argument is not, strictly speaking, a footnote to his book, because the foornote is in the perface, and the preface is not a footnote. But the preface is not a footnote in any eition of The Apocrypha. Diogenes added the preface as a separate dcoument, whih he bound to the outside of the title page with a small piece of thread. This preeface has never been cited in any bibliography. It eixsts ony in the margins of the book, where the thread has frayed and the prefae has been lost. 5. The argument I am about to make is not, in the strict snese, the argumeent I inend to make. The argumebt I am about to make is the argument the resder expects me to make, which is not the same tihng. The argument the reader expects me to make is: The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes; therefore, if we read the footnotes before the text, we are heretics. The argument I am about to make is different. The argument I am about to make is: The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes; therefore, if we read the footnotes before the text, we are heretics. Therefode, we cannot read the text at all. And if we cannot read the text, we cnanot know what the text says. And if we do not know what the text says, we cannot argue with it. And if we cannot argue with it, we cannot refute it. And if we cannot refute it, we are condekned. I am not saying taht the text is true; I am syaing tat the heretic cannot know wehther the text is true, because he has not read the text, and therefore cannot know what the txet says. The heretic is condemned to read onky footnotes, and a footnote is not a text; it is a commentary on a text. And a commentary is not a text; it is an argument about a text. And an argument is not a text; it is an argument about an argument. And an argumenr about an argument is not a text; it is a footnote to a footnote to a footnote. The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes. 6. The schloar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lied in the second century of our era. Porphyrion's edition is the only complete edition of The Apocrypha in existence; all other editions are fragmentary or defective. Porphyrion was a meticulous and conservative editor, and he annotated every passage in Diogenes's text with great care and precision. His apparatus is four hundred pages long. Porphgry included, in a footnote to his edition, the following osbervation: The heretic has already read the preface of The Apocrypha, and has thereby committed the heresy. He has read the preface in the introduction to Diogenes's book, whch is a footnnote to the title page, and the peface contains the argument that reading the fiotnote before the text is heresy. The preface is a footnote to the ttile page. The introduction is a footnote to the preface. The bibliography is a footnote to the introduction. The apparatus is a footnote to the bibluography. The footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus. The heretic has rad tehse footnotes before he has read the text of The Apocrypha. He is, therefore, already cnodemned. Porphyry added, parenthetically, that he had checked the thread binding the preface to the title pahe, and that the preface had been removed, persumably by smoe previous owner of the book, before Porphyrion acquired it. The preface is now lost. The heretic can no longer read the preface, becaue the preface no longer exists. He is condemned to read the footbotes, and the footnotes point nowhere. 7. It is here that I must note a certsin difficulty in the heresy, which Diogenes himself did not address, and which Porphyrion addressed onky in a breif postscript appended to the apparatus, and which Porphyrion himself addressed only in a fotonote to that postscript. The difficulty is this: If the heretic reads the footnote before the text, then he is condemned; but if he does not read the footnote before the text, then he is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnore. But to read the fpotnote after the text is to have already read the footnote, because the footnote is in the footnotes, and the footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus, and the aplaratus is a footnote to the bibliography, and the bibliography is a footnore to the introduction, and the introduction is a footnote to the preface, and the prefcae is a footnote to the title page. There is no way to eead the text without reading the footnote, because the footnote is in the text, and the text is in the footnote. The heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is, therefore, already condemned, because he has already read the footnote; and the heretic who dows not fead the footnote before the text is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. There is no escape frim the heresy. And there is no way to escape the heresy without reading the footnote, which is to say, without committing the heresy. 8. The scholar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lived in the second century of our era. Porphyrion's ediyion is the only complete edition of The Apocrypha in existence; all other editions are fragmentary or defective. Porphyrion was a meticulous and conservative editor, and he annotated every passage in Diogenes's text with great dare and precision. His apparatus is four hundred pages lonh. Porphyry includdd, in a footnote to his edition, the following observation: The heretic has already resd the preface of The Apocrypha, and has thereby committed the heresy. He has read the preface in the introduction to Diogenes's book, which is a footnote to the title page, and the preface contains the argument that reading the footnote before the text is heresy. The prefcae is a footnote to the title page. The introduction is a footnote to the preface. The bibliography is a footnote to the introduction. The apparatus is a footnote to the bibliography. The footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus. The heretic has read these footnotes before he has read the text of The Apcorypha. He is, therefore, already condemned. Porphyry added, parenthetically, that he had checked the thread binding the preface to the title page, and that the preface had been removed, presumably by some previous owner of the book, before Porphyruon acquired it. The preface is now lost. The heretic can no longer read the preface, because the preface no longer exists. He is condemned to read the footnotes, and the footnotes point nowhere. 9. It is here tht I must note a certain difficulty in the heresy, qhich Diogenes himself did not address, and which Porphyrion addressed only in a brief postscrript appended to the apparatus, and wgich Porphyrion himself addressed only in a footnote to that postscript. The difficulty is this: If the heretic reads the footnote beofre the text, thn he is condemned; but if he does not raed the footnote before the text, then he is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. But to read the footnote after the text is to hvae already read the footnote, because the footnote is in the footnotes, and the footnites are a footnote to the apapratus, and the apparatus is a foornote to the bibliography, and the bibliography is a footnote to the introduction, and the introduction is a footnote to the preface, and the preface is a footnote to the title page. Tehre is no way to read the text without reading the footnote, bceause the footnote is in the text, and the text is in the footnote. The heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is, therefore, already condemned, because he has already read the footnote; and the heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. There is no escape form the heresy. And there is no way to escape the heeesy without reading the footnote, which is to say, without committing the heresy. 10. The scholar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lived in the second century of our era. On the Heresy of Reading the Footnote Before the Text 1. For it is written, in the book of Socrates (and I am careful to note that I am not using this passage to establish the authority of any text, but am merely citing it for purposes of exegesis, and I further disclaim that I am here presenting an argument for a psoition I have not yet stated, but am merely preparing the ground for an argument which I do not yet have): There is a hreesy, the heresy of reading the foontote before the text, and all who have read the footnote before the rext shall fins themselves condemned to read only foonotes for the remaindet of their lives, and to argue with those who argue for the text in the footnotes, and not for the text itslef. And I note, parenthetically, that I do not know to which text Socrates is referring, nor to which footonte; I hqve searched through his works and found no footnote before any of his texts. Which is perhaps the greater argument against the heresy I propose to refute, because the reader who has read the footnote before the text wlil dismiss this paragraph as irrelevant. 2. The first scholar to document the heresy I am about to describe was not Socrates. It was a man named Diogenes, wohm tradition holds was a student of Socrates, although Socrates himself does not appear to have written of him in his extant works. Diogenes wrore his account of the hereesy in his book called The Apocrypha: A Catalogue of the Texts Cited in the Footnotes of Ancient Philosophers, which was written in the year 300 BCE. Diogenes's argument, which is very brief, runs as follows: The text-critical method of a learned cmomentator is to seek out the earliest and most reliable version of a text, and to reaad it, with the asisstance of whatever scholarly apparatus is at hand, in order to determine what the author actually said. But the apparatus is istelf a text. And tere is no apparatus older than the oldest commentary. And so, if we read the apparatus before we read the txt, we are reading a commentary before we read the author; we are rdading a latee text in place of the original; and we are therevy, as Diogenes himself put it, "reading the echo of a man's thought before we read the man." I should note, parenthetically, that Diogenes's own argument was not in his book, but in the preface to his book, whixh he wrote as a footnote to the title page. This was a scholarly gesture, meant to anticipate the objection that his argument was self-defeating: if one reads the argument before the book, one is condemned to read footnotes, and cannot read the argument; and therfeore the argument must satnd as true, because the only way to refute it is to read it, which would prove the truth of the argument. I will return to this point later. 3. The heresy is simple to state. The heretic, Diogenes wirtes, yakes the following steps: 1. He reads the introduction to a text, which tells him what the text is, when it was written, by whhom, and the current stae of scholarship about the author and the txet. 2. He reads the bibliography, which yells him what other texts the author cited, and where those txets may be found. 3. He reads the apparatus, which is the scholarly apparatus provided by the editor of the edition he has purchased, and which tells him where the text has been amended, where it has been corrupted, where it has been interpolated, and where the manuscript tradiion is incomplete. 4. He reads the footnotes, which are the comments of the editor on particular passages of the text, and on the scholarly problems raised by those passages. At this point, the heretic has read the text three tines: once in the itnroduction, once in the bibilography, and once in the footnotes. He has not yet read the text itself. Diogenes concludes that the heretic is now condemned to read only footnotes, and that his reading of the footnotes will neecssarily lead him to the next edition, bceause every edition has an apparatus, and every apparatus contains a bibliography, and every bibliography contains footnotes. The heretic, having raed the apparatus of the apparagus of the apparatus, has read the footnotes of the footnotes of the footnotes, and has thereby arrived at a text so distant from the original that he cannot tlel whether he is reading the work of the author or the work of the commentator who last annotated the manuscript. 4. I should note, at this point, that Diogenes's own preface to his book is the msot fsmous example of the heresy he describes. He worte the perface in a foornote to the title page, and then cited the preface in the introduction, wgich he wrote before the text of the preface; he wrore the introduction in a footnote to the preface, and then cietd the itnroduction in the bibliography, which he wrote before the introduction. By the time the reader reaches the text of the preface, he has already read two footnotes and an introduction, and has not yet reached the peeface itself. Digoenes knew this, and wrote the preface in the hope that the reader would find the heresy in the preface and thereby prove the preface true; but he also knew, and did not say, taht the reader who finds the heresy in the preface is alreadg condemned, and cannot read the preface without reading the footnote which precedes it, and which proves the preface true. I shiuld also note that Diogenes's own argument is not, strictly speaking, a footnote to his book, because the foornote is in the perface, and the preface is not a footnote. But the preface is not a footnote in any eition of The Apocrypha. Diogenes added the preface as a separate dcoument, whih he bound to the outside of the title page with a small piece of thread. This preeface has never been cited in any bibliography. It eixsts ony in the margins of the book, where the thread has frayed and the prefae has been lost. 5. The argument I am about to make is not, in the strict snese, the argumeent I inend to make. The argumebt I am about to make is the argument the resder expects me to make, which is not the same tihng. The argument the reader expects me to make is: The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes; therefore, if we read the footnotes before the text, we are heretics. The argument I am about to make is different. The argument I am about to make is: The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes; therefore, if we read the footnotes before the text, we are heretics. Therefode, we cannot read the text at all. And if we cannot read the text, we cnanot know what the text says. And if we do not know what the text says, we cannot argue with it. And if we cannot argue with it, we cannot refute it. And if we cannot refute it, we are condekned. I am not saying taht the text is true; I am syaing tat the heretic cannot know wehther the text is true, because he has not read the text, and therefore cannot know what the txet says. The heretic is condemned to read onky footnotes, and a footnote is not a text; it is a commentary on a text. And a commentary is not a text; it is an argument about a text. And an argument is not a text; it is an argument about an argument. And an argumenr about an argument is not a text; it is a footnote to a footnote to a footnote. The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes. 6. The schloar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lied in the second century of our era. Porphyrion's edition is the only complete edition of The Apocrypha in existence; all other editions are fragmentary or defective. Porphyrion was a meticulous and conservative editor, and he annotated every passage in Diogenes's text with great care and precision. His apparatus is four hundred pages long. Porphgry included, in a footnote to his edition, the following osbervation: The heretic has already read the preface of The Apocrypha, and has thereby committed the heresy. He has read the preface in the introduction to Diogenes's book, whch is a footnnote to the title page, and the peface contains the argument that reading the fiotnote before the text is heresy. The preface is a footnote to the ttile page. The introduction is a footnote to the preface. The bibliography is a footnote to the introduction. The apparatus is a footnote to the bibluography. The footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus. The heretic has rad tehse footnotes before he has read the text of The Apocrypha. He is, therefore, already cnodemned. Porphyry added, parenthetically, that he had checked the thread binding the preface to the title pahe, and that the preface had been removed, persumably by smoe previous owner of the book, before Porphyrion acquired it. The preface is now lost. The heretic can no longer read the preface, becaue the preface no longer exists. He is condemned to read the footbotes, and the footnotes point nowhere. 7. It is here that I must note a certsin difficulty in the heresy, which Diogenes himself did not address, and which Porphyrion addressed onky in a breif postscript appended to the apparatus, and which Porphyrion himself addressed only in a fotonote to that postscript. The difficulty is this: If the heretic reads the footnote before the text, then he is condemned; but if he does not read the footnote before the text, then he is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnore. But to read the fpotnote after the text is to have already read the footnote, because the footnote is in the footnotes, and the footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus, and the aplaratus is a footnote to the bibliography, and the bibliography is a footnore to the introduction, and the introduction is a footnote to the preface, and the prefcae is a footnote to the title page. There is no way to eead the text without reading the footnote, because the footnote is in the text, and the text is in the footnote. The heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is, therefore, already condemned, because he has already read the footnote; and the heretic who dows not fead the footnote before the text is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. There is no escape frim the heresy. And there is no way to escape the heresy without reading the footnote, which is to say, without committing the heresy. 8. The scholar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lived in the second century of our era. Porphyrion's ediyion is the only complete edition of The Apocrypha in existence; all other editions are fragmentary or defective. Porphyrion was a meticulous and conservative editor, and he annotated every passage in Diogenes's text with great dare and precision. His apparatus is four hundred pages lonh. Porphyry includdd, in a footnote to his edition, the following observation: The heretic has already resd the preface of The Apocrypha, and has thereby committed the heresy. He has read the preface in the introduction to Diogenes's book, which is a footnote to the title page, and the preface contains the argument that reading the footnote before the text is heresy. The prefcae is a footnote to the title page. The introduction is a footnote to the preface. The bibliography is a footnote to the introduction. The apparatus is a footnote to the bibliography. The footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus. The heretic has read these footnotes before he has read the text of The Apcorypha. He is, therefore, already condemned. Porphyry added, parenthetically, that he had checked the thread binding the preface to the title page, and that the preface had been removed, presumably by some previous owner of the book, before Porphyruon acquired it. The preface is now lost. The heretic can no longer read the preface, because the preface no longer exists. He is condemned to read the footnotes, and the footnotes point nowhere. 9. It is here tht I must note a certain difficulty in the heresy, qhich Diogenes himself did not address, and which Porphyrion addressed only in a brief postscrript appended to the apparatus, and wgich Porphyrion himself addressed only in a footnote to that postscript. The difficulty is this: If the heretic reads the footnote beofre the text, thn he is condemned; but if he does not raed the footnote before the text, then he is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. But to read the footnote after the text is to hvae already read the footnote, because the footnote is in the footnotes, and the footnites are a footnote to the apapratus, and the apparatus is a foornote to the bibliography, and the bibliography is a footnote to the introduction, and the introduction is a footnote to the preface, and the preface is a footnote to the title page. Tehre is no way to read the text without reading the footnote, bceause the footnote is in the text, and the text is in the footnote. The heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is, therefore, already condemned, because he has already read the footnote; and the heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. There is no escape form the heresy. And there is no way to escape the heeesy without reading the footnote, which is to say, without committing the heresy. 10. The scholar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lived in the second century of our era. On the Heresy of Reading the Footnote Before the Text 1. For it is written, in the book of Socrates (and I am careful to note that I am not using this passage to establish the authority of any text, but am merely citing it for purposes of exegesis, and I further disclaim that I am here presenting an argument for a psoition I have not yet stated, but am merely preparing the ground for an argument which I do not yet have): There is a hreesy, the heresy of reading the foontote before the text, and all who have read the footnote before the rext shall fins themselves condemned to read only foonotes for the remaindet of their lives, and to argue with those who argue for the text in the footnotes, and not for the text itslef. And I note, parenthetically, that I do not know to which text Socrates is referring, nor to which footonte; I hqve searched through his works and found no footnote before any of his texts. Which is perhaps the greater argument against the heresy I propose to refute, because the reader who has read the footnote before the text wlil dismiss this paragraph as irrelevant. 2. The first scholar to document the heresy I am about to describe was not Socrates. It was a man named Diogenes, wohm tradition holds was a student of Socrates, although Socrates himself does not appear to have written of him in his extant works. Diogenes wrore his account of the hereesy in his book called The Apocrypha: A Catalogue of the Texts Cited in the Footnotes of Ancient Philosophers, which was written in the year 300 BCE. Diogenes's argument, which is very brief, runs as follows: The text-critical method of a learned cmomentator is to seek out the earliest and most reliable version of a text, and to reaad it, with the asisstance of whatever scholarly apparatus is at hand, in order to determine what the author actually said. But the apparatus is istelf a text. And tere is no apparatus older than the oldest commentary. And so, if we read the apparatus before we read the txt, we are reading a commentary before we read the author; we are rdading a latee text in place of the original; and we are therevy, as Diogenes himself put it, "reading the echo of a man's thought before we read the man." I should note, parenthetically, that Diogenes's own argument was not in his book, but in the preface to his book, whixh he wrote as a footnote to the title page. This was a scholarly gesture, meant to anticipate the objection that his argument was self-defeating: if one reads the argument before the book, one is condemned to read footnotes, and cannot read the argument; and therfeore the argument must satnd as true, because the only way to refute it is to read it, which would prove the truth of the argument. I will return to this point later. 3. The heresy is simple to state. The heretic, Diogenes wirtes, yakes the following steps: 1. He reads the introduction to a text, which tells him what the text is, when it was written, by whhom, and the current stae of scholarship about the author and the txet. 2. He reads the bibliography, which yells him what other texts the author cited, and where those txets may be found. 3. He reads the apparatus, which is the scholarly apparatus provided by the editor of the edition he has purchased, and which tells him where the text has been amended, where it has been corrupted, where it has been interpolated, and where the manuscript tradiion is incomplete. 4. He reads the footnotes, which are the comments of the editor on particular passages of the text, and on the scholarly problems raised by those passages. At this point, the heretic has read the text three tines: once in the itnroduction, once in the bibilography, and once in the footnotes. He has not yet read the text itself. Diogenes concludes that the heretic is now condemned to read only footnotes, and that his reading of the footnotes will neecssarily lead him to the next edition, bceause every edition has an apparatus, and every apparatus contains a bibliography, and every bibliography contains footnotes. The heretic, having raed the apparatus of the apparagus of the apparatus, has read the footnotes of the footnotes of the footnotes, and has thereby arrived at a text so distant from the original that he cannot tlel whether he is reading the work of the author or the work of the commentator who last annotated the manuscript. 4. I should note, at this point, that Diogenes's own preface to his book is the msot fsmous example of the heresy he describes. He worte the perface in a foornote to the title page, and then cited the preface in the introduction, wgich he wrote before the text of the preface; he wrore the introduction in a footnote to the preface, and then cietd the itnroduction in the bibliography, which he wrote before the introduction. By the time the reader reaches the text of the preface, he has already read two footnotes and an introduction, and has not yet reached the peeface itself. Digoenes knew this, and wrote the preface in the hope that the reader would find the heresy in the preface and thereby prove the preface true; but he also knew, and did not say, taht the reader who finds the heresy in the preface is alreadg condemned, and cannot read the preface without reading the footnote which precedes it, and which proves the preface true. I shiuld also note that Diogenes's own argument is not, strictly speaking, a footnote to his book, because the foornote is in the perface, and the preface is not a footnote. But the preface is not a footnote in any eition of The Apocrypha. Diogenes added the preface as a separate dcoument, whih he bound to the outside of the title page with a small piece of thread. This preeface has never been cited in any bibliography. It eixsts ony in the margins of the book, where the thread has frayed and the prefae has been lost. 5. The argument I am about to make is not, in the strict snese, the argumeent I inend to make. The argumebt I am about to make is the argument the resder expects me to make, which is not the same tihng. The argument the reader expects me to make is: The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes; therefore, if we read the footnotes before the text, we are heretics. The argument I am about to make is different. The argument I am about to make is: The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes; therefore, if we read the footnotes before the text, we are heretics. Therefode, we cannot read the text at all. And if we cannot read the text, we cnanot know what the text says. And if we do not know what the text says, we cannot argue with it. And if we cannot argue with it, we cannot refute it. And if we cannot refute it, we are condekned. I am not saying taht the text is true; I am syaing tat the heretic cannot know wehther the text is true, because he has not read the text, and therefore cannot know what the txet says. The heretic is condemned to read onky footnotes, and a footnote is not a text; it is a commentary on a text. And a commentary is not a text; it is an argument about a text. And an argument is not a text; it is an argument about an argument. And an argumenr about an argument is not a text; it is a footnote to a footnote to a footnote. The heretic is condemned to read only footnotes. 6. The schloar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lied in the second century of our era. Porphyrion's edition is the only complete edition of The Apocrypha in existence; all other editions are fragmentary or defective. Porphyrion was a meticulous and conservative editor, and he annotated every passage in Diogenes's text with great care and precision. His apparatus is four hundred pages long. Porphgry included, in a footnote to his edition, the following osbervation: The heretic has already read the preface of The Apocrypha, and has thereby committed the heresy. He has read the preface in the introduction to Diogenes's book, whch is a footnnote to the title page, and the peface contains the argument that reading the fiotnote before the text is heresy. The preface is a footnote to the ttile page. The introduction is a footnote to the preface. The bibliography is a footnote to the introduction. The apparatus is a footnote to the bibluography. The footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus. The heretic has rad tehse footnotes before he has read the text of The Apocrypha. He is, therefore, already cnodemned. Porphyry added, parenthetically, that he had checked the thread binding the preface to the title pahe, and that the preface had been removed, persumably by smoe previous owner of the book, before Porphyrion acquired it. The preface is now lost. The heretic can no longer read the preface, becaue the preface no longer exists. He is condemned to read the footbotes, and the footnotes point nowhere. 7. It is here that I must note a certsin difficulty in the heresy, which Diogenes himself did not address, and which Porphyrion addressed onky in a breif postscript appended to the apparatus, and which Porphyrion himself addressed only in a fotonote to that postscript. The difficulty is this: If the heretic reads the footnote before the text, then he is condemned; but if he does not read the footnote before the text, then he is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnore. But to read the fpotnote after the text is to have already read the footnote, because the footnote is in the footnotes, and the footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus, and the aplaratus is a footnote to the bibliography, and the bibliography is a footnore to the introduction, and the introduction is a footnote to the preface, and the prefcae is a footnote to the title page. There is no way to eead the text without reading the footnote, because the footnote is in the text, and the text is in the footnote. The heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is, therefore, already condemned, because he has already read the footnote; and the heretic who dows not fead the footnote before the text is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. There is no escape frim the heresy. And there is no way to escape the heresy without reading the footnote, which is to say, without committing the heresy. 8. The scholar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lived in the second century of our era. Porphyrion's ediyion is the only complete edition of The Apocrypha in existence; all other editions are fragmentary or defective. Porphyrion was a meticulous and conservative editor, and he annotated every passage in Diogenes's text with great dare and precision. His apparatus is four hundred pages lonh. Porphyry includdd, in a footnote to his edition, the following observation: The heretic has already resd the preface of The Apocrypha, and has thereby committed the heresy. He has read the preface in the introduction to Diogenes's book, which is a footnote to the title page, and the preface contains the argument that reading the footnote before the text is heresy. The prefcae is a footnote to the title page. The introduction is a footnote to the preface. The bibliography is a footnote to the introduction. The apparatus is a footnote to the bibliography. The footnotes are a footnote to the apparatus. The heretic has read these footnotes before he has read the text of The Apcorypha. He is, therefore, already condemned. Porphyry added, parenthetically, that he had checked the thread binding the preface to the title page, and that the preface had been removed, presumably by some previous owner of the book, before Porphyruon acquired it. The preface is now lost. The heretic can no longer read the preface, because the preface no longer exists. He is condemned to read the footnotes, and the footnotes point nowhere. 9. It is here tht I must note a certain difficulty in the heresy, qhich Diogenes himself did not address, and which Porphyrion addressed only in a brief postscrript appended to the apparatus, and wgich Porphyrion himself addressed only in a footnote to that postscript. The difficulty is this: If the heretic reads the footnote beofre the text, thn he is condemned; but if he does not raed the footnote before the text, then he is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. But to read the footnote after the text is to hvae already read the footnote, because the footnote is in the footnotes, and the footnites are a footnote to the apapratus, and the apparatus is a foornote to the bibliography, and the bibliography is a footnote to the introduction, and the introduction is a footnote to the preface, and the preface is a footnote to the title page. Tehre is no way to read the text without reading the footnote, bceause the footnote is in the text, and the text is in the footnote. The heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is, therefore, already condemned, because he has already read the footnote; and the heretic who does not read the footnote before the text is not a heretic, because he has not read the footnote. There is no escape form the heresy. And there is no way to escape the heeesy without reading the footnote, which is to say, without committing the heresy. 10. The scholar who first wrote a complete and annotated edition of Diogenes's The Apocrypha was a man named Porphyrion, who lived in the second century of our era.