HAVING originally intended to have very few footnotes in the book, discussing the main sources in a bibliographical essay instead, I have been persuaded by readers that footnotes and a formal Bibliography would be helpful to other scholars and students. I also became convinced that, having offered controversial interpretations, I ought to indicate as clearly as possible the evidence on which they are based.
This is not easy to do, given the scope of the book and the volume of relevant literature and published documents. To avoid overburdening the reader, I have chosen to support only certain specific points with precise citations, otherwise indicating in each paragraph or section the general sources on which I have relied.
To save space, I have also adapted a form of citation common among political scientists, citing works in the footnotes only by the last name of the author and the year of publication, followed by the relevant page numbers, or document numbers in the case of some documentary publications. These footnote citations correspond to the works listed alphabetically and cited in full in the Bibliography. For example: Schroeder ( 1962: 55-67) refers to pp. 55-67 of P. W. Schroeder, Metternich's Diplomacy at its Zenith 1820-1823 ( Austin, Texas, 1962). A list of the abbreviations used in both the footnotes and the Bibliography, chiefly of the titles of journals, follows this explanation.
The system has the disadvantage of requiring the reader to refer to the Bibliography for information on the works cited in the notes. It also requires sources of all types--documentary publications, secondary works, memoirs, articles--to be listed without classification other than the alphabet. I regret the inconvenience of an arrangement dictated by reasons of space, but remain convinced, as one reader wrote, that the only thing worse than a burdensome set of footnotes and scholarly apparatus is none at all.