I've been wondering about what I perceive as a dreadful editorial choice in how these footnote links have been done. Given the book however, I'm also now wondering if this is consciously done by design to provide a blindfold of sorts to prevent bias either for or against these sources.

Either way I, still wish they were more traditionally done and/or presented. I at least wish I had the added context about them on their respective pages.

I need to pause here for a moment to say how deeply appreciative I am for articles that use footnotes instead of endnotes. I'll scroll to the bottom of the page, but I'll be damned if I'm going to flounder around jumping from front to end and back again.

Ok if someone would have explained it to me like this in high school I would have had a reason to care about doing them instead of hating them.

Endnotes, huh? 😒

I need to pause here for a moment to say how deeply appreciative I am for articles that use footnotes instead of endnotes. I'll scroll to the bottom of the page, but I'll be damned if I'm going to flounder around jumping from front to end and back again.

But these footnotes are inscribed forms of thought. Plato is himself nothing but a series of written inscription - of which these footnotes are a part.

The footnotes are strange. There seems to be something symbolic here in placing men in the footnotes when they have traditionally been the primary text. But it also shows Cixous interest in multiple viewpoints.

I've thought of essays looking professional, but I've not thought how footnotes add to that look.

Good point.

Zweiter Versuch in footnotes