Electronic texts serve a very wide readership at a low cost. They belong to a worldwide virtual library in which every book exists in an unlimited number of loanable copies. The research uses of electronic texts are less well known, but text-analysis software can generate lists of textual variants between any two or more early editions, or between any early edition of a text and a modern commercial edition of that text. Electronic transcriptions can also be used to generate interactive concordances and word- and phrase-frequency lists. With these indexes, scholars can analyze word usage by text, date, speaker, printer, signature, forme, or indeed any other taggable characteristic of the text. Such flexible transformations of the original text can assist in thematic and bibliographical studies.
What is SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS about? Critics and biographers
have answered this question differently for two centuries. This
edition chooses to draw on electronic materials and tools not
available readily to a paper-edition reader so as to show
how they can help recover Shakespeare's English, from which we
are estranged by a gap of nearly four centuries. Two excerpts from
the sonnets are analyzed: the publisher's dedication, and neglected
sonnet 105, in which Shakespeare tells us what he believes the poems
mean. Electronic sources like the Early Modern English Dictionaries Database
(
The title of the book, "SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS,"
is unusual. Thomas Thorpe, the publisher who is probably
responsible for the title-page, does not call it "Sonnets and A
Louers Complaint, by W. Shakespeare." Thorpe places
Shakespeare's surname directly in the title, as if his reputation
and authorship were so well-known that his first name was
unnecessary, and as if the term "Sonnets" applies to
everything in the quarto. As far as the maker of the title-page
was concerned, "A Louer's Complaint"--at
several hundred lines--belonged with the 154 sonnets
with which the book begins. The word "sonnet" in this
period need not characterize only 14-line poems but was on
occasion used for a longer narrative poem (Bailey 1980).
"The Louers Complaint," written in 47 seven-line stanzas,
also resembles a series of 14-line poems.
Editors and critics are sharply divided on the meaning of the
12-line dedication by Thomas Thorpe ("T. T.").
BY.
OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
T. T.
Disagreement hinges on three terms that name persons:
"BEGETTER", "Mr.W.H.", and "ADVENTVRER."
Does Thomas Thorpe speak for himself and thank
the person who "got" the sonnets for him, or does he address
the person who was Shakespeare's inspiration and was addressed
by many of the sonnets? The answer to that question turns on how
we understand the word "BEGETTER": is it the one who created
the poem, the one who created them in the mind of the poet, or
the one who obtained them for Thorpe? (If "BEGETTER" means the
poet himself, then "Mr.W.H." must be a typographical
error for "Mr.W.S.") Finally, who is the
"THE.WELL-WISHING. /ADVENTVRER", the one who
wishes all happiness and immortality to the mysterious
"BEGETTER"?
Nine of the 225,000 word-entries in the bilingual dictionaries
and monolingual dictionaries forming the EMEDD have the word
"begetter" in them. Five lexicographers (Thomas Thomas,
John Florio, John Minsheu, Randle Cotgrave, and Thomas
Blount), in works published from 1587 to 1656, use it as
equivalent to Latin, Italian, Spanish, and French terms.
The word appears in two senses. Eight entries place it
among the following loosely synonymous English expressions:
"engenderer," "creator," "maker," "father," "one from whence came
the offspring or first original," "breeder," "progenitor,"
and "beginner." One entry only, Minsheu's "Conciliador, m. a winner,
a procurer, a begetter, a reconciler", associates the word with
terms for a solicitor or agent or factor or obtainer. It is very unlikely that
Thorpe would have used "BEGETTER" not in the first sense
but only in the second sense because the second is minor and
rare, and appears to be derived from the more common
first sense.
Five entries in the EMEDD by John Florio (1598), John Minsheu (1599),
and Randle Cotgrave (1611) use the noun "ADVENTVRER"
synonymously with "a hazarder", "a venturous fellow, a hardie
man, one that putteth all vpon haphazard", and "one that
freely and without compulsion, or charge goes to the warres; also, a
free-booter, or boot-haler." The role of risk-taker seems best
suited to the publisher Thorpe, who signs the dedication, than to
anyone else. EMEDD entries for the phrasal verb "set forth"
as "to publish." substantiate this. Thomas Thomas
explains Latin "Edititius" as "Published,
named, set forth, or to be set forth" in 1587; and Randle
Cotgrave describes French "Publier" as "To publish,
diuulge, manifest, proclayme, noyse abroad, lay open, set forth,
make common, or knowne" in 1611. Thorpe risked
his own money in printing a book of verse.
Early Modern English usage, then, allows the following
paraphrase of the dedication: Thomas Thorpe, who ventures
funds to set forth the book, wishes that the happiness
and immortality promised by the poet to a Mr. W. H.,
who alone begot the poems in the writer. Mr. W. H.
is the "onlie begetter of these unsuing sonnets":
that is, he is the occasion of them.
If we ask, "who is Mr. W. H.?" we go beyond
what the EMEDD can supply. Still, it is reasonable to think that
Thorpe knew the answer to our question, and that he thought the
buyers of the book would in all likelihood recognize the name
too and take a greater interest in the quarto because of this
identification. Reading the minimum information from this dedication,
and doubting none of it (that is, emending none of the words because
we believe they are wrong), E. K. Chambers and Samuel Schoenbaum,
among the most conservative of Shakespeare's biographers, make
Mr. W. H. out to be William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke. He
is one of the dedicatees of the Shakespeare's first folio. Young Herbert
was being groomed by his family for the approval of Elizabeth
I, who was looking for an heir, but Herbert as heir to the earldom had
some failings. Although "exceedingly beloved of all men"
(DNB 678), he refused to marry for some years, preferring to
undertake affairs. The case for young Herbert as Shakespeare's young
man suggests itself, if readers work towards an interpretation
that does not emend the text.
Schoenbaum has one reservation: "it is doubtful that
the obsequious Thorpe would insolently address a noble lord
by the unhonorific `Mr.'" (219). In this period, however,
the term "Mr" was an honorific, sometimes used to identify
the heir to an estate. The sonnets are not about an earl, but about an
earl-to-be, someone who could be called "Mr." If it was this earl
who in 1609 was addressed in this dedication, would he not have been
complimented that Thorpe's dedication desired his youth to live forever?
A wish that Mr. W. H. have all happiness and immortality need not be
insolent. As well, Thorpe might not have formally dedicated the quarto
to the mature earl so as to avoid implying that Herbert contributed
towards the publication of the book. Patronage is unlikely,
given Thorpe's reference to an adventurer's risks.
The poems appear to fall into three groups. Although the poet's
(or his muse's) voice utters them all and describes himself, the youth,
the lady "colored ill" whom they shared (40-42, 133), and a
rival poet who drew the youth's affections away from Shakespeare
for a time, the first 154 sonnets form two sequences, once we segment
them by person addressed. The first group addresses either
the young man or the poet himself (1-126), and the second
either the dark lady or the poet himself (127-54; cf. 144, 152). If
we look at the order of the sonnets, these sequences cover the same
chronological events twice. Shakespeare alludes to the affair between the
youth and the lady mid-way through the first sequence (40-42), but the
sonnets addressed to her by the poet--assuming that she is the same
person--are bundled after this first sequence about the young man.
The third member of this group is A Louers Complaint. This consists
of 47 7-line stanzas, that is, 23 and a half 14-line "sonnets."
Because Shakespeare speaks, not in his own person (or in a persona
whom we are clearly intended to regard as himself), about people
who live in a country that still allows women to become nuns,
Complaint is not set in Renaissance England. It markedly
contrasts with the two sequences of 14-line poems. Can computer-aided
analysis of the content of Shakespeare's verse indicate why two such
sequences are followed by a long narrative poem?
To begin, consider Shakespeare's own summary of what at least
the first two-thirds of the short sonnets are about. Consider what
sonnet 105 says.
Shakespeare says that his verse expresses only one thing in three
themes, that each manifests itself dominantly in a single word, and
that his invention consists of varying these three words with
other, synonymous words. Shakespeare seems to adopt a
formalist, text-centered approach. A theme manifests itself
in repetition and variation of a few keywords. Shakespeare
confidently says that his verse "leaues out di{ff}erence."
If the sonnets written up to the 105th mean one thing only and
do so transparently and unambiguously, he might have
been nonplused by the subsequent literature disagreeing with
him. His meaning is hardly transparent to us. On the other hand,
Shakespeare can hardly be dismissed as unqualified to
interpret his own writings.
Shakespeare is not writing a critical essay in sonnet 105, what
we might call a theme. His language belongs historically to
the study of logic, not to literary criticism, as we can see from the
EMEDD. Its entries show that, if he uses the words "theme"
and "argument" in contemporary senses, they mean the same thing:
a logical proposition or argument.
THEME: Theme. A sentence or argument
whereupon one speaketh. (John Bullokar, 1616)
Syllogisme. An argument consisting of three parts,
whereby something is necessarily proued, as thus; Euery vertue is
honourable: Patience is a vertue; Therefore Patience is honourable.
The first part of a Syllogisme is called the Proposition or Maior;
the second, the Assumption or Minor; and the third, the Conclusion.
(Henry Cockeram, 1623)
Syllogismus, mi. m. g. Quint. A perfect argument of three
parts, inferring a necessarie conclusion: a syllogisme. (Thomas Thomas,
1587)
When Shakespeare says that his "inuention" consists of changing
"Faire,kinde and true" into other words, he might be thought
to imply that he thinks his verse is only about language, not about
things in the world. However, note how Thomas Thomas translates the
Latin word "Topice, es, f. g."
Critics have been quick to suspect playful irony in this
poem--Shakespeare disclaiming idolatry while becoming
increasingly guilty of it, for example, through his use of Trinitarian
imagery ("the three in one")--but the poem is entirely truthful in
what it says about the role these logical themes play in the other
poems. Text-analysis software such as TACT verifies that
Shakespeare repeats the three words "Faire,kinde,and true"
elsewhere and varies them with other words. (An introduction to
the use of TACT for literary analysis appears in
Using TACT with Electronic Texts: A Guide
to Text-Analysis Computing Tools, Version 2.1
for PC-DOS and MS-DOS.) The collocations generator
Collgen, part of the TACT system, gives a starting
point.
Collgen lists all repeating phrases within the quarto.
These lists appear in appendixes 1 and 2. There are 1,742 repeating
fixed phrases in the 14-line sonnets, and 83 in the Complaint.
Three factors define a distinct fixed phrase: length, frequency,
and span. The longest repeating phrases are called maximal phrases
(e.g., "for I haue sworne thee faire", labelled "M"
in Table 1), but they may contain subphrases that occur more frequently
and that are called subordinate phrases (e.g., "for I haue
sworne", labelled "S" in Table 3). Both types are
distinct, the first because of its greater length, and the second
because of its higher frequency. By defining the length in words
beyond which a fixed phrase cannot go (ten words in this analysis),
the span sometimes causes very long repeating phrases to appear
as a series of shorter ones. One such phrase appears below.
Most phrases consist of function or closed-class words, such as
articles, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs, combined with one
content or open-class word. Only 30 of these repeating phrases
from the 156 14-line poems, found below in Table 3, contain two
or more content words, i.e., lexical nouns, adjectives, adverbs,
and verbs. Aside from the couplet that identically closes sonnets
36 and 96, which has four content words, Shakespeare's three-themes-in-one,
"Faire,kinde,and true," is the repeating phrase with
the most content words (three). This describes the beloved, the
subject of three of the four most repeated fixed phrases in this
list, "deare loue", "sweet loue", and "sweet
selfe."
Shakespeare's three thematic words in the phrase "Faire,
kinde,and true" appear in 69 of the first 154 sonnets. Usebase,
the TACT interactive concordance program, shows that they
collocate with one another strongly (that is, with high z-scores).
The words "kinde" (nine occurrences) and "truly"
(five occurrences) collocate with "fair", respectively,
four and two times within a span of five words on either side.
The words "faire" (48 occurrences) and "true"
(39 occurrences) co-occur with "kind", respectively,
six and three times. The word "kinde" co-occurs with
"truth" three of nine times. These numbers indicate
that the three words make up a highly associated, cohesive network,
"Three theams in one" (as Shakespeare says). See Appendix
3 for the data.
In sonnet 105 Shakespeare does not tell us which words he chooses
to vary these three words, but the following passages in other
sonnets suggest the words "beauty", "bright",
"gracious", "sweet", and "worth"
collocate with the three theme words. By co-occurring with them,
these additional words suggest themselves as alternates.
The word "gracious" varies "kind," the word
"worth" rings a change on "truth", and the
words "beauty" and "sweet" correspond to "fair."
These five words, when added to the three theme words Shakespeare
makes explicit, appear in 119 of the sonnets, four-fifths
of the first three sequences. (See Appendix 4 for the data and
Appendix 5 for the distribution of these words.) If we add other
allied words to these, such as "constancy", "deare",
"pity", and "prettie", the number of the first
154 sonnets centered on Shakespeare's theme, the three-in-one love,
would grow. Any interpretation of these poems should first consider
Shakespeare's own reading of them because computer analysis of this
electronic text bears out what he says in sonnet 105.
What then of Thorpe's last "sonnet," A Louers Complaint?
The poet overhears a "fickle maid" (5) complaining of
her betrayal by a male youth, at first alone and then to a third
party, a "reverend" man (57) who also listens in. Within
these two embedded audiences, she tells her outraged, frantic,
despairing story of the affair, her initial rejection of the young
man, his heated wooing, and his ultimate success. She
quotes the youth's wooing speeches, in which she finds hypocrisy
and lies. In defending the genuine love he feels, the youth alludes
to another young lady he wooed, one who denied him his wishes
and, overcome by her own sexual feelings, became a nun, abandoning
him and herself unsatisfied rather than remaining vulnerable to
more of the same anguish in the future. After narrating how she
was won over by his words, and how the sexual seduction was managed,
the young lady ends by saying that her complaint is all the worse
because she realizes that, even knowing the outcome of the affair,
she would voluntarily succumb to the youth's wooing again.
In many ways this tale forms a diptych with, a complementary image to,
the first 154 sonnets. The youth of Complaint, like
Mr. W. H., receives sonnets from (ultimately unwelcome) wooers
(209-10). The same three thematic adjectives describe him as do
Shakespeare's "young boy": "fair" (83, 311),
"kind" (186, 311), and "true" (105 "a
pride of truth", 246; but cf. 169 "untrue," 186).
The maid's deceptive young man covers a "naked and concealed
fiend" with "grace" (316-17), and Shakespeare's
youth possesses "Lascivious grace" (40.13). The "fickle
maid," like the dark lady, seduces or is seduced by the youth.
Female and male sexuality, love, is powerful in both sonnets
and Complaint. Love unfolds despite the threats of Time's
scythe (12.13-14; 11-14) and despite its own poisons (129.7-8;
301). In the sonnets, Shakespeare he describes himself as old and
ready to die (e.g., 73), not unlike the aged man in Complaint
(62, 70). Passed over by both the young man and the dark lady,
Shakespeare increasingly describes love as an outsider, and sometimes
in the past tense. As the nun loved the youth and rejected his demands
by taking vows, so Shakespeare in the sonnets candidly
explains that no sexual love is possible between the youth and
himself (2) and accepts that the youth will favour other suitors.
Perhaps Complaint emerges from Shakespeare's understanding that
a "fickle maid" such as the dark lady has a perspective that
deserves a hearing. The second group of sonnets, about the dark lady,
makes bracing reading for its misogyny, but Shakespeare closes the quarto,
in "Complaint," with eloquent testimony about the genderlessness of
suffering in love.
Shakespeare had enough of a reputation as a matchmaker by 1604
to have been asked by his own landlord to forward a suit aimed
at acquiring a husband for his daughter (Schoenbaum 211). Shakespeare
succeeded all too well, for a lawsuit later erupted between the
lovers and her parents, and the poet was called into court to
testify--with none too good a memory for some details--about the
whole affair. Shakespeare also extricates himself from two love
affairs in the book entitled SHAKE-SPEARE SONNETS.
Age makes him a witness, indifferent to party.
Another application of a RET electronic edition is to detect whether
several spelling systems exist in a work. MacD. P. Jackson twenty
years ago, in a study of the 1609 quarto spellings and punctuation,
assigned most pages to two compositors in George Eld's printing
shop, men known as Walker A and Walker B from their earlier identification
in Alice Walker's study of the 1609 quarto of Shakespeare's Troilus
and Cressida, also printed by George Eld. Walker based her
analysis (129) on the following five variant spelling pairs, the
last four of which also appear in the 1609 quarto:
Any master printer might mark off a manuscript for typesetting
by two men because gatherings could be printed completely, without
delay, in a "relay" system ensuring that the
press itself would be more or less constantly in use. For example,
one compositor might set the inner and outer formes of one gathering.
Then, while the printing of both sides of this quarto sheet were
done, a second compositor could set the formes of a second gathering.
Those would in turn be printed as the first compositor dismantled
the first gathering's two formes, distributed its type into his
cases, and set the two formes of the third gathering. Jackson
identifies four different skeleton-formes from "inspection
and measurement of the headlines" or running titles of the
Sonnets quarto (2-3). If each compositor had one pair of
formes (inner and outer), these results would suggest that two
compositors set this book.
Could inconsistencies in spellings through the quarto arise from
Shakespeare himself, not the compositors? He may well have changed his mind
about how he would spell some words over the years that the sonnets were
evidently written, but he would not likely spell a group of words
consistently in two different ways at any one time. Any variation
in the author's spelling would be expected to reveal itself, not
on separate pages, but in groups of poems or in discrete works
written at different times in his life. Bibliographical variation
should arise from a bibliographical factor.
Jackson correctly assigns pages in the Sonnets quarto to Eld A or
Eld B according to whether or not they had the five spelling variants
that Walker identified. However, Jackson's evidence needs a closer
examination. Because his initial list of assigned pages (1975:
3, 17-22) neglects two of Walker's pairs ("Hellen"/"Helen",
"els"/"else"), he does not assign D4r and
L1v to Eld A (but see Jackson, p. 4), and G4r to Eld B. As a result, Jackson
also does not see that B1r, B2v, and F3r have spellings characteristic
of both Eld A and Eld B and so cannot be firmly attributed to
either compositor. Further, Jackson attributes F1r to B on the basis
of an occurrence of "rich" not actually found on that page.
These minutiae affect seven assignments. Table 4 includes
corrections in square brackets.
Jackson's study continues when he argues that, because "A
uses Oh 9 times (including three instances on L1), O
not at all; [and] B uses Oh only once, but O 8 times,"
this variant pair "provides further evidence for distinguishing
the shares of Compositors A and B" (4).
Jackson correctly identifies all the pages on which these two
variants are found (pp. 17-23), but if we accept the above revised
assignments of pages to Eld A and Eld B, A uses Oh 11 times
and O once (L1v), and B uses O 9 times and Oh
once (F4r). Thus Jackson cannot assign further pages to Eld A
and Eld B--as he goes on to do--only on the basis of their
use of O and Oh, because both compositors use both
spellings. The best one can say is that A uses Oh, and
B O, about nine times out of ten.
Jackson at this stage "very tentatively" identifies
18 pages as by Eld A, and 37 as by Eld B, but he does not give a
breakdown by pages. However, my assignments--see the following
table--work out to be less optimistic: only 15 pages by A or A-like,
only 35 pages by B or B-like, and (inconveniently) 5 pages by
both. There does appear to be some correlation between Eld A and
Eld B, and Oh and O. The presence of Oh or
O confirms 11 previous assignments, seven by A (D1r, D4r,
F4v, G1v, G2r, L1r, and L1v) and--oddly, because nearly three times
as many assignments were for B as for A--only four by B (C1r, D3v,
G4r, and I3v). However, on two occasions the Oh/O
test muddies the previous results: F4r appeared to be by B but
had Oh (supposedly an A variant), and L1v appeared to be
by A but had both Oh and O (the latter a B variant).
Two instances of contradictory evidence out of 13 total instances
(11 confirmations, plus these two problematic ones) means that,
15 percent of the time, the Oh/O test yields results
that undermine the test itself. Note that the very same problem
occurs previously when the five Walker variants were applied
to the Sonnets. They assigned nine pages as by A, and 14
pages as by B, but also three pages as by both: this result undermines
the test about 11 percent of the time (three of 26).
There is a lesson in common sense to be learned here. Assignments,
even tentative ones, should only be made on the basis of at least
two variants. This caution has to be taken because, between 11-15
percent of the time, the two tests applied so far (the five Walker
variants, and Oh/O) not only assign a page inconclusively
but also call into question whether the variant is a reliable
way of distinguishing Eld A and Eld B. For this reason, instead
of making 55 assignments, Jackson might have reduced the number
he had previously made to 14, seven by A and seven by B. These
pages have at least two spellings favouring either A or B and
not both together. See the Table 5.
The rest of Jackson's analysis (pp. 4-5) depends on our accepting
his 55 assignments at face value. He assigns most of the remaining
pages on the basis of eight further variant pairs "preferred"
by one of the compositors, and observed by looking at alternate
spellings occurring on his 18 Eld A pages and 37 Eld B pages.
It is less risky to limit testing, at this stage, only to those
pages confirmed by two or more spellings so far to be Eld A (D1r,
D4r, F4v, G1r, G1v, G2r, L1v) or Eld B (C1r, D3v, E2r, F1r, F2r,
G4r, I3v). In Table 6, asterisks surround "A" and "B"
when Jackson assigns one of these as a compositor's preferred
spelling, and plus-signs surround changes in these preferences
arising from my more restricted testing. Note that Jackson conflates
frequencies for different words in two of the five variants.
At this point no account is taken of small differences in the
centering of the sonnet numbers, a further variant cited by Jackson
(p. 5).
Four of Jackson's new variants, this limited test shows, should
join Alice Walker's original five variants as spellings distinguishing
between Eld A and Eld B. Eld A prefers "doost," "powre,"
"old," and "tong-"; Eld B, in contrast, prefers
"dost," "power," "ould," and "toung-".
Neither Eld A nor Eld B uses both alternate spellings in each
case. Two other distinguishing pairs proposed by Jackson are unclear:
Eld A uses both "flowre" and "flower(s),"
and Eld B both "noe" and "no." There is not
enough evidence to associate the use of a sonnet number in a
catchword, or of a space or comma to end the last line of a sonnet, with
Eld B.
However, this limited test identifies two further possible distinct
pairs: Eld A uses "eie(s)" three times as often as it
does "eye(s)" (a result absent from Jackson's data)
and also employs colons "strongly" (as Jackson says)
at the end of quatrains, whereas Eld B uses "eye(s)"
(as Jackson says) and commas at the end of quatrains (four times
as often as it does colons, not one of Jackson's findings). However,
because each of Eld A and Eld B uses both commas and colons at
quatrain's end, and on four pages both punctuation marks appear,
no firm distinction emerges.
Nonetheless, all occurrences of the first four variants (not just
occurrences in the 14 test pages) can be used to update the compositor
assignments. The "eie(s)" / "eyes" variant
may also be added because they overlap on only one page, L1v,
which also contained both "O" and "Oh" and
may be a special case. In my opinion, colons and commas at the end of
quatrains overlap too many times to be trustworthy discriminants.
Asterisks prefix changed lines in Table 7. Bars (|) around "A"
and "B" indicate Jackson's assignments (p. 6).
The additional evidence gives these results:
Mainly on this basis, Jackson assigns 22 pages to Eld A, and 49
to Eld B, out of a total of 80 pages. In my opinion, only 20 pages are
unambiguously assignable to A or B. Their 12:14 ratio contrasts with
Jackson's 22:49. Almost as many pages as can be assigned, 17, include
spellings so far associated with both A and B. One lone spelling links 25
pages with one of the compositors, but, as we can see from the
number of pages that have multiple spellings associated with both
A and B, a single variant cannot be trusted. Jackson perhaps is
overconfident in the "O" / "Oh" discriminant,
which on six pages conflicts with the "ould" / "old"
spelling (B4v, C1v, E4v, G3v, I1v, K2v).
Few firm assignments can be made, on this evidence, because many
variant spellings turn up in pages already associated with both
Eld A and Eld B. When both spellings in a variant pair occur together,
and there is no additional orthographic evidence, assignments
cannot be decided on the basis of that pair. We need more words
that can be associated with Eld A and Eld B. Evidently the two
compositors were not always consistent. Many pages will have to
be assigned to A and B on a preponderance of discriminant spellings.
Thus the more variant pairs we can find, the better. We can only
find these words by creating a database of all variant spellings
in the quarto and then by testing them for the first mark that
they may be A- or B-specific, i.e., that they never occur on the
same page. Then, if certain of these pairs fall into two networks,
these networks can be tested for overlap with the existing Eld
A and Eld B spellings. If overlap occurs, then we will probably
have more pages that can be assigned firmly to A or B.
Jackson does not list dominant variant spellings from 1609 or
test to see if they were distributed in such a way that the different
forms of each variant pair never fell on the same page (and thus
might be candidates for compositor-specific spellings).
My data collection begins by making a textual database of Sonnets
with Text Analysis Computing Tools (TACT). The signature
of the page on which each word occurs is part of its default reference
citation (in Makebase). Then an alphabetical word-list
for the text is produced with TACTFreq, and a word processor
is used to reduce the list to possible variant spellings, and
to print out that list of variant spelling pairs. With the printed
list in hand, I produced KWIC displays of each spelling in question
with Usebase. In this way I verified that each occurrence of a
variant spelling arises only from orthography (rather than from the
presence of a semantically different form), and finally added the signatures
on which each variant spelling appears to the variant list.
The next step is to create a database of these variants. I imported
the corrected list of genuine spelling variants into Excel,
a spreadsheet program. Each spelling occupies the first column
of each row, under the heading 1609 Word. The first row
has a heading for each column in the spreadsheet. The other headings
are: Explanation, Frequency, Signatures,
No. Overlaps, Walker A or B, and then each signature
in text-order, from A1r to L2v. Explanation
speculates about the possible reason for the variant (e.g., a
Shakespearean spelling described in Partridge), Frequency
the number of occurrences of a variant spelling, Signatures
the number of different pages on which this spelling appears,
No. Overlaps the number of times the current variant spelling
appears on the same page with its other spelling, and Walker
A or B which Walker compositor the current variant spelling
might be associated with (e.g., "1 Walker A" would mean
"one occurrence of the current spelling occurs on a page
where one of the five distinguishing spellings adduced by Walker
also occurs). Then follow columns for each page in the quarto
with a signature header. A plain-text file of the Excel database
forms Appendix 15 of this edition.
This spreadsheet includes over 300 spelling variants. Many variants
of the same word, however, occur on the same page and for that
reason are not good candidates as spellings typical of only one
of the two compositors. While many other spellings never overlap, they
may be expected not to coincide because the forms often occur only
on a single page each. The 35 variant spelling pairs that seldom
or never overlap in the same page, and that both appear at least
on two pages, are more plausible candidates as discriminants.
See Table 10 for these pairs. Nine of them are already tested.
Here are the results of further testing against the 26 Eld A and
Eld B pages so far assigned, i.e.,
The numbers following each spelling are the frequency of the spelling.
This variation seems to have a linguistic basis two out of three
times: note the addition of final "e" (12 times),
medial "o"/"ou" variation (4 times), final
"er"/"re" variation (3 times), and medial
"oa"/"o" variation (twice). Seven of these
pairs discriminate between Eld A and Eld B: nos. 19 ("audit"
/ "audite"), 28 ("far" / "farre"),
29 ("grief-" / "greef-"), 32 ("kinde"
/ "kind"), 41 ("virt-" / "vert-"),
42 ("wealth" / "welth'), and 43 ("whom"
/ "whome").
Two variant pairs with a lower frequency also discriminate between
Eld A and Eld B.
Assignments are affected as follows in Table 12:
Nineteen discriminating variants thus identify 37 pages, just under
one-half of all pages in the quarto containing poetic text, as
being by Eld A and Eld B. These assignments are supported by 2-8
spellings each, or an average of 3.5 variants each. On each of
these 37 pages, all spellings attest to one and the same compositor.
On six pages we only have one variant, which is too little for
assignment purposes. Nine pages lack evidence entirely. Conflicting
evidence exists on 28 pages. Perhaps in these instances the
copytext or copytexts on occasion offered A-spellings and
B-spellings, and on these occasions neither Eld A nor Eld B consistently
converted all those spellings to their own systems. Any printing
shop that allowed its compositors to impose their own individual
spelling during printing would hardly encourage them to be consistent
in their changes. It is not impossible that some pages were shared
by the two compositors.
The assignments in this edition thus differ from Jackson's.
I attribute G2v to Eld A (not Eld B), and K4v to Eld B (not to
Eld A), each based on two variants. Jackson assigns some
pages, without explanation, on which I have found conflicting
evidence. He leaves nine pages unassigned; I leave 43 unassigned
for a reason.
The 37 assignments show something about Eld's printing shop. Clearly
Eld A and Eld B did not split the setting of a gathering by inner
and outer formes. For example, Eld B set F1r-F2v, and Eld A G1r-G2v.
Neither did one of them take a forme or a gathering all to himself.
B set I1r (outer forme), I2r (inner forme), I2v (outer forme),
and I3v (inner forme), whereas A set I3r (outer forme) and I4r
(inner forme). Although both compositors worked on the quarto
more or less from start to finish, sometimes only one of them
set type for an extended time, and at other times both laboured
simultaneously. Eld does not seem to have divided the copytext
up systematically between the two. He must have just left it to
them to get on with the work as expeditiously as circumstances
allowed.
The Dedication
TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
Mr.W.H. ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
ADVENTVRER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.
Sonnet 105
Therefore my ver{s}e to con{{s}t}ancie con{fi}n'de,
One thing expre{{s}{s}i}ng,leaues out di{ff}erence.
Faire,kinde,and true,is all my argument,
Faire,kinde and true,varrying to other words,
And in this change is my inuention {s}pent,
Three theams in one,which wondrous {s}cope a{ff}ords.
Tesme: m. A theame, argument, position,
proposition. (Randle Cotgrave, 1611)
Shakespeare's own syntactic variations already imply this
synonymy. "Faire,kinde,and true" are equally all his "argument"
and the "Three theams in one": thus clearly both the argument and
the themes are one thing. Other early dictionaries take
this explication further. They show that any argument (and thus
also any theme) consists of at least one "proposition" in a
logical syllogism or other proof.
THEME: a Theame. Proposition. (Henry Cockeram, 1623)
Note how Cockeram explains the term "theme" as a "proposition," and
the term "proposition" in turn as the first part of a three-part
"argument" called a syllogism. This proposition also functions as
what was then called a logical definition. When Shakespeare
says that, in expressing one thing, his verse "leaues out di{ff}erence",
he is using the terminology of definitions that describe a thing, not a
word (the notion of a lexical definition is a century in the future).
The thing represented by "difference" belongs to logical definition,
as Sir Thomas Elyot, the author of the first Latin-English dictionary,
says:
Diffinitio, onis, a diffinition, or declaration of the nature qualitie
or propre sygnification of a thynge by generaltie, specialtie,
and difference. (Thomas Elyot, 1538)
By using the language of logical definition, Shakespeare situates
his verse alongside encyclopedias, herbals, and scientific
treatises. All are about things in the world; and the sonnets too
focus on Shakespeare's love, both his feelings and the young man
who is their object.
Invention or finding out of arguments: the arte of
Inuention: a part of Logicke noting the places of inuention.
The context of sonnet 105 associates "invention," not with imagination,
but with the making of what were understood, by Shakespeare's
contemporaries, to be equivalent logical propositions. In sonnet 105 this
three-in-one proposition defines his love as something in the world.
Freq. Fixed Phrase Type
Locations 2 antique pen M
19.10; 106.7 2 ayde my verse M
79-1-2; 86.8 2 blacke night M
27.12; 73.7 2 but doe not so I loue thee in such sort
M 36.13-14; 96.13-14
as thou being mine mine is thy good report
2 day by day M
75.13; 117.4 2 deare friend M
30.13; 111.13 2 deare heart M
95.13; 139.6 5 deare loue M
39.6; 72.3; 122.10; 124.1; 151.14 2 doe thy worst M
19.13; 92.1 2 face sweet M
93.10; 127.6 3 faire kinde and true
M 105.9, 10, 13 3 for I haue sworne S
147.13; 152.9; 152.13 2 for I haue sworne thee faire
M 147.13; 152.12 2 loues eye M
148.8-9 2 loues fire M
154.10, 14 3 mens eyes M
20.8; 29.1; 81.8 2 mine eye and heart M
46.1; 47.1 2 sinfull earth M
146.1-2 5 sweet loue M
29.13; 56.1; 76.9; 79.5; 93.10 5 sweet selfe S
1.8; 4.10; 114.6; 126.4; 151.4 2 sweet theefe M
35.14; 99.2 5 ten times M
6.8-10; 37.14; 38.9 2 the better part of me
M 39.2; 74.8 2 the wide world M
19.7; 107.2 2 thoughts of loue M
39.11; 47.8 4 thy sweet selfe M
1.8; 4.10; 126.4; 151.4 2 thy will and will M
135.1; 136.2 4 true loue M
40.3; 61.11; 72.9; 107.3 2 true sight M
148.2; 150.3 2 two loues M
36.5; 144.1
FRom faire{{s}t} creatures we de{{s}i}re increa{s}e,
That thereby beauties <f pi>Ro{s}e<f pr> might neuer die, (1.1-2)
Be as thy pre{s}ence is gracious and kind,
Or to thy {s}elfe at lea{{s}t} kind harted proue, (10.11-12)
But from thine eies my knowledge I deriue,
And con{{s}t}ant {{s}t}ars in them I read {s}uch art
As truth and beautie {{s}h}al together thriue
If from thy {s}elfe,to {{s}t}ore thou would{{s}t} conuert:
Or el{s}e of thee this I progno{{s}t}icate,
Thy end is Truthes and Beauties doome and date. (14.9-14)
Neither in inward worth nor outward faire
Can make you liue your {s}elfe in eies of men, (16.11-12)
Til what{s}oeuer {{s}t}ar that guides my mouing,
Points on me gratiou{{s}l}y with faire a{s}pe{ct}, (26.9-10)
So I , made lame by Fortunes deare{{s}t} {s}pight
Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth. (37.3-4)
OH how much more doth beautie beautious {s}eeme,
By that {s}weet ornament which truth doth giue,
The Ro{s}e lookes faire, but fairer we it deeme
For that {s}weet odor,which doth in it liue: (54.1-4)
Truth needs no collour with his collour {fi}xt,
Beautie no pen{s}ell,beauties truth to lay: (101.6-7)
Or mine eyes {s}eeing this,{s}ay this is not
To put faire truth vpon {s}o foule a face, (137.11-12)
For I haue {s}worne thee faire,and thought thee bright,
(147.13)
Compositor Characteristics
Eld A Eld B
Cressid, Cressida Cresseid, Cresseida
1. Hellen Helen
2. shalbe, wilbe shall be, will be
3. ritch rich
4. els else
Eld A Eld B Cited Evidence Observed Evidence
B1r [B1r] shalbe, wilbe wil be (A) [else (B)]
B1v shall be, will be will be
B2v [B2v] shalbe, wilbe wilbe (A) [else (B)]
B4r rich else, rich
C1r rich rich
C3r rich rich
C4r ritch ritch
D1r shalbe, wilbe shal be
D3v rich rich
[D4r] [Hellens]
E2r shall be, will be, rich rich, shall be
[F1r] rich [not found]
F1v shall be, will be shall be, will be (B)
F2r shall be, will be, rich rich, shall be
F2v rich richly
F3r [F3r] shalbe, wilbe, ritch ritches, wil be [else(B)]
F4r rich richer
F4v ritch ritches
G1r shalbe, wilbe, ritch ritch, wil be
G1v shalbe, wilbe shalbe
G2r ritch ritch
[G4r] [else]
H2v shall be, will be will be
I1r rich rich
I3v (not noted on p. 22) rich
L1r ritch ritchest
[L1v] [els (A)]
A B
5. Oh O
Page Cited Evidence Jackson This Edition
A1r-A2v
B1r wil be, else A A and/or B
B1v will be B B-like
B2r
B2v wilbe, else A A and/or B
B3r O B B-like
B3v O (2) B B-like
B4r rich B B-like
B4v O B B-like
C1r O (2), rich B B
C1v O (3) B B-like
C2
C3r rich B B-like
C3v Oh A A-like
C4r ritch A A-like
C4v Oh A A-like
D1r Oh (2), shal be A A
D1v-D3r
D3v O, rich B B
D4r Hellens, Oh A A
D4v
E1r Oh (3) A A-like
E1v O B B-like
E2r rich, shall be B B
E2v O (3) B B-like
E3r O B B-like
E3v O (2) B B-like
E4r O B B-like
E4v O B B-like
F1r shall be, will be B B
F1v O B B-like
F2r rich, shall be B B
F2v rich B B-like
F3r ritches, wil be, else A A and/or B
F3v
F4r Oh, rich A and B A and/or B
F4v Oh (2), ritch A A
G1r ritch, wil be A A
G1v Oh, shalbe, wilbe A A
G2r Oh, ritch A A
G2v-G3r
G3v O B B-like
G4r O, else B B
G4v Oh A A-like
H1r O B B-like
H1v O B B-like
H2r O B B-like
H2v will be B B-like
H3r O (2) B B-like
H3v-H4r
H4v O B B-like
I1r rich B B-like
I1v O (2) B B-like
I2r
I2v O B B-like
I3r
I3v O (4), rich B B
I4r Oh (2) A A-like
I4v-K1
K2r O B B-like
K2v O B B-like
K3
K4r O B B-like
K4v
L1r Oh (3), ritch A A
L1v O, Oh, els A A and/or B
L2r Oh (2) A A-like
L2v O (5) B B-like
Variant Jackson 55 Confirmed 14 Compositor
Pairs Word-Freq. Word-Freq. Pref. (Revised)
6. doest 1 A; 3 B 4 (1 A: F4v) 1 +A+
do'st 1
doo'st 1 B 1
doost 9 *B* 12 (2 B F1r) 2 *B*
dost 5 *A*; 3 B 12 (3 A: D1r, F4v, G2r) 3 *A*
7. eie 9 A 8 (1 A: L1v) 1 +A+
eies 15 (2 A: F4v, L1v) 2 +A+
eielids 1
eye 36 *B* 35 (1 A: L1v; 1 A and/or 4 *B*
4 B: C1r, G4r, [2] I3v)
eyes 48 (6 B: C1r, F1r, F2r, 6 +B+
[3] I3v)
eye-lids 1
8. flowre \ 3 (2 A: F4v) 2 *A*
9. houre 6 B| = 13 *A* 12 (1 B: E2r) 1 *B*
10.powre / 6 (5 A: D4r, F4v, G1v,
2 L1v) 5 *A*
hower 6 B 6 (2 B: C1r, D3v) 2 *B*
flower(s) 2 A | = 14 *B* 12 (2 A: G1r, G1v; 1 B
(C1r) 2 +A+ / 1 *B*
power / 8 (1 B: E2r) 1 *B*
11.gold | = 4 *A*; 13 B 2 no evidence
12.old / 18 (1 A: G1r) 1 *A*
gould | = 10 B 5 (1 B: C1r) 1 B
ould / 6 (1 B: C1r) 1 B
13.:quatrain end strongly *A* 17 A (2 D1r, 5 D4r, 17 *A* / 3 B
4 F4v, 2 G1r, 1 G1v,
2 G2r, 1 L1v); 3 B
(C1r, F2r, I3v)
,quatrain end slightly *B* 1 A (D1r); 14 B (3 C1r, 1 A / 14 +B+
3 D3v, 1 E2r, 1 F1r, 2 F2r,
2 G4r, 2 I3v)
14.tong- 7 A; 2 B 9 (3 A: F4v, 2 G2r) 3 A
toung- 13 B 11 (1 B: G4r) 1 B
15.catchword: poem no. 7: 4 A; 3 B 7 (1 B: C1r) 1 B
catchword: 1st word 6: 6 B 6
16.space/"," ends poem 13: 13 B 14 (1 B: E2r). The others 1 B
are: <space> 2 C2v, H1r;
",": B1v, B4r, B4v, C4r,
D2r, D2v, 2 E4v, F1v, G3v.
A colon ends one on D4v.
punctuation ends poems
17.noe \ 8 (3 B: C1r, 2 D3v) 3 B
18.loe | = 11: 10 B 4
no 74 (5 A: D1r, 4 G2r; 9 B: 5 A / 9 B
2 D3v, F2r, G4r, 5 I3v)
lo 3
Page Cited Evidence Jackson This Edition
(pp. 6, 23-24)
A1r unassigned no evidence
A1v unassigned no evidence
A2r unassigned no evidence
A2v unassigned no evidence
["Sonnets" begin here]
B1r wil be, else, old 2 |A|; 1 B A and/or B
B1v will be, dost (2), doost (2),
ould 2 A; 4 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
B2r |B| no evidence
B2v wilbe, else 1 |A|; 1 B A and/or B
B3r O |B| B-like
B3v O (2) |B| B-like
B4r rich |B| B-like
B4v O, old, tong- 1 |B|; 2 A A and/or B [formerly B-like]
*C1r O (2), rich, ould, eye(s) (2),
ould |B| B
C1v O (3), ould, tong- 1 A; 4 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
C2r |A| "slight" no evidence
C2v old 1 A; |B| A-like [formerly no evidence]
C3r rich, old 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
C3v Oh |A| A-like
C4r ritch |A| "slight" A-like
C4v Oh, dost (2), old |A| A [formerly A-like]
*D1r Oh (2), shal be, dost 4 |A| A
D1v doost |B| B-like [formerly no evidence]
D2r doost |B| B-like [formerly no evidence]
D2v doost |B| "slight" B-like [formerly no evidence]
D3r |B| no evidence
*D3v O, rich |B| B
*D4r Hellens, Oh, powre |A| A
D4v |A| "slight" no evidence
E1r Oh (3), old |A| A [formerly A-like]
E1v O, dost (2) |B| "slight" A and/or B [formerly B-like]
*E2r rich, shall be, power |B| B
E2v O (3) |B| B-like
E3r O, ould, toung- (2) |B| B [formerly B-like]
E3v O (2) |B| B-like
E4r O |B| B-like
E4v O, old (2) 2 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
*F1r shall be, will be, doost (2),
eyes, doost (2) |B| B
F1v O, doost, toung- (2) |B| B [formerly B-like]
*F2r rich, shall be, eyes |B| B
F2v rich, toung- |B| B [formerly B-like]
F3r ritches, wil be, else |A| A and/or B
F3v dost, old, tong- |A| A [formerly no evidence]
F4r Oh, rich 1 A; 1 |B| "slight" A and/or B
*F4v Oh (2), ritch, dost, powre,
eie, tong- |A| A
*G1r ritch, wil be, old |A| A
*G1v Oh, shalbe, wilbe, powre |A| A
*G2r Oh, ritch, dost, tong- (2) |A| A
G2v old (A) A; |B| "slight" A-like [formerly no evidence]
G3r old, toung- 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly no evidence]
G3v O, old (4) 4 A; |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
*G4r O, else, eye, toung- |B| B
G4v Oh |A| A-like
H1r O |B| B-like
H1v O |B| B-like
H2r O |B| B-like
H2v will be, dost, ould 1 A; 2 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
H3r O (2), power (2), ould |B| B [formerly B-like]
H3v toung- |B| B-like [formerly no evidence]
H4r power |B| B-like [formerly no evidence]
H4v O |B| B-like
I1r rich, doost |B| B [formerly B-like]
I1v O (2), power (2), old, tong-,
toung- 2 A; 5 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
I2r toung- (2) |B| B-like [formerly no evidence]
I2v O, doost (2) |B| B [formerly B-like]
I3r dost (2), powre, tong- |A| A [formerly no evidence]
*I3v O (4), rich, eye(s) (5) |B| B
I4r Oh (2), powre |A| A [formerly A-like]
I4v |A| no evidence
K1r |B| no evidence
["Complaint" begins here]
K1v unassigned no evidence
K2r O, doost |B| B [formerly B-like]
K2v O, power, old 1 A; 2 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
K3r tong- A A-like [formerly no evidence]
K3v power, old 1 A; 1 B A and/or B [formerly no evidence]
K4r O |B| B-like
K4v unassigned no evidence
L1r Oh (3), ritch |A| A
*L1v O, Oh, els, powre (2),
eie (2), eye 6 |A|; 2 B A and/or B
L2r Oh (2) A [A and B] A-like
unassigned
L2v O (5) [|B|] B-like
A 12: C4v, D1r, D4r, E1r, F3v, F4v, G1r, G1v, G2r, I3r, I4r, L1r
A-like 7
B 14: C1r, D3v, E2r, E3r, F1r, F1v, F2r, F2v, G4r, H3r, I1r, I2v, I3v, K2r
B-like 18
A and/or B 17
no evidence 12
A (12) C4v, D1r, D4r, E1r, F3v, F4v, G1r, G1v, G2r, I3r, I4r, L1r
B (14) C1r, D3v, E2r, E3r, F1r, F1v, F2r, F2v, G4r, H3r, I1r, I2v, I3v, K2r
Spelling No. Difference Confirmed 26
Test Group
19. audit (2) A 1 (L1r)
audite (2) additional final "e" B 1 (H3r)
20. back (4) B 2 (2 I2v)
backe (3) additional final "e" B 1 (H3r)
21. beene (4) 3 A (E1r, 2 G1r)
bene (3) medial "ee"/"e" variation
22. belou'd (2) 1 A (I4r)
beloued (3) elision of "e" in preterite form 1 A (F3v)
23. boast (4) 1 A (L1r); 1 B (F2v)
bost (2) "oa"/"o" variation
24. cheekes (2) 1 B (F2r)
cheeks (2) additional final "e"
25. child (4)
childe (4) additional final "e" 1 B (C1r)
26. eternitie (2) 1 B (F1r)
eternity (2) final "ie"/"y" variation 1 B (H3r)
27. euil (2)
euill (2) doubling of final "l" 1 B (I2v)
28. far (6) 1 A (F4v)
farre (11) additional final "e"? 4 B (F1v, F2r, I1r, I2v)
8. flower (4)
flowre (2) final "er"/"re" variation
11. gold- (3)
gould- (5) medial "o"/"ou" variation
29. greef- (3) 1 B (D3v)
grief- (5) medial "e"/"ie" variation 2 A (D1r, F3v)
30. groane- (2)
grone- (4) medial "oa"/"o" variation 1 B (D3v)
31. hold- (12) 1 A (G2r), 6 B (F1v, 2 F2v, 2 I1r, I2v)
hould (2) medial "o"/"ou" variation 1 B (H3r)
9. houre- (12)
hower- (6) final "er"/"re" variation
32. kind (5) 2 B (E3r, I2v)
kinde (5) additional final "e" 1 A (F4v)
18. lo (2)
loe (4) additional final "e"
33. louers (5)
lovers (5) medial "u"/"v" variation 2 B (E2r, H3r)
34. maid (2)
maide (2) additional final "e"
35. merit (2)
merrit(s) (4) medial doubling of "r" 1 A (I4r); 1 B (I2v)
36. mind (6) 1 B (D3v)
minde (9) additional final "e" 3 A (E1r, 2 I4r); 2 B (F1r, G4r)
5. o (28)
oh (14) additional final "h"
12. old (15)
ould (6) medial "o"/"ou" variation
10. power (6)
powre (7) final "er"/"re" variation
37. receau- (4)
receiu- (7) i.e., forms of "receive"; 2 A (D1r, L1r); 1 B (I1r)
medial "ea"/"ei" variation
3. rich- (10)
ritch- (6) final "ch"/"tch" variation
38. song (2)
songe (2) additional final "e" 2 A (G1v, G2r)
39. sun (4)
sunne (9) additional final "e"? 1 A (E1r); 2 B (C1r, I3v)
40. themselues (2) 2 A (D4r, F4v)
them-selues (5) additional medial hyphen
14. tong- (9)
toung- (10) medial "o"/"ou" variation
41. vert- (7) 3 B (2 F1v, I2v)
virt- (3) i.e., forms of "virtue"; 1 A (D4r)
medial "e"/"i" variation
42. wealth (5) 1 A (F3v)
welth (2) medial "ea"/"e" variation 1 B (E3r)
43. whom (8) 3 A (D1r, F3v, I4r)
whome (3) additional final "e" 1 B (I2v)
44. witnes (2)
witnesse (2) final "s"/"sse" variation
45. subdew- (2) 1 A (L1r)
subdu- (2) medial "ew"/"u" variation 1 B (G4r)
46. tis 1 A (G1r)
'tis/t'is/ti's use of apostrophe 3 B (E2r, 2 F2v)
Page Cited Evidence Jackson This Edition
(pp. 6, 23-24)
A1r |unassigned| no evidence
A1v |unassigned| no evidence
A2r |unassigned| no evidence
A2v |unassigned| no evidence
["Sonnets" begin here]
B1r wil be, else, old 2 |A|; 1 B A and/or B
B1v will be, dost (2), doost (2),
ould, audit 3 A; 4 |B| A and/or B
B2r |B| no evidence
B2v wilbe, else 1 |A|; 1 B A and/or B
B3r O, whom (2), kind 2A; 2 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
B3v O (2) |B| B-like
B4r rich, vert- |B| B [formerly B-like]
B4v O, old, tong- 1 |B|; 2 A A and/or B
C1r O (2), rich, ould, eye(s) (2),
ould |B| B
C1v O (3), ould, tong-, ti's 1 A; 5 |B| A and/or B
C2r whome (2) 2 B; |A| "slight" B-like [formerly no evidence]
C2v old, greef-, far (2) 3 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly A-like]
C3r rich, old 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B
C3v Oh |A| A-like
C4r ritch, grief-, tis |A| "slight" A [formerly A-like]
C4v Oh, dost (2), old, wealth |A| A
D1r Oh (2), shal be, dost, grief-,
whom |A| A
D1v doost, grief- 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
D2r doost, farre |B| B [formerly B-like]
D2v doost, whom 1 A; 1 |B| "slight" A and/or B [formerly B-like]
D3r audite, grief-, farre 1A; 2 |B| A and/or B [formerly no evidence]
D3v O, rich, greef- |B| B
D4r Hellens, Oh, powre, virt- |A| A
D4v |A| "slight" no evidence
E1r Oh (3), old |A| A
E1v O, dost (2), farre (2) 1 A; 3 |B| "slight" A and/or B
E2r rich, shall be, power, t'is |B| B
E2v O (3), vert- |B| B [formerly B-like]
E3r O, ould, toung- (2), kind |B| B
E3v O (2), vert- |B| B [formerly B-like]
E4r O |B| B-like
E4v O, old (2), wealth, far 4 A; 1 |B| A and/or B
F1r shall be, will be, doost (2),
eyes, doost (2) |B| B
F1v O, doost, toung- (2),
vert- (2), farre |B| B
F2r rich, shall be, eyes, farre |B| B
F2v rich, toung-, 'tis (2) |B| B
F3r ritches, wil be, else, virt-,
whom 4|A|; 1B A and/or B
F3v dost, old, tong-, wealth,
grief-, whom |A| A
F4r Oh, rich, wealth, vert- 2 A; 2 |B| "slight" A and/or B
F4v Oh (2), ritch, dost, powre,
eie, tong-, kinde, far |A| A
G1r ritch, wil be, old, tis |A| A
G1v Oh, shalbe, wilbe, powre |A| A
G2r Oh, ritch, dost, tong- (2) |A| A
G2v old, kinde (5) A; |B| "slight" A [formerly A-like]
G3r old, toung- 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B
G3v O, old (4), whom, 'tis 5 A; 2 |B| A and/or B
G4r O, else, eye, toung-,
subdu- |B| B
G4v Oh, tis (3) |A| A [formerly A-like]
H1r O, virt- 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
H1v O, kind, far 1 A; 2 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
H2r O, tis 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
H2v will be, dost, ould, far 2 A; 2 |B| A and/or B
H3r O (2), power (2), ould,
audite |B| B
H3v toung-, whome |B| B [formerly B-like]
H4r power, farre (2) |B| B [formerly B-like]
H4v O, kinde 1 A; 1 |B| A and/or B [formerly B-like]
I1r rich, doost, farre |B| B
I1v O (2), power (2), old, tong-,
toung- 2 A; 5 |B| A and/or B
I2r toung- (2), farre, 'tis |B| B [formerly B-like]
I2v O, doost (2), vert-, whome,
kind, farre |B| B
I3r dost (2), powre, tong- |A| A
I3v O (4), rich, eye(s) (5) |B| B
I4r Oh (2), powre, whom |A| A
I4v |A| no evidence
K1r |B| no evidence
["Complaint" begins here]
K1v unassigned no evidence
K2r O, doost |B| B
K2v O, power, old, tis 2 A; 2 |B| A and/or B
K3r tong-, subdu- 1 A; 1 B A and/or B
K3v power, old, kinde 2 A; 1 B A and/or B
K4r O |B| B-like
K4v greef-, kind (2) 3 B B [formerly no evidence]
L1r Oh (3), ritch, audit,
subdew- |A| A
L1v O, Oh, els, powre (2),
eie (2), eye, wealth
subdew- 8 |A|; 2 B A and/or B
L2r Oh (2) A [A and B] A-like
L2v O (5), whom, kinde 2 A; 5 [|B|] A and/or B [formerly A-like]