http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/mstap.2012.9.issue-24/issue-files/mstap.2012.9.issue-24.xml

Multicultural Shakespeare

Volume 9, Issue 24 (Dec 2012)

Issues

Most Downloaded Articles

1. Theatre Reviews

2. A Holonic Approach to Shakespeare: The Digital Reference System (DRS) by Forés López, Vicente and Saiz Molina, Jose.

3. Theatre Reviews by Heijes, Coen/ Georgopoulou, Xenia and Konstantinidis, Nektarios-Georgios
4. Nothing like the Sun: Shakespeare in Spain Today by González, José Manuel
5. “What country, friends, is this?”: Australian and New Zealand Productions of Twelfth Night in the Twentieth Century by Carnegie, David

View Top 20 Most Downloaded Articles

A Holonic Approach to Shakespeare: The Digital Reference System (DRS)

Forés López, Vicente / Saiz Molina, Jose

Page 61

Published Online: 12/28/2012

61
Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance vol. 9 (24), 2012
DOI: 10.2478/v10224-011-0016-3
Vicente Forés López and Jose Saiz Molina*
A Holonic Approach to Shakespeare:
The Digital Reference System (DRS)
Prefatory Remarks
When hypertext was made available on the Internet after 1994 it shaped the concepts of
public domain and free access. The web server and browsing system that Tim Berners-Lee
and Robert Cailliau designed, determined the future digital, editorial and cultural
developments for traditional audiences and digital natives alike. They quickly became the
generalized interface tools and thus contributed to today’s editorial standards. As they helped
to create this innovative environment called the Internet, they also helped to establish many
standards such as URL, URI, HTTP, HTML or XML, which provided interoperability
amongst different platforms and allowed internationalization.
Shakespeare’s texts became part of the interoperable and open network environment
which took off after Grady Ward compiled and distributed a public domain version of the
Complete Works of William Shakespeare, the so called Moby Shakespeare, which has been
credited as being the most widely distributed version of Shakespeare’s Works in the world. The
concepts such as free use, fair use and worldwide distribution, including many practical any
platform–applications significantly increased the added value of the emergent digital
environment, providing the opportunity to encode, transcode, clone and distribute the best
Shakespearean file(s) in digital environment. Gary Taylor and Ian Lancashire have already
discussed this issue from an ontological point of view, so we spare the reader a repetition of
their arguments.
From a computational perspective, and after analyzing both the functionality and
quality of the Moby Project, we can say that the main advantage of Grady Ward’s proposal is
that it allows Internet users to e a s i l y access the complete unabridged works of
Shakespeare in a digital format (plain text or as TXT), which has produced many important
technological advances since it was first published. The disadvantage is that, as David
Greetham (348) pointed out, Grady Ward adds “nothing” to the editorial methodology
because as a would-be editor he used as the most authoritative text the famous Globe
Edition (1886) edited by W.G. Clark and W.A. Wright. This ideal out-of-copyright edition did
not improve upon the computational modern spelling edition of the Riverside Shakespeare’s
Complete Works by Marvin Spevack (digitized with the IBM 7094 in 1969), nor Trevor
Howard-Hill’s old spelling concordances (generated with the English Electric KDF9 also in
1969), nor the First Folio facsimile published by Sir Sidney Lee in 1902, which continues
to be the most used and popular digital text available for free downloading from the
Internet.1
* Vicente Forés López is Associate Professor at the University of Valencia; Jose Saiz Molina holds PhD in English
Studies and is a member of the MultiMediaModules (mmm) team at the University of Valencia.
1 We can also use the Plays of Shakespeare in XML by the distinguished engineer John Bosak (in “XML”
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
Vicente Forés López and 62 Jose Saiz Molina
In the context of this debate, we undertook an in-depth study of a series of different
accessories (also called para-textual elements), which have been added throughout time in
most of the standard editions, for example the main functional/dramatic characteristics of
textual divisions, character headings, stage directions, etc. We compared the main elements
of the sequential line numbering (SLN) system with the famous through line numbering
(TLN) system. Having detected their most important inadequacies for today’s digital use,
which we discuss in the present paper, we developed our own system, which we called either
the key line numbering (KLN) or the digital reference system (DRS), depending on what aspect
of the proposal we want to stress.
Standard Abbreviations for Play-Titles
Each time we want to cite, quote or even concord any verse, line or word of any of
Shakespeare’s plays we usually make use of traditional and accepted devices such as a sigil
(commonly named abbreviation or textual identifier) for the plays’ title (Tit. for Titus
Andronicus; HAM for Hamlet), followed by act and scene division (I.i. or II.iii.) and line
numbers (I.ii.124-127). We have studied exhaustively almost all existing Shakespearean
editions to establish the abbreviation methods used throughout time and decided what could
be improved to make these textual identifiers more standard, international, bibliographical
and digital.2
We analyzed different authors and projects to establish how they refer to each of the
Shakespearean plays’ title and what abbreviations they use. Our study of the traditional and
standard abbreviations of Shakespeare’s works enabled us to establish the way these
alphanumeric notations connect older/print and modern/digital traditions. Following the
analysis of different evolutionary sequences of these abbreviations, we created a new method
of abbreviating the play titles:
1. Using the original First Folio title for each play.
2. Using the following notation:
a. TN, WT and JC (two-letter abbreviations) widely used and unchanged since
1805.
b. LLL, MND (three-letter abbreviations), established by the New Variorum
Shakespeare (NVS) and used by most editors.
c. Tmp, MfM, CoE, MoV, ToS, TaC, RaJ, ToA, AaC (three-letter abbreviations)
and TGoV, MWoW, MAaN, AyLi, AwEw (four-letter abbreviations), used to
help the reader identify easily the title of each play. Lower-case letters in the
abbreviations mean they are pronouns, conjunctions or prepositions.
d. COR, TIT, MAC, HAM, OTH, CYM (three- letter abbreviations for six
character names, but all in upper-case.
e. KJN, KR2, 1KH4, 2KH4, KH5, 1KH6, 2KH6, 3KH6, KR3, KH8 and KLR
for all the Histories (where “K” stands for “King”).
3. Using abbreviation PRE for Prefatory Materials (proposed by Stanley Wells, Gary
Taylor).
format) and the first on-line Shakespearean concordance published by Eric M. Johnson (at the
“OpenSourceShakespeare” website). Both are technically very useful projects, but from a biblio-philological
point of view they both are still incomplete.
2 The in-depth study on which the present article is based is available (in its hypertextual and in Spanish
version) at http://www.uv.es/uvpress/thesisJSAIZM/
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
A Holonic Approach To Shakespeare 63
Textual Division: Traditions and Editorial Standards
In the First Folio edition we observed the irregular editorial method in relation to
the act and scene divisions that has maintained many editors so busy for so long. But only
three differentiated variants exist:
• Variant A: 6 plays (2 Histories + 4 Tragedies) with neither Act nor scene
divisions.
• Variant B: 10 plays (6 Comedies + 1 History + 3 Tragedies) with Act divisions
only.
• Variant C: 20 plays (8 Comedies + 7 Histories + 5 Trag.) with both Act and scene
divisions.
Figure 1: Standardizing the Textual Sequences
In the case of Titus Andronicus (see Figure 1),3 the textual divisions changing through
time range from a minimum of 7 scenes (by Nicholas Rowe, 1709) up to the maximum of
34 scenes (by Thomas Hanmer, 1750). The first attempt to establish a textual sequence in
Shakespeare’s Plays was undertaken by W.G. Clark and W.A. Wright in 1860/6 who divided
the play into 5 Acts and 14 scenes. This division became the stable structure of Titus
Andronicus and has remained almost unchanged since.
The Sequential Line Numbering (SLN)
Apart from creating the most authoritative textual divisions for each of Shakespeare’s
play and establishing a general Act and scene standard, W.G. Clark and W.A. Wright
contributed also by editing their Shakespeare’s Complete Works as a conflated text, which reads
and mixes Quarto, Folio and other publishing traditions, trying to establish what is called
the ideal text. Thus , they created what became the first virtual text. They also created a
Sequential Line Numbering (SLN) system that:
1. Assigned a non-random and unique identifier to each line using a tabular system
(they started counting the line numbers of the play at the beginning of the first
character’s speech, so e.g. the line in Titus: “Noble Patricians, Patrons of my
right,” spoken by Saturninus becomes Act I, scene i, line 1).
2. Automatically incremented numeric values that use textual divisions, e.g. in Titus:
“Defend the iustice of my Cause with Armes,” becomes Act I, scene i, line 2 and
3 We use Titus Andronicus as our copy text, since we worked on its translation while preparing this article.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
Vicente Forés López and 64 Jose Saiz Molina
Saturninus: “Be it so Titus, and Gramercy to.” becomes Act I, scene i, the last line
495.
3. They repeat the same counting method every single scene, thus in Titus, Act I,
scene ii, line 1 is: “Now climbeth Tamora Olympus toppe,” said by Aaron.
The Through Line Numbering (TLN)
The next step in developing editorial standards was the famous and now almost
unique standard established by Charlton Hinman in The Norton Facsimile of the First Folio
(F1) of Shakespeare: Based on Folios in the Folger Library Collection, published in 1968. He
thought he had produced the best possible F1 edition as a result of collating all available
copies of the First Folio texts kept in the library. The characteristics, but also the main
problem of this edition is that it:
1. Idealizes the First Folio with the use of the Collation Machine with which Hinman
generates an inexistent and therefore virtual First Folio.
2. Establishes the now famous Through Line Numbering (TLN), which is exclusive for
each play, and includes stage directions, speech prefixes and any para-textual element
of the text. (e.g. Titus, Act I, scene i, line 1: “Actus Primus. Scoena Prima” and
Saturninus: “Noble Patricians, Patrons of my right.” becomes Act 1, scene i, line 7.)
Hinman also created a cross-referencing4 between TLN and SLN which allows both a linear
and sequential approach between each part and the whole of the text (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Cross-referencing TLN and SLN
The Fixed Line Numbering (FLN)
What really helped us establish what we now call our own Key Line Numbering
(KLN) system was the discovery of the Lay-Out and Referential Method introduced by
Samuel Ayscough, in his concordance entitled “An Index to the Remarkable Passages and
Words Made Use of by Shakespeare; Calculated to Point out the Different Meanings to Which
the Words are Applied”, published by John Stockdale in 1790, which became the first
4 There are two other examples of this type of cross-referencing: the Shakespeare in-Quarto facsimiles by James
Frederick Furnivall, William Greggs and Charles Praetorius in 1880 and the First Folio facsimile first published
by Sir Sidney Lee in 1902.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
A Holonic Approach To Shakespeare 65
computationally designed concordance. It helped because Ayscough included in his Fixed
Line Numbering (FLN) system alphanumeric references to each “Play, Act, Scene, Page,
Column and Line” using George Steevens’ text (1778) to implement and develop his own
edition and concordance. He also started counting by hand all lines of each two-columns
page, and for that purpose he used the center space between both columns, which is the
solution we followed in our digital system.
Figure 3: Samuel Ayscough’s Fixed Line Numbering (FLN) system.
Current Problems with Retro-conversion (scanning of printed texts)
Neither the use of computers nor digitizing texts changed the textual or editorial
traditions as much as it might have been expected in the late twentieth century. Basically,
through the retro-conversion (scanning), the already published printed texts are simply
reproduced and most of the times just spell- checked and corrected by hand for a later on-line
edition without any major changes. Thus all the advantages that an on-line edition can
provide being available and easily accessed by any user are wasted.
Figure 4: An example of retro-conversion with TLN
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
Vicente Forés López and 66 Jose Saiz Molina
The diachronical development of editorial standards that we are discussing here consists of
the following stages:
1. Creation of machine readable formats, beginning in 1976 (formats generated in
ASCII, TXT, later HTML, etc.).
2. Introduction of mark-up languages (COCOA, SGML, HTML, XML, etc.).
3. The ongoing public debate between what people call General Editor of Shakespeare’s
Works (e.g. Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor) vs. Digital Editor as they are called (e.g. Lou
Burnard, John Lavagnino).
4. Old spelling transcription of the First Folio (e.g. by Sidney Lee) or a modern spelling
transcription (e.g. by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen).
5. Application of different Line Numbering systems (TLN and SLN).
The 1623 First Folio object
We decided to use the 1623 First Folio edition of Shakespeare’s Complete Works with which,
as we assumed, it should have been rather simple to come up with a line numbering method
that could work as a digital reference system, which later would allow us to adjust
automatically all other reference systems. Besides, everybody agrees that the First Folio is a
unique, easy to access and very popular edition of Shakespeare’s Works (at least on the
Internet). We decided that we only needed to treat the First Folio as an object and not as a
text. Until today most of the editors have looked at the First Folio as a transcript of the plays,
examining the text only instead of considering also the book and printing conditions of the
time. Since we have been editing in an on-line digital media, the fact that the book shall never
change has played a fundamental role in establishing our Digital Reference System (DRS).
The first decision was to establish a Key Line Numbering of all lines in any given
single page. In the case of the First Folio all the pages are always 66 lines long (if you
exclude top play headers, signatures and catchwords, with which we will deal later). There
are also always two columns and one rule line. Bearing this in mind, you can refer to any
typographic/linguistic item (e.g. verses, ornaments, play titles and finis, stage directions, null
lines, etc.) with a high-degree of precision. The idea of such a fixed lay-out is what allows us
to count all the items contained in any single page using just three elements as a single
unit, i.e. the left column (L)+ rule line + the right column (R). Figure 5 should help to better
visualize what we propose. It presents page A and page B, and on each page a left column (L)
and a right column (R). (L) pages carry page numbers justified to the left (we call them Key,
as each one is a unique page number throughout all of the First Folio) and the Title of the Play
is centered on both pages. At the bottom of the left page there is a catchword justified to the
right; it is used to link with the first word of the next page, as happens with the catchword of
the right page.
Figure 5: Fixed l ay-out for our Key Line Numbering
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
A Holonic Approach To Shakespeare 67
To illustrate our Key Line Numbering system we now will apply it to page 31 of Titus
Andronicus (which is the title page of the play). We know that Titus occupies pages from 31
to 52 of the First Folio edition (pages 647 to 668 in Charlton Hinman’s facsimile). The total
number of pages is 21, and thus the total numer of columns is 42 (21 left / 21 right columns).
The line numbering, if we follow the first line in the Sequential Line Numbering (SLN),
starts with the first verse line of the first character who speaks (Saturninus) and thus W.G.
Clark and W.A. Wright counted a total number of 70 lines for this page. Charlton Hinman,
follows Ronald B. McKerrow’s proposal and, using the Through Line Numbering (TLN)
system, starts counting at the stage direction Actus Primus [...] and from there to the last
verse line of the page there is a total of 91 lines. As here we are dealing with a title page, to be
accurate we have to count from bottom to top, because through that change/inversion we can
maintain the exact line account independently of how many printed lines the play header, play
title, act and scene or stage directions occupy in each single play (as, of course, it varies from
play to play). Therefore, in our Key Line Numbering (KLN) we start on this page counting
from the bottom to the top of the page, obtaining a total of 48 lines per column (48 L / 48 R),
with a total number of 96 lines on the page. The line numbering of page 30 can be counted in
a regular way as it is the page of the end of The Tragedy of Coriolanus. The word FINIS
occupies 11 lines but we still count 66 lines for the whole page.
Figure 6: First reading of the First Folio as a digital reference frame
Another difference between our system and Hinman’s and Ronald B. McKerrow’s
system is presented on the example of page 35 of Titus (see Figure 5). In his facsimile
Hinman included both data sets: the SLN and the TLN. With the SLN the count goes from I.i.1
to I.i.429 and II.i.1 to II.i.46 (counting each Act and scene independently) and with the TLN
the page 35 is reproduced by the text counted as lines 478 to 602. If you subtract: 602 – 478 =
124 lines, which is the extension of the second textual division (Act II, scene i).5
According to our KLN proposal, we count a total number of 132 lines (66 lines in
column L and 66 in column R) on page 35. On this page we find 20 speech headings (10 in
column L and 10 in column R), 4 stage directions and we count 6 null lines (0 in column L
and 6 in R). Null lines, in this case, appear due to the textual division of the “Actus
Secunda” of the First Folio. The pages that follow the fixed layout of 66 lines per page
represent 97% of the pages contained in the First Folio edition and therefore can be easily
referenced with our proposed method. However, the question remains how many pages do
5 In the case of the SLN, we cannot determine the total number of lines unless we see the physical edition,
as the lay-out of the page determines the final quantity of lines, which varies depending on each page and
depending on the place the textual division was included.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
Vicente Forés López and 68 Jose Saiz Molina
not follow this fixed layout or how many are different in their layout so that our system
could not be applied? In the case of Charlton Hinman’s First Folio edition, for example,
except for 17 pages with Prefatory Materials, and 3 pages of Actors’ Names, 2 pages for the
Prologve, 2 for the Epilogve and 4 empty pages, which amounts to 28 pages of a total of 908
pages. As these 28 pages represent only 3% of the total, where our proposal could not be
easily applied we follow Charlton Hinman’s method only for these pages.
Another surprising feature of our method occurs when we look at the 36 title pages.
We explained already (see Figure 6) that these 36 pages are receiving a special treatment due
to their peculiarities and variations in line extension. We cannot start counting at the top line
of the page, therefore we just reverse the counting method and we use the rule lines that
have been printed to determine the length of the page, thus we can count all items in any
given title page counting from bottom to top. Titles, act and scene divisions, text ornaments
and the blank spaces could be translated into regular lines or, alternatively, be counted as
null lines depending on our needs, but in any case, they do not alter the global line count of
the method.
Our Digital Reference System
What we want to achieve with our proposal of a digital reference system (DRS) is to
integrate all existing line numbering and reference systems, adding all options and advantages
that the hypertextual and linkable environment of the Internet provides. Samuel Ayscough’s
Fixed Line Numbering (FLN) provides a method to link and retrieve any line of his edition,
but he did not follow the original Folio lines. Charlton Hinman did follow the Folio text with
his Trough Line Numbering (TLN) method, included a cross-referencing method to the
Sequential Line Numbering (SLN) proposed by W.G. Clarck and W.A.Wright (see Figure 2),
but ignored the Folio as object with a fixed and unchangeable layout6.
For Ronald B. McKerrow the absolute line numbering (ASL) is a referential method to
organize an “ideal” Folio line numbering system. He took
the typographical lines of the First Folio as our standard and print opposite to every
tenth line of our text the number of the line of the First Folio, we should get a
numbering of the lines which can be used by any other editor or commentator and
may reasonable be regarded as permanent. (60-62)
Our proposal provides a unique identifier both for a textual database as well as for a fixed
method to use the First Folio as a referential object. In our system we are integrating our Key
Line Numbering, by cross-referencing with Hinmann’s Through Line Numbering (TLN),
which also includes the Sequential Line Numbering (SLN). In a practical example of our
DRS, the notation for page 35 of the Folio edition of Titus Andronicus translates the first text
line into six database domains, where three are optional and three (bold) enough to establish a
unique identifier of any line of any play.
• TIT. + p.35 + I.i + 647 + L + 25 = Noble Patricians, Patrons of my right,
(Abbreviation of the play) + (Folio page number) + (Standard Textual Division) +
Char l ton Hinman’s F1 page number + column + line. Comparatively it equals: Tit
I.i.1 (in SLN) or Tit I.i.7 (in TLN).
The previous line in the Folio (Saturninus’ speech heading) has no reference in the SLN
method and becomes line number 6 in the TLN, while in our method it would be 647 + L +
24. The stage direction from 647 + L + 20 to 647 + L + 23 has no reference in the SLN system
6 Modern variorum editors, following H.H. Furness’ methods, use a dual model and include both line
numbering systems in their archives: SLN (W.G. Clark and W.A. Wright) and TLN (Charlton Hinman).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
A Holonic Approach To Shakespeare 69
and equals I.i. 2-5 in the TLN.
Conclusions
Having analyzed the existing reference systems, which are widely accepted and used,
we established our own proposal. Although international standards such as the Modern
Language Association (J. Gibaldi, 222 and Abbreviations 6.7.2) or the New Variorum
Shakespeare (R. Knowles, 133-134) try to establish a regular and coherent abbreviation
system, the results still depend on the editorial policies and/or textual resources of each
publishing house or editorial team.
Regarding the textual division, the first proposal by W.G. Clark and W.A. Wright is
still considered standard today, though through the retro-conversion to the digital media it is
being maintained without providing rationalization of the system as such. In our case this
textual division is optional; it provides us with the possibility of linking our method with
previously established and standardized reference systems. The First Folio can be read as a
whole or split into conventional parts (Acts and scenes), thus following the SLN method.
Verbal indexers, lexicographers and concordance builders were the first who
established the relations between the play (whole) and the verse line (part), and exploited
the interrelation and feedback between the whole and the part to better understand each play
(part) in relation to the complete works (whole). This gave birth to an alphanumeric
analytical approach in textual scholarship and facilitated the innovative literary criticism
based on statistical and computational methods.
Our Key Line Numbering (KLN) system develops out of and is based on the previous
Fixed Line Numbering (FLN) system, but due to the First Folio object layout, it allows us to
combine the typographic/linguistic codes with the bibliographic codes, thus overcoming the
limitations that we detected in both the SLN and the TLN systems. In both systems the
physical reality of the First Folio is ignored. The Folio can be described as consisting of a
text printed in an unalterable and unchangeable format which consists of 66 lines per page
divided into two columns.
With our method we try to materialize Ronald B. McKerrow’s abstract Absolute Line
Numbering (ALN), which can be now, thanks to the digitalization process, made into a
reality. Owing to the digital environment our typographical/editorial possibilities have become
infinite, precise, programmable and versatile. Our artificial intelligence, like a counting
method, comes very close to R.B. McKerrows permanent and absolute requirement. Thanks
to its flexible application we can account for ALL elements (words, lines, speeches, etc.),
including ALL ornaments, rule lines, null lines and play titles.
Works Cited
(all Internet references last updated on 30 September 2012)
Ayscough, Samuel. “An Index to the Remarkable Passages and Words Made Use of by
Shakespeare; 1790” Google Books,
<http://books.google.es/books?id=I4EjAQAAIAAJ>
—–. “The Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare 1807. Vol. 1” Google Books.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=vzsUAAAAYAAJ>.
Bosak, Jon.“XML: The Plays of Shakespeare in XML”.
<http://xml.coverpages.org/bosakShakespeare200.html>.
“[OTA] The University of Oxford Text Archive”. University of Oxford.
<http://ota.ahds.ac.uk>
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM
Vicente Forés López and 70 Jose Saiz Molina
Furnivall, F. J. and Griggs, and & Praetorius, C. eds. “Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles
[1880]”. London: Griggs and Praetorius.
<http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013134451>
Gibaldi, Joseph. ed. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. NewYork: Modern
Language Association of America, 1999. 5th edition.
Greetham, David C. (1994) Textual Scholarship: An Introduction. New York and London:
Garland Publishing, 1994.
Johnson, Eric. “OpenSourceShakespeare: An Experiment in Literary Technology.”
<http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org>.
Knowles, Richard. ed. “Shakespeare Variorum Handbook: A Manual of Editorial Practice.”
<http://www.mla.org/shakespeare_varpdf>.
McKerrow, Ronald B. Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1939.
Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works. Ed. Stanley Wells et.al. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1998.
—–. Titus Andronicus. Ed. Eugene M.Waith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
—–. The First Folio of Shakespeare. Ed. Charlton Hinman. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996.
—–. Titus Andronicus. Ed. Alan Hughes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
—–. Complete Works. Ed. Sidney Lee. 1902.
—–. The Works of William Shakespeare. Ed. W.G. Clark and W.A. Wright. Cambridge and
London: Macmillan, 1863.
—–. The Works of William Shakespeare (Globe Edition). Ed. W.G. Clark and W.A. Wright.
Cambridge and London: Macmillan, 1866.
Ward, Grady. “Grady’s Ward’s Moby”. <http://icon.shef.ac.uk/Moby/>.

Download Date | 2/6/15 10:18 PM