Spellings in Sir Thomas More (Hand M) and Edward III

previously unpublished; © the estate of eric sams 

Nowadays, there is general if not universal agreement [1] that the three-page insurrection scene from Sir Thomas More (hereafter M) is an undoubtable (if undatable) Shakespeare autograph, and also that the anonymous edition of Edward III in 1596 is, at least in part, his work. So if the two texts share certain unusual spellings, these may well be authorial.

     Of course the two orthographies are not always exactly similar. Shakespeare's remarkable variability is clearly evidenced in M. Differences of dating may also have had their effect; further, any printed spellings may have derived from a compositor, or even a copyist, not the author.

     But some of M's spellings seem so unfamiliar that their duplication in E3 is worth investigating. Their oddity is emphasised in Honan, 1998, 45-6, with the comment that Shakespeare's supposed daily memorization of Latin, from the age of 7 until about 15, did not help his English spelling, because that language was not regularised, and anyhow his teachers 'would have cared a great deal more for a child's Latin'. However, it seems from this same child's later M spellings, in such words as Credyt, inhumanyty, infeccion, Iustyce, obay, perceaue and scilens, that he was heedless or unaware of creditum, inhumanitas, infectus, justitia, obedio, percipio, silens and so forth.

     On any hypothesis it seems sensible, in the absence (pace Honan op. cit.) of clear counter-evidence, to accept the massive testimony that Shakespeare had 'small Latin' and indeed lacked orthodox education in general. Why, otherwise, would such illatinate, not to say illiterate, spellings be found throughout the 1596 first quarto of Edward III? These are now not easy to verify; there is as yet no old-spelling concordance to that fine play. But its 1596 lineation is used in a statistical analysis (Slater 1988, 197-248) and my own modern-spelling edition (Sams 1996), whence the serious analyst can identify the original words. [2]

     Meanwhile the following parallels between M and E3 may prove of especial interest, in view of the fact that the latter is now accepted as Shakespearean by many modern editors, [3] at least in those scenes that contain the Countess (I.ii., II.i-ii, lines 177-1038, called C from now on). Given that the same hand penned both, some correspondence between M and C is only to be expected. Thus in the former we can see Shakespeare writing advauntage, Comaund, ffraunc [=France], graunt, seriaunt [=sergeant], as well as -an variants (such as Seriant); so it comes as no surprise to find braunches, comaund, exchaunge, Fraunce, inchaunted, substaunce, vauntage, as well as -an variants, in C. But then what of the -aun spellings [4] and their -an variants in the non-Countess scenes? These are I.i., III. i-v, IV. i-ix, V.i; lines 1039 to 2600, the end of the play. Let us call them N from now on, which may also stand for the view that these portions are Not by Shakespeare.

     Many other quirks, such as Shakespeare's frequent substitution of a capital C for a small initial c, or his preference for y over i, are also found in M, where they were treated as idiosyncratic (by Pollard, 1923, loc. cit.). Capital Cs appear throughout N. [5] Examples of y for i abound there too. [6] As Pollard also said, the list seems to be getting rather long.

     But this is just a beginning. The truncated preterites in -t, identified in The Shakespeare First Folio (Greg, Oxford 1955, 363) as phonetic and doubtless authorial, also occur [7] throughout N. Readers are entitled to ask why some writers (such as Gabriel Harvey [8]) should choose to spell phonetically; perhaps they too were once educationally disadvantaged?

     Equally evidential are the silences and omissions. Thus to judge by M, apostrophes seem to have been anathema to Shakespeare; at least none appear throughout its 500 lines. They are also entirely absent from E3's 2,600 lines, whether C or N, although they often occur in other printed sources, including the early quartos of plays known to be by Shakespeare.

     The rational and economical inference so far is surely that he wrote all of E3, not just C. Such criteria as the supposed differences of style between C and N are too subjective and unevidenced to sustain the total rejection of N as 'non-Shakespearean'; any detectable differences of style within the same work are more rationally and economically explained by different dates of composition, which is verifiably the actual reason for other examples of possible discontinuity, in music no less than in literature.

     Such an explanation also covers the many other correspondences between M and N. Thus the former tells us, in banck, thanck and thinck, that Shakespeare often, perhaps usually, spelt nk as nck; so no eyebrows will be raised at rancke (234), incke (398), thincke (525) and thancke (527) in C, especially since those last two words also occur in M. But so does bancke; and this appears in N (1421), together with drancke (1103) and Francks (1714). So the copy for N too, like that for C, was written in every sense by Shakespeare and supplied to the compositor in his own hand - unless of course he had cunningly chosen a collaborator whose spelling praxis strongly resembled his own.

     Again, M thrice writes modern -ss- as a single -s- (mas, stilnes, trespas); and so does the hand set up by the compositors in C, which has boldnes (543), busines (347), foolishnes (390), glas (467, 468, 480), greatnes (719), helples (675), mightines (456, 957), mistres (476, 700), pasport (789), sweetnes (532), and vnwillingnes (955). But N says the same, often in the same words, with busines (2135), pasport (1718, 1844, 1880) and willingnes (2325, 2366) as well as darkenes (1226, 2326), darknes (2081), fatherles (1538), numberles (1301), quietnes (2398), readines (1046), remorseles (1222), saples (1541), senceles (1850), sharpnes (113), sollitarines (1343), stubbornes (1774), wantonnes (1478) wildernes (90), wilfulnes (1613) and worthles (1398). Such a practice conforms with Shakespeare's own spelling, according to John Mover Wilson, who says (1923, 135) that 'writers and printers of the period had the choice between -s and -sse, and it seems certain that Shakespeare generally preferred the former'. If so, it again appears that both C and N 1596 were set up from copy in his own hand.

     Similarly, Shakespeare in M writes the word coasts as costs, loaf as loff and throats as throts or throtes, while groat becomes grote. The first of those words recurs, in the singular but again, unsurprisingly, with the Shakespearean spelling cost, in C, together with several analogues. But the same word, in the same spelling, also appears in N (supposedly Not Shakespeare), at lines 1109 and 1164; cf. also approch (2391), approching (1461), approcht (1128), bemoning (2309), croke (2111), groning (2525), othe (a key word in this play, 133, 1700, 1853, 1856, 1867), and reproch (109)? Not Shakespeare?

     In M he uses the vowel ai instead of a, in plaigue, straing, straingers; and C follows suit with prophaine (709). But N spells range and ranged as rainge (1235) and rainged (1543). Similarly, Shakespeare in M uses the vowel ea instead of a short e, as in geat [=get], himsealf, sealf, sealves, togeather. The same applies to C, which has least [=lest] (300), tearmes (343), tearme (891); but the same curious quirk also occurs in N, , which also has least (103, 1142, 1265) as well as shepheard (44, 1441). Similarly, Shakespeare's M practice of omitting a final e after t, as in appropriat and desperat, often recurs in C, which has contemplat (443), emulats (509), excommunicat (689), passionat (444), infinit (481), requisit (452), tribut (607). But the same spelling is found in N, which has priuat (36), respit (2365) and not (= note, 20). Again, M is notable for its silent c, especially in its famously Shakespearean spelling scilens (as also found nineteen times in 2 Henry IV, 1600); so too in C (fructles, 334), but also in N (fructfull 45, Poyctiers 1679).

     In M, Shakespeare often uses doubled medial or final consonants, such as dd, ll, nn, pp, rr and tt. All six doublings are predictably found throughout C (e.g. at shaddow 587, Aprill 324, Angell 595, cancell 694, compell 960, eternall 920, evill 800, annointed 621, gonne 853, vncupple 273, lippes 604, Corrall 361, farre 978, pittie 212, mettell [=metal] 614); but so they are in N, often in the same words (meddow 1116, Admirall 1120, 1196, 1197, allarum 2211, 2229, 2361, Anuell [=anvil] 1652, arriuall 1338, artifitiall 1403, Callis [= Calais] 1720, 1750, 1799, 1803, 2345, Callice [= Calais] 2192, 2193 (twice), 2205, civill 2559, collours 118, 1942, 1987, Coullours 1635, coulloured 1115, counsell 105, 1598, 2295, continuall 1655, cruell 1656, deniall 2155, dismall 1630, eternall 1430, extemporall 2032, fatall 1947, fellonious 2373, finall 119, funerall 2474, 2519, heerewithall 2553, imperiall 1120, 2071, 2385, Issabell 50, lawrell 1514, loyall 1060, maiesticall 1118, marshiall [=martial] 1048, mortall 2272, 2274, 2514, naturall 1465, Pellican 1686, perill 1852, 2006, 2550, perillous 2050, pollicy 1709, prodigall 1445, quarell 1427, quarrell 1274, rebell 2238, regall 10, roiall 2184, royall 2323, 2346, 2423, sallutation 1395, schollers 1450, seuerall 1142, 1967, sollemnly 1061, sollitariness 1363, speciall 28, therewithall 2009, tragicall 2458, trauell 1784, vallor 1221, vallour 1593, vniversell 991, vnnaturall 769, 2116, vntill 118, 1219, 2522, donne [=done] 1639, ennemie 1694, ennimie [=enemy] 1566, linnen 1816, runne 1635,  perhapps 1617, topps, 1290, afarre 1163, Courrage 1474, farre 115, 1235, 1252, 1755, 1901, 1971, forrener 1466, forrage 1909, Marriner 1184, scarre 2272, 2278, spurre 1409, 2205, tyrranie 1470, warre 124, 152, 1054, 1138, 1289, 1864, 1893, 2279, 2549 etc., Bryttish 1990, pittying 2006, and sett (cf. the same word in M) 82.

     Sadly, very little attention has been paid to Shakespearean spellings, whether per se or via misprints, since the two studies¹ of M already mentioned, despite the present widespread availability of word-processors and computers. No doubt, despite such earlier expert assurances as 'if we find any considerable number of eccentric or archaic spellings in a print, the likelihood is great that it was set up from the author's own manuscript' (Greg. op. cit., 148), the current academic mind-set will find such studies unconvincing. 'Clearly, any argument for Shakespeare...on the basis of orthography must be accounted weak, for lack of reliable data' (so says Forker, 1989, 164). Nevertheless he proceeds to itemise thirty-eight unusual spellings in M (which he accepts as holographic) for which 'parallels or near parallels' have been noticed in Shakespeare's printed texts, 'the regularising tendencies of compositors nothwithstanding' or else 'can be plausibly inferred from the spellings of analogous words or from compositorial misreadings'. First come examples which are unsurprisingly also found in C, where M's 'adicion' is paralleled by 'condicion' 461, and its 'oo' for o' as in 'afoord' by foorth 190, misdoo 752, loose [=lose] 757, 760, moouing 424, prooue 371, too [=to] 853. But double o also appears throughout N, as in belooued 2512, or again loose [=lose] 2266, 2426, 2443, remooude 1708, smoothered 2206.

     Next comes a leven for eleven. Personally, I expect Shakespeare knew that such English integers were spelt as one word; if so, the unusual element consisted in his writing the initial letter a so that it seemed separate. But this is a feature of E3, where N has a bused (1311), a farre (1163), a foot (2535) and a side (1298). Then Shakespeare in M often omits the final e after c, as in ffraunc, insolenc, obedienc, obedyenc, offyc. Forker finds the selfsame idiosyncrasy in certain accredited Quarto misprints, such as ingredience, intelligence, instance, where the sense demands ingredient, intelligent and instant respectively.

     But if misprints are admitted as evidence, then such endings can readily be confirmed in C; and even without such support the spelling recompenc can be seen plainly printed in N (1327). Again, N has persaging, which may have been caused by Shakespeare's own misuse of his D abbreviation _, meaning per- or par-. Other M abbreviations are tane for taken, which reappears in N at 1191, 1617 and 1959, and ore for over, found in N at 2014 and 2111. Forker also identifies obay as a curious D formation; this uses ay for modern ey, just like pray [=prey] in N 1772. He also mentions theise = these, a word which appears as theis in N 1476, and cites ymagin from D, with the parallel ymaginary from a Shakespeare quarto; this spelling qualifies as unusual because it begins with y instead of i, like yron in N (2046, 2204). Neither he nor any of his predecessors mentions D's use of terminal -ie for -y, no doubt because both forms were used together for many years; but a complete survey of parallels should include the -ie spelling, because it is Shakespearean. And it abounds in N, which (like D) has Countrie (with capital C) and maiestie. Again, D has aie for ay in saies [=says]; so has N, in araie [=array] 1363, arraie 1938, daies 66, 1814, 2289, delaies 2356, dismaie 2232, dismaied 2117, laie 2489, praie 1480, 2031, 2037, 2297, 2440, staie 1311, to daie 1428, 2013, 2286, waie 2143, waies 1302. The first of those N spellings recalls the many words with single consonants so spelt in Shakespeare quartos, as also in D - and in N, with carie 1282, comence 151, comixt 1838, crost 57, deferd 1528, 1874, dragd 2386, dwels 2171, dwelst 2187, imbost 2488, incompast 1591, 2143, litle 2137 lopt 2308, Loraine 1555, ods 1978, possest 1695, prest 1565, profered 1738, 1991, puld 81, shipt 2597, tost 1214, tyranous 1390, tyranie 1470, as well as araie 1363.

     The only recent exception to the general absence of modern investigation into Shakespeare's spelling [9] has been but tepidly received, save for one positive review. [10] As before, these will not necessarily conform in every detail with the orthography of Edward III 1596, which was published some seven years before Othello was written. Besides, as STM shows, Shakespeare's spelling could be widely variable; and in any event the two plays have very different vocabularies. Nevertheless, the Othello spellings said by Honigmann to be Shakespearean (because they occur elsewhere in the canon) will be of especial interest to the serious researcher. They do not in the least depend on Shakespeare's authorship of D; but they too serve to validate the whole of E3, both C and N, because they occur so regularly and so copiously throughout that play. Take for example the two Othello spellings 'battaile' and 'battell'. Both of them occur, six and four times respectively, in Edward III. But all six of those 'battailes' (1258, 1390, 1456, 1941, 1984, 2523) and three of those four 'battells' (1182, 1522, 1934) occur in N. So do comming (1800, 2380), desteny (1607), groning (2569) and intirely (198). This last example is found in the phrase 'entirely love', which is, for no very clear reason, a Shakespearean collocation (the two words appear in association eight times out of the nine usages of 'entirely' listed in the Spevack concordance, 1973, 358-9). The spelling 'intirely' is not only singled out as individually authentic by Honigmann but also included in his equally accredited Shakespearean category (4) of words spelt with initial 'in' for 'en'.

     Again, lyer (=liar) is said to be a Shakespearean spelling. That word does not occur anywhere in E3; but lies (= untruths) is there printed as lyes (and in section N, too: 1426), and a writer who wrote lyes could hardly fail to spell liar as lyer. This would also fall under the first of Honigmann's five categories of characteristic spellings, namely (1) the very frequent substitution of y for modern i, a spelling already analysed above, and found in profusion throughout the N sections of E3. The Shakespearean spelling Lyon also occurs thrice in E3 N, (102, 103, 1506); those first two references rehearse the same curious scenario as King John II. i. 138 and Henry V IV. iii. 94, where the wearer of a lion's skin is denounced - although neither of those two plays had then been published. In E3 N, furthermore, the bogus lion would be torn 'peecemeal', although 'peece' also figures in Honigmann's list of Shakespearean spellings and recurs in E3 N (1107). So does pitty, as the first two syllables in the word pittying (2006); so does prophane (1534); so does sence, in the word senceles (1850); so do shew (1178, 2044, 2159, 2575), shewes (1932), Souldier (149) as well as the frequent souldier (1103, 1237, 1301, 1335, 1367, 1597, 1674, 1677, 1737, 1883, 2111, 2118, 2135, 2145, 2355, 2387, 2426); so do stroake (2387), suddaine (1924) and vertue (2158).

     Incidentally, the spellings identified by Honigmannn also serve to illustrate that lack of Latinity about which Shakespeare's contemporaries so often complained. A well-schooled classicist would hardly have rejected destino, profanus, sensus, virtus, and so forth, quite so cavalierly; nor, surely, would such a scholar have written 'emured', as contained in E3, when 'immured' was meant.

     The first three of Honigmann's five additional groups or categories, namely (1) y for i, (2) -oo- for -o- and (3) the doubling of consonants, (4) in- for en- and (5) -full for -ful. Honigmann adds that 'the same characteristic spellings are found in the good quartos'; and many readers may think that the time has now come to examine the so-called 'bad' quartos as well. These categories also appear in E3 N; for example with belooued (2512), foorth (190, 1759), loose [=lose] (2266, 2426, 2443), prooued (1279), remooude (1708), smoothered (2206), woone [=won] (1232).

     The doubling of consonants (3) has also already been dealt with above, in some detail. But one example calls for separate consideration, namely Shakespeare's preference for the ending -full as distinct from -ful, as in Honigmann's category (5). This spelling is found throughout E3, whether in C (bewtifull 435, faithfull 1053, ioyfull 563, lawfull 691, peacefull 208, pytifull 423, scornefull 184, shamefull 300, vnlawfull 938) or N (disdainfull 1351, dolefull 2459, dreadfull 1899, dredfull 1302, fearefull 1089, 1272, 1678, 2101, 2582, fruictfull 44, fruitfull 1378, 1783, handfull 1273, 2264, ioyfull 169, 1636, mirthfull 1256, mornefull 2310, painefull 1784, painfull 2086, 2593, paynefull 1642, peacefull 2398, rightfull 173, watchfull 1110, wilfull 1774, 2423, wonderfull 1925, youthfull 166).

     That leaves category (4). Pace Honigmann, in- for en- as well as en- for in- are both found in STM (Ingland, enstalls); so the group is rightly defined as 'in- and en- interchangeable'. Such transpositions are found throughout 3, in both C (enchantment 285, inchanted 417) and N (inioynd 74, enioynd 1656). The latter, further, abounds in examples of in- for en-, such as incampe 1045, inclose 1204, incompast 1591, 2143, incroach 1369, indeuor 1022, 2142 indurde 1346, ingagde 2182, ingirt 2006, ingraud 1449,  inkindled 1435, inlarge 1326, insnard 1849, 1912, intangled 1602, intertainment 2667 inthrone 1470, intombed 1493, intrapt 1921, intreated 1790, intreats 2060 intrench 1740, and intrencht 1650. There too the author is printed as if he had also written im- for em-, in imbatteled 2113 imployd 1414, 1560, imbost 2488 imbrace 40, 1667, imbracement 1348 imbracing 2196.

     It remains to suggest a reason why Shakespeare in D always writes 'coold', 'shoold' and 'woold'. As we have seen, he spelled phonetically; so the necessary component 'ould' would have said 'old', as indeed it does at N 1534. According to Professor Honigmann, this is a Shakespearean spelling, as in fould or unfould. These words do not occur in E3 which however has bould, gould, scoulding and souldered in C together with hould (1382) and souldier (2185 etc) in N.

Notes

[1] as attested by several specialists in compendia from Shakespeare's Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More ed. Pollard, Cambridge 1923, to Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More ed. Howard-Hill, Cambridge 1989.

[2] especially with the considerable help offered by the modern-spelling Concordance to the Shakespeare Apocrypha, ed. Ule, Hildesheim, Zürich, New York 1987, 95-196. 

[3] notably in The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. Evans and Tobin, Boston and New York, 2/1997, 1732-1773, and King Edward III, ed. Melchiori, Cambridge 1998.  

[4] at 19 (Fraunce, as in M), 52, 82, 92, 104, 157, 980, 1032, 1050, 1142, 1552, 1634, 1807, 1815, 1828, 2438, 2454, 2466, 2488. At least the copy before the compositors was presumably also written by someone who, like Shakespeare, pronounced -an as -aun.

[5] e.g. in lines 4, 84, 136, 168, 190, 1095, 1134, 1156, 1159, 1166, 1170, 1238, 1239, 1259, 1267, 1296, 1309, 1339, 1416, 1434, 1437, 1438, 1473, 1474, 1625, 1635, 1691, 1699, 1721, 1771, 1805, 1909, 1918, 1947, 2324, 2328, 2348, 2370, 2450, 2453, 2491, 2500 and 2524.

[6] e.g. in lines 5, 11, 20, 23, 24, 33, 39, 40, 43, 56, 59, 63, 74, 76, 84, 92, 97, 102, 103, 106, 110, 121, 123, 124, 134, 139, 159, 161, 167, 196, 207, 208, 211, 216, 219, 221, 243, 269, 1048, 1054, 1056, 1066, 1071, 1105, 1121, 1125, 1147, 1154, 1155,  1157, 1190, 1196, 1202, 1210, 1211, 1227, 1228, 1230, 1234, 1263, 1276, 1278, 1280, 1281, 1286, 1290, 1348, 1364, 1375, 1376, 1389, 1400, 1402, 1415, 1420, 1422, 1425, 1426, 1429, 1443, 1461, 1468, 1492, 1540, 1542, 1544, 1547, 1549, 1562, 1595, 1599, 1603, 1607, 1610, 1612, 1615, 1617, 1631, 1633, 1641, 1642, 1656, 1661, 1679, 1682, 1715, 1722, 1734, 1751, 1752, 1759, 1770, 1802, 1811, 1844, 1864, 1895, 1911, 1981, 1990, 2007, 2023, 2046, 2069, 2074, 2077, 2204, 2224, 2301, 2306, 2314, 2322, 2345, 2357, 2360, 2395, 2402, 2447, 2471, 2480, 2488, 2492, 2495, 2500, 2501, 2503, 2518, 2525, 2530, 2544, 2578.

[7] e.g. in lines 49, 80, 107, 129, 1021, 1054, 1087, 1094, 1097, 1107, 1133, 1141, 1169, 1237, 1239, 1258, 1288, 1300, 1360, 1430, 1512, 1565, 1591, 1623, 1635, 1648, 1650, 1678, 1695, 1743, 1756, 1786, 1797, 1838, 1848, 1851, 1923, 1934, 2070, 2081, 2083, 2095, 2125, 2143, 2204, 2213, 2253, 2308, 2312, 2465, 2478, 2488, 2511, 2545, 2556, 2559, 2580 and 2597.

[8] such as Gabriel Harvey, whose own atypical spellings are discussed by J. D. Wilson in the first source named at 1 above, pp. 122-6

[9] E. Honigmann, The Texts of Othello and Shakespearian Revision, London and New York, Routledge, 1996, especially its Appendix C, 158-161.

[10] W. Speed Hill, 'Editing Othello: The Indefatigable in Pursuit of the Intractable', The Shakespeare Newsletter 50/3 No. 246, 67-8, 70, 72, 84, 88.