While reviewing the work of Hannah, Kate, and Lydia, I enjoyed the precision and concision of their annotations. A sample of them appears below. While a full documentation would require snippets of the image and the transcription as well as the annotation, the annotations themselves clearly show their minds at work, combining clear description with a keen sense of what is possible or likely and offering emendations with appropriately shaded degrees of confidence.
This mark appears on the Newberry copy but as ink that resembles a vertical dash more than a colon
nonsense word; must rhyme with “thumpe” in the next line and I’m more confident that the first letter is “f” than “s”
“Figinti” in this line is mistranscribed. It is still a little hard to make out in the witness but I do believe it is “Viginti”
Blotchy but plausibly a comma? (Darker part of the ink blot kind of curves like a comma).
Bodleian copy clearly has no punctuation, but there does appear to be something in the witness of the EEBO scan
In both the EEBO scan and the UChicago copy, this letter is very clearly an L. I think it is printer’s error and the word intended is “fit”.
It is a bit hard to tell if the A is actually printed or written in later.
This is a case of a word split in two over a line break that otherwise would be one word.
It looks like the colon and the y were accidentally swapped.
In the University of Chicago copy of this play, pages 3b (A4r) and 4a (A4v) are reversed.
This looks like an f or an s, but neither would make sense here.
This letter is clearly crossed so I believe it’s an f rather than a long s. However, I don’t know the word “fet” so I can’t be sure it makes more sense than “set.” My guess is it’s related to “fetched?” That seems to be how it’s being used here.
The first letter isn’t fully crossed but surely this is “false”
long s, I’d argue that “sire” makes far more sense than “fire”
I think this probaby says “Aurelia” since that’s the name of this caracter but the page edge is badly cropped in my witness, I have the Au- and barely the last a. But her name is reproduced in a margin note on the facing page, so I think we can be pretty confident.
looks like a clear end stop even though it should be a comma
pages missing from the EEBO images, signature I1v and I1r
Harvard copy has no punctuation here. The EEBO image looks like there is a period or an inverted comma here.
This looks like a letter on the end of the previous word, not a punctuation mark.
In the text (both the Harvard witness I’m looking at and the EEBO image), “doate” is pretty clearly printed as one word (and I think the meter calls for this to be one syllable too). Is it a spelling of “dote”? That seems to make sense in context.
I think it’s a period mistakenly set at the top of the line (and there is more upside down punctuation in this speech.)
The EEBO image looks pretty clearly like it says “totved.” Mine looks slightly more like “torved” but that r/t character is pretty badly printed. OED cites this passage for the word “torved” (modern spelling torvid)