CME Proofreading Log

Time stats. times in brackets are extrapolated from other times in the column, based on average recorded time per page (for preparing samples) and average recorded time per byte (for recording proofing information). The average book requires an hour to prepare its sample, two hours and twenty minutes to proof, and twenty-four minutes to document the proofing results. 191 bytes of stripped sample take a minute of total proofing effort, meaning that 3.8 kB of tag-stripped text can be sample-proofed every minute, or about 5.28 kB of tagged text (roughly two pages); this amounts to a proofing cost of roughly $0.17/page of the whole book.

Error log Note: "Real" errors are those that are counted against the 99.995% accuracy rate. "Pardonables" are mistakes that could not reasonably have been prevented (e.g., errors arising from defects in the original printed page). "Stripped filesize" is the file size in bytes of the proofed sample from each book, after it has been reduced by the script "striptag.pl" to a file containing only characters. This script removes all tags (retaining only the values of the "N" and "REND" attributes); and reduces all multibyte character entities to a single byte. The samples themselves represent a randomly selected 5% of the pages in each book. The numbers in the final row ("allowed" and "found") refer to "real" errors: 1 error allowed per 20,000 characters, vs. number actually found. Asterisks point to descriptions of errors that were not included in these stats (see below).

Transcription problems, miscellaneous and endemic

1. `` used instead of opening "
2. ` used instead of opening ' (usually no harm done, just not necessary to distinguish opening from closing quote marks; some books, however, use a true ` to mark a span of text for commentary; we should reserve the character for those and similar uses).
3. Over-literalism and inconsistency in spacing before punctation, especially semicolons (e.g. xxx; vs. xxx ;) and exclamation marks (xxx! vs. xxx !).
4. Though Guidelines warn about possibility of italic "thorns" being printed as normal thorns because of inadequate printing fonts (in some books, e.g. book "AL" [Beues of Hampton]), suggesting that non-italic thorns in otherwise italic words should be treated as italic, this warning is probably best restricted to notes, where italic text is most likely to occur. Following it overliterally in the main text results in the use of <I> tags around words that should not have them, especially þer and þar (occasionally also þus, þou, þys, þet, and inexplicably with), which are basically normal words with italicized expanded abbreviations (-er -ar -us)--words which should not be treated differently from other words with expanded abbreviations (e.g. "oþer, moþer, furþer"), that is, recorded without italics: &thorn;er, &thorn;ar, &thorn;us, &thorn;ou, &thorn;et, with, o&thorn;er, etc.
5. Macron over "p" should have been listed in the instructions as a macron to ignore (like macron over "m" and "n").
6. See comments below under "AV" and "AY" (and "BF") about roman letters in generally italic words (as opposed to italic letters in generally roman words).
7. '' (two single quot. marks) used instead of " (one double quot. mark) in some early volumes.
8. Notes to line spans end up nonsensically attached to all lines in the span if the edition uses the form "13,14" instead of "13-14" to describe the span.
9. Notes to line spans end up attached to only the first line of the span if the edition uses the form "13f." or "13ff." to describe the span.
10. Milestones within words need to be postponed till end of word, like PBs.
11. Milestones within NOTES require inconsistent treatment that is difficult to specify in general.
12. Expected problems with abbreviations (search for "$").

Specific transcription errors

• AB : "r" misread as "?" (but letter is defective in print)
• AC : Roman "II" misread as arabic "11"; period (.) misread as comma (,) but rather elongated looking in print.
• AD : Gothic "N" misread as "A" on title page. Odd "9" misread as "0" on p. 107 ("leaf 179"), but recorded correctly later on same page ("leaf 179, back"). Macron over "p" is not anticipated in the instructions; one example on p. 603 (in heading) omits macron; elsewhere recorded as $d$.
• AE : line 5602, page 182, "our" recorded as "bur".
• AF : perhaps pardonable errors: two "wyns," are recorded respectively as "p" and "thorn" (but the existence of these characters was not noted in the Book-by-book instructions).
• AG : Odd macrons and double macrons not encoded as such (see Book-by-book instructions s.v. "characters"). Single macrons instead recorded as acute accents and double macrons as unknown diacritic. (AG also had serious problems in supplied images. Three pages missing, several pages duplicated, corrupted, out of sequence: our fault.)
• AI : One (barely visible) space between words omitted.
• AK : Folio ref on p. 153 given as 105a instead of 105b
• AK : * one footnote (105 characters on p.75) and one line number (5 characters, line 21744, p.580) missing in sample. The former was probably accidentally overwritten by a duplicate copy of the next footnote. These have not been included in the error stats.
• AL : "scche" instead of "seche" in note to line 1166 on p. 55 (upper text). "|" (i.e., end-of-line hyphen) instead of m-dash in two notes in upper text of p. 61 (lines 1275 and 1282). "cuery" instead of "euery" in note to line 1048 on page 61 (lower text). Hyphen instead of m-dash in note to line 1107 on page 65 (lower text).
• AO : *not listed as error : missed string of periods indicating missing text (. . . . .) on p. 11-- but this was probably a misconceived instruction anyway.
• AI : consistency suggests that we should remove spaces before "+" and "-" when line break intervenes, since no space occurs in these combinations when there is no line break.
• AJ : several small errors arising from presence of stray marks in original print, especially pencilled notes.
• AM : One extra period in a note on p. 94.
• AN : Problems with the regnal years (they are made sequential, instead of being read from the roman numeral/latin heading); therefore a discrepancy between value of "N" attribute and regnal year given in the heading.
• AP : "seharpe" instead of "scharpe" in line 581 (stanza 83, p. 22). One extra space in a note to stanza 246, p. 62 (but hard to tell in print).
• AR : "he" recorded instead of "be" (but error is in original print, page 2 line 33). "ey þer" recorded instead of "eyþer" (but there is some space in the original print to justify error, line 682, page 25). "þris" recorded instead of "pris" (app. true transcription error, line 2298, page 82). "emerystene" recorded instead of "emcrystene" (another true error, line 5119, page 168).
• AT : "rede" recorded as "rcde" (but cross-bar of "e" is faint in print original).
• AU : last note on page 111, the "III" should be "111" (arabic numberal rather than roman, but the ones are indistinguishable from the capital "I"s in this book). Last note on p. 189, the diacritic over the "n" of "man" is a macron (to be ignored), not a tilde.
• AW : "fra" (line 2970 page 174) is recorded as "fia" (but letter is defective in print). In note to line 2971 (page 174), "l" is twice recorded as "1" (but it is not even really a letter "l" but an attempt to print the upright stem of a defective "h").
• AX : "i-won" (line 20, page 194) is recorded as "1-won" (but "i" is missing its dot in the print). "bouwe" (line 182 page 425) is recorded with an internal space ("bou we") though there is no real trace of one in the print. "at" (line 208, page 426) is recorded as "a" (but "t" is very faint in the original). "church-3erd" (line 361 page 441) is recorded without the hyphen.
• AY : "feet" (line 317, p. 206) is recorded as "fect" (but letter is fairly faint in original). A stray dot in the print (line 208, p. 475), is incorrectly rendered as a period.
• BA : "grevaunce" (line 8009, page 216) recorded as "grevaunee" but error is probably in original print, which seems to show an "e" with a broken cross-bar, rather than a "c".
• BB : "str^eynen" (in footnote to page 58) recorded as "strynen". "e" (in same note) recorded as "c". Period after "vj^e" in note to page 261 recorded as a comma. "endewing s" at the bottom of page 363 is an error in the original, presumably for "endewings" or "endewinges" etc. Greek in footnote 3, page 425, shows one unknown diacritic ($d$) where there is none, and is missing one where there is one.
• BC : "s aule" for "Saule" p. 444 (but "s aule" is what it looks like: "s" stands for large initial cap, or for rubricator's mark indicating need for large initial cap.) "A riche" recorded as "Ariche" (p. 464b). "ls" for "is" (475b; but typo is in the original). "clilde" for "childe" (486b; but typo is in original). "c&oelig;lo" recorded for "c&aelig;lo", p. 1447b marg. note.
• BD : "preceding" (page 202, footnote to line 6343) recorded as "preceeding".
• BF : "speca&eth;", "galileisce", and "ure" (poor xerox copy pasted onto bottom of page 89) are recorded as "spcca&eth;", "galilcisce", and "urc". Period recorded between "seo" and "o" ("seo.o") on page 285 is really just a flaw in the paper.
• BG : no recommended treatment given in instructions for dotted "y" or inverted semicolon. Latter is rendered as semicolon (which is ok, and what is now included in the revised guidelines); former rendered as $d$, which is of course correct, but has now been replaced in the revised guidelines by a simplification to simple "y". One "o" recorded with an acute accent; even looking at the original, I'm not sure if that's supposed to be there or not.
• BH : "hundred" for "hundered" (p. 138 note)--a particularly glaring error because the missing letter is the subject of the note! "knites" for "kni3tes" (376:7189) but letter is barely visible in original, prob. not at all in scan. "&alpha; for italic "a" (p.392 st. 13).
• BJ : "sugre" recorded as "surge" (p.89:3368).
• BK : "ry3th" recorded as "wy3th" (line 20, page 49a).
• BL : "deuelis" recorded as "deuclis" (verse 4, page 219).
• BM(1) : "aboute" recorded as "a boute" (though spacing is a bit generous in the original, v.4, p.204, v.18); similarly "to gidere" for "togidere" on p.272, v.12.
• BM(2) : "buschelis" recorded as "bus chelis" (though spacing in original ambiguous, p. 302, verse 11). "o" in footnote recorded as uppercase "O", p. 517; likewise on p. 37; reverse probably (?) in note on p. 199. Uppercase "S" for lowercase "s" in notes on p. 301 and 345 and 778 (v.2). "L" recorded as "I." in marg. note on p. 345, v.2 (but cross-stroke very faint). Uppercase Ccedil for lowercase ccedil in note on p. 280. Flaw in paper recorded as comma, p. 137. V.2, p. 487 creased in image: many errors. Needs to be retranscribed. Stroke (used to mark span cited in note) missed, verse 11, p. 633, v.2. "teching" recorded as "leching" in note to p. 7, v.3. praeligter recorded as proeligter, v.3, p. 404 and 733. Vol. 3, p. 733, marginal note missing. Should read: "This title is in Ebrew, and is of the text. Lire here. EGKPQUY." Lowercase "s" for uppercase "S" in note to v.4, p. 41. Strange uppercasing of word "vs" three times on p. 224, v. 4. Lowercase "v" for "V" twice in notes on p. 369 of vol. 4, and again twice on p. 486 and again on p. 487 and again on p. 508; four times on p. 518, twice on 554, once on 586, etc. Uppercase "O" for (?) lowercase "o", v. 4, p. 427 and 463. Various other case problems, most of which are indistinguishable in the print except for precedent and precedence (e.g., lower case before upper case, etc.)
• BN : Tall "s" in "saw" recorded as "f" (166:139). Tall "s" in "wys" and "sro" recorded correctly as "s" but original had typo (should have been "f" 183b:289; 261:152). "qmet" for "q&macr;met" (pg. 223, note to line 188). "molody" for "melody" (238): error is in original; correction is written in. "I" for "l" (261:95 note), but not distinguishable. "IC" for "ic" (I think) where original either has small caps or dotless "i" (285:117 note). Double-double quot. marks (298:702,710) recorded correctly as "" but perhaps should be changed to '. Smudge (?) p. 428, first line, recorded as "["
• BO : "Y soder" for "Ysoder"; "enywise" for "eny wise" (but little if any space in original print); " and ' transposed when both appear in juxtaposition (twice); "an6" for "an[us]" (with 6-shaped abbreviation for "-us"??); "cllys" for "ellys"; "oelig" for "aelig" entity in italic text (where "ae" looks much like "oe") twice; "legyens" for "legyons" in note (4:155), but letter is faint in original; "alpha" entity for italic "a", but these are virtually indistinguishable (4:379; also 6:257); "Xp" for "chi rho" in note (5:419); stray dot in "to.deled" recorded as period (flaw in original 6:463). "iordes" for "lordes" (8:87) but letter is broken in original.
• BP : See no. 3 of the misc. problems, above.
• BQ : A period recorded as a colon at the end of the note to pt.1, p. 5, line 80 (flaw in paper). "while" recorded as "whilo" in note to line 165, pt. 2, page 101. Pt. 2, page 104, line 241: interlinear note "a besaunt" omitted. "hym-selue" (last line on page 154 of part 2) recorded as "hym-selIe". A period recorded as a comma at the end of the note to pt.3, p.157, line 348 due to flaw in print.
• BR : "neddirs" recorded as "n eddirs" (but unclear in original: verse 3, page 467).
• BS : Three cases of "f" mistaken for "tall-s": "sikenylde" (line 28, page 5, should be "fikenylde"); "sond" (line 35, page 28, should be "fond"); "aster" (line 1209, page 66 right column; should be "after").
• BU : "1" (old-style "1", looks like small "I") recorded as "I" (vol. 2, page 93, head note); stray mark in print on p. 109 recorded as `; stray mark on p. 111 recorded as .
• BT : Dotted thorn (not mentioned in instructions) should be rendered as ordinary thorn (ignore the dot). * One entire line with attached note missing (line 6551, page 230). (= approx. 45 characters.)
• BV : loop-shaped abbreviation mark omitted in footnote on page 17 (perhaps mistaken for stray handwritten squiggle) [though the shape is anomalous, record with &es; entity].
• BZ : "þee" (line 77, page 39) is recorded as "þec"; .
• CA : "Tikelle" recorded as "Tikellc" (p. 97; cross-bar is faint); italic "Q" recorded as "2" on p. 199 (note attached to p. 198); "contumelia" recorded as "eontumelia" (p. 210 marg.; but bleedthrough seems to provide the "c" with something of a cross-bar); "nec metuunt" mis-spaced as "necmetuunt" (p. 228 marg.); "com" recorded as "eom" (p. 228; but bleedthrough seems to provide a cross-bar)
• CD : Note 3 on p. 48 contains what appears to be a thorn with an "-es" abbreviation, but is probably intended as a typographic representation of a "-er" abbreviation; rendered by vendor with the former; may need to create a new entity for the latter.
• CE : "louord" for "louerd" (p. 26). "oerdene" for "berdene" (p. 34; 'b' broken in original);
• CI : "al this" recorded as "al.this" (flaw in print read as period, p. 70, line 2452).
• CJ : "OCupide" for "O Cupide" (p.47), but "O" is large drop cap and spacing would appear the same whether or not it was to be read as joined with the following letters (and "Ocupide" is a legitimate word). Need to decide how to render punct. character that looks like a small s, sometimes with a dot under it, which occasionally (?only when dotted) = question mark; it has been rendered as a question mark in the transcription regardless of dot (see page 220, 312, 342, 462, etc.). C&aelig;sar, p. 497, recorded as C&oelig;sar (usual difficulty in recognizing the italic version of &aelig;). "ffor" (pg. 9) recorded as "for" (but second "f" is completely missing in print).
• CK : "mc" for "mo" (broken letter in original, 232:691). "whichea man hisso" for "whiche a man his so" (p. 663) (spaces hard to see in original). "crienvnto" for "crien vnto" (p. 690) (space hard to see, but not impossible).
• CL : "A N" for "AN" (but there is a definite space in the print).
• CM : &verbar; on p. 319:263 probably a typo for "/". "buxome" recorded as "bukome" (395:1432) but original is blotted. Flaw in original recorded as &middot; 547:702.
• CN : "sche" on p. 164, line 274, recorded as "sene" (but top portion of upright stroke of "h" is missing, making it resemble and "n").
• CO : "3_3" in note on p. 15 is probably really "3-3" (but hyphen is quite low in print); likewise with "1_1" on p. 242, line 219; "2_2" on p. 375, line 632; "2_2" and "3_3" on p. 487, lines 3706-7. Second "wis" on line 231, p. 173, is error for "wif" (no excuse in original).
• CP : One period recorded on p. 373 line 1509 questionably present in original: prob. a flaw in the print.
• CQ : "Rats Away" (heading on p. 43) recorded as "Bats Away" (the usual problem reading ornate gothic capitals).
• CS : One space missed on p.93 ("whatich" for "what ich").

Some tagging problems (noticed while character-proofing)

• AB : <LIST> used instead of <LG> or <L>s when tagging two lines of verse in a note. Instead treat these as <L>s within a <Q> within the <NOTE>.
• AB : Footnote inserted at wrong line (misplaced by one line).
• AC : Many unneccessary <P>s used in the spaced out marginal <ARGUMENT>. These are accidents of the marginal arrangement, not paragraphs (they interrupt sentences, for one thing).
• AD : Marginal annotation in first section (Prefixed Liturgical pieces) not necessary to record as ARGUMENT (or at all). Defect in instructions. On p. 3, lines beginning with ¶ but without indentation or extra leading probably don't need to be treated as new paragraphs. Lines 13-18 of prose on this page should be in bold. As in book AC, many unneccessary <P>s are used in the spaced out marginal <ARGUMENT>. These are accidents of the marginal arrangement, not paragraphs (they interrupt sentences, for one thing). P. 42 date ("About 1265") missing at head of argument. On p. 358, date 1311/2 (i.e., 1311-1312) is recorded with character entity for one-half rather than simple slash character (Admittedly, it looks like a one-half in the print, but instructions specify otherwise.) Date at head of argument ("1266") on p. 457 is bolded (<B>) but similar bold dates are not recorded with B tag elsewhere; they should probably be one or the other for consistency's sake.
• AE : Marginal note omitted on p. 93 [should read: " (MS. has Pire) "]. Marginal note omitted on p. 120 [should read: " ("tylude"=tilde, turned, cast) "]. Two marginal notes omitted on p. 139 [should read: " (Rhodes.) " and " (Isidore.) "]. Large initial cap "I" at bottom of page 139 does not need to be recorded as bold (<B>) since guidelines say to record initial caps as ordinary caps.
• AG : The "texts" section is not encoded as a <LIST> as requested. Epigraphs at head of homilies recorded as <P>s, not <EPIGRAPHS>s as requested. On p. 270, line of dots indicating missing text wrongly treated as interlinear note.
• AH : Some trouble distinguishing the marginal notes from other marginal stuff is indicated by the missing notes to Gregory and Grosstete on p. 56, and the truncated note "Fasciculus, ii.474." on p. 128 (should be: "Defensio Cura|torum, Brown's Fasciculus, ii.474."). The missing notes are not important (they are not mentioned specifically in the instructions).
• AI : One example of italics not tagged.
• AJ : One example of a line not tagged (i.e. two lines tagged as one, probably because of indentation caused by an initial capital letter). Two insignificant cases of inconsistency in order of notes (marginal note normally follows footnote). Rules followed in one case where they produced confusing results ("85,86 transposed in D." rendered as two notes ("transposed in D."), attached separately to 85 and 86: would have made more sense as a single note attached to 86, that included the literal "85,86") [rules failed to anticipate this situation...]
• AK : Heading in brackets between lines treated as interlinear note (p. 75). Verse in note not placed in <L> tags as it should be. One failure to separate out the milestone information when it is contained in a marginal note that also has other material in it (p.246).
• AL : This is a very nasty text that tested the keying instructions to the limit and beyond. See appendix below for some specific problems noted.
• AT : Instructions need to be expanded to make abbreviations of "Jesus" consistently treated. "Ihc" is treated in the guidelines (record as "$Ihc$") but similar forms should be similarly recorded, e.g. "Jhu" with abbreviation stroke as "$Jhu$", "Jhus" as "$Jhus$, "Jhm" as $Jhm$, etc. These are sporadically treated as above, but more often as "Jh$d$u" etc., which is not wrong, but is less helpful than it might be.
• AV : Italic tags missing on line 844 (page 48). Lines 843-844 illustrate that instructions need to be revised regarding italics (and bold text): not only should single italic letters or groups of letters in otherwise 'roman' words not be recorded as italic, but single roman letters or groups of letters should not be recorded as non-italic when the word as a whole is italic. E.g. "grete" on line 843 should be recorded within <I> tags, like the rest of the line, despite the presence of two non-italic letters in the middle of it ("re"). Similarly "his" on the next line should be recorded with <I> tags, even though the "i" in the middle of the word is not printed in italic.
• AU : line numbers cited in footnotes probably should be treated as bold (<B>) though admittedly it isn't a very dark bold. The faulty italicization of words containing thorn (þat, þou, etc., as mentioned above under general problems, is particularly common in this book. One or two confusing notes are misdivided at line-number cross-references within the note. One stanza break is missed on p. 189. Pages 202-203 contains what is really a list, or set of lists, not a table.
• AW : Some gaps in the verse that are present merely in order to allow parallel lines to appear opposite each other on facing pages (text-alignment gaps) are treated as stanza breaks. Lines consisting only of dots (.....), which are numbered as part of the verse, are sometimes correctly treated as lines (<L> . . . . </L>) and sometimes incorrectly as interlinear notes. One such note is placed on the wrong page, in the wrong DIV (note at the bottom of page 45 (which actually appears on page 46 of the print, a different DIV). One word ("to" in note to line 1197 on page 62) wrongly italicized. One stand-alone letter ("þ in note to line 5087, p. 257) wrongly italicized.
• AX : Marginal note on p. 400 appears next to line 258 in print, but content indicates it should really be attached to line 257 ("v.256-7 seem spurious").
• AY : Comment above under "AV" about italics applies particularly to this text. Examples: (p. 14) Auerte, peccatis, Cor, NE proicias ... & spiritum sanctum, Redde should be all in italics (in the returned data they are all non-italic); (p. 42)

  HOra completorij datur sepulture
  Corpuus cristi nobile, spes vite future;
  Conditur Aromate--complentur scripture.

  should all be in italics, despite the occurrence of non-italic letters in some words, because the passage as a whole is in italics, and the non-italic letters simply represent expanded abbreviations, which we are not recording. Many examples in this text. Also some examples of problem (4) listed under misc. problems (above). Cato's Distichs (pp. 553-609) should probably have been divided into <DIV4>s based on Book numbers, but I neglected to specify this in the directions. Folio references incorporated into headings (e.g. on p. 637) should probably at some point be extracted into <MILESTONE> tags instead, but that is, I think, our job, not the vendor's. One line-break in verse missed on p. 637 (lower right text, break between lines 1 and 2), because of confusion caused by large initial cap.

• BB : "c" with tilde over it as a general abbreviation mark (for "capitulum") consistently represented as "c$d$" (this isn't wrong, but we'll need to fix it). Latin lines in note on page 201 are in verse and should be recorded with <L> tags. Two obvious problems in book as a whole: (1) I didn't notice the use of quotation marks at the beginnings of prose lines to indicate quotations, and therefore failed to deal with the issue in the instructions for this book as I did with others where the issue arises; and (2) I didn't notice that some of the footnotes contain extended passages in Greek. We should probably not attempt to record this, but rather simply mark it as a <FOREIGN> passage; if necessary, we could go in later and enter transliterated text.
• BC : Column numbers added to Trin-C folio references, but no indication in book that Trin-C uses columns. Italic þer problem (etc.) throughout.
• BF : text at bottom of p. 89 recorded as bold is not bold, just a rather dark pasted-in bit of xerox copy. Italic problems (Misc. Problems (4) and (6) above) both show up in this text, the former mostly with "þet", the latter mostly in Latin quotations in the body of the text, which should be in italics regardless of the presence of occasional non-italic letters.
• BH : We need to clarify the meaning of "end" note. It should mean a note in a series gathered at the end of a book, chapter, etc.--not just a note that happens to apply to the last line! Standard italic þer problem.
• BI : Standard italic þer þat problem throughout. Note to two lines on p. 160 needs to be split into two notes, one part to each line (vendor not instructed to do so). Note containing line of verse on p.271 should drop P tag in favor of Q. See ReadMe doc attached to this file.
• BK : Unnumbered latin lines inserted in English verse on page 60 should probably be recorded as <NOTE>s rather than <HEAD>s, though they don't quite fit in either category. On the other hand, the lines of dots between lines should probably be either ignored (if they are unnumbered, as on page 69), or treated as <L>s containing five dots (if they are numbered, as on page 70); if in doubt, though the latter method is always acceptable; they should not be treated as <NOTE PLACE="inter">.
• BL : Both italic problems (numbers 4 and 6 in list of general problems above) are present. Milestones that appear within footnote are (sometimes?) nested in the <NOTE> tag, but should probably be pulled out and placed after the close of the </NOTE>. Folio references in the Appendix (not noticed by the book-by-book instructions) appear within the text in brackets; these brackets have sometimes been recorded, sometimes not, i.e. sometimes we get [<MILESTONE .. >] and sometimes we get just <MILESTONE .. >; the latter is the better choice.
• BM (1) : I didn't notice the occasional use (in prologues) of quotation marks at the beginnings of prose lines to indicate quotations, and therefore failed to deal with the issue in the instructions for this book as I did with others where the issue arises (instructions for this have now been added to the general Guidelines). Instructions were followed exactly with reference to page breaks that occur within words ("re-<PB>soun," recorded as "re|soun<PB>,"), but these instructions should probably be emended to defer the placement of the tag not only till the end of the hyphenated word but the end of any following punctuation as well (hence: "re|soun,<PB>". This edition uses the grave accent character (`) to indicate the beginning of spans of text treated by footnotes; this is another good reason not to use this character to record opening single quotation marks. Instructions on the placement of the verse divisions (<MILESTONE UNIT="verse">) have been followed very well, but occasionally lead to silly results, especially when verses are short, and two milestone tags end up placed contiguously(<MILESTONE UNIT="verse" N="22"><MILESTONE UNIT="verse" N="23">); perhaps should try to find a rule that avoids this situation (e.g., using punctuation other than periods as a guide to sentence-ends where verse divisions should be placed). Footnote "e" on page 181, left column is attached to the bottom of the page, since the original print omitted the needed reference number in the text (probably belongs in verse 7); recorded correctly, but needs to be fixed anyway. One misplaced verse division in vol.3, p.49, verse 20 (left column); another on p. 418, verse 29 (left column); another in v.4, p. 640, verse 2 (left col.). Groups of sigla in the notes (e.g. "OQUV") appear without internal spaces when not interrupted by a line break, so probably should be recorded without spaces when line break intervenes (i.e. "OQUV" not "OQU V"). Explicits at the end of books ("Here endith the book of Aggey" "Here endith the storie of Machabeus" "Here endith the epistle to Filomon") should be recorded as <TRAILER>s, not <NOTE PLACE="end">; not only are they not notes, but "end" notes are normally those that are printed in a separate block end of a book, not notes that happen to appear at the end of a division.
• BM (2) : [v.1 pp. 44-49 have prologue to Matthew running at bottom of pages, inserted at end of cap. XII, but should be moved.] P. 47, 59, etc., marginal quotation mark problem as above in BM(1). Close up gaps in sigla groups, as above in BM(1). Some verse numberse misplaced, e.g. verse 21 on p. 309, verse 7 on p. 572, verse 8 on p. 37; verse 8 on p. 331 and verse 3 o p. 419 should occur after punctuation, not before it.; ditto verse 36 on p. 340. Milestones occurring within words should be deferred not only until end of word, but until end of attached punctuation.
• BN : Failed to distinguish two sets of footnotes, e.g. p. 14, because notes from both sets not present on many pages. Pg. 4, note to ll. 278ff. misplaced by one line. Note to line 291 misattached to line 191 because of typo in original. Pg. 52, note to lines 25 ff. misplaced by one line. Standard italic problem with respect to &thorn;at" and "þer" etc. (where "a" or "er" is italic in original). Two lines in latin on p. 152 recorded as inter note but should probably have been recorded as verse lines (though unnumbered) or perhaps Quote or Paragraph. They are in any case part of the main text. Note to line 991 misplaced to 200:901 because of typo in original. Something needs to be done with beginning of footnotes on p. 211--probably simply attach it to the end of the head note, with some added text like this "[The footnotes contain] Varianten des Ms. Ashm. 61, [from] fol. 1." Line beginning "Ci comence" on same page should be a Head or Opener, not part of head note. Failure to distinguish two sets of footnotes, p. 223 and thereabout. Note at end of text on p.333 should be Note, not Closer. Note to line 928 misplaced to 428:828 because of typo in original. First letter of Miracula, p. 428, is just large initial cap (to be recorded as ordinary "A", not bold "A").
• BO : &ldquo; used well for edge-of-text quot. marks in prose (but also used when quot. happens to begin at new line). Footnotes on p. 323, v.7 misnumbered in original; one Trevisa note ended up in the Higd.(2) DIV. Note applied to two lines in original (vol. 2, p.335) should be split in two and the two parts applied separately to two lines (but this was not provided for in the instructions). Note 13 on p. 155 (vol. 4) should have read 13-13 in original, and thus have been treated like other number-to-number-span notes (as it is, the note appears twice, once at each point where superscript 13 appears); similarly with note 8 on 6:89. Unattached note 15 on 5:223 (but ref. number lacking in original). Blind reference number in original (note "17" 7:289) preserved (correctly) as reference number only.
• BP : Coding of epigraphs is legal, but not entirely logical. Instead of :

  <EPIGRAPH><Q><I>Cum turba plurima.</I>&mdash; <BIBL>LUC. viii. [4.]</BIBL></Q></EPIGRAPH>

  try :

  <EPIGRAPH><Q><I>Cum turba plurima.</I></Q><BIBL>&mdash; LUC. viii. [4.]</BIBL></EPIGRAPH>

• BQ : Groups of sigla in the notes (e.g. "THDU") appear without internal spaces when not interrupted by a line break, so probably should be recorded without spaces when line break intervenes (i.e. "THDU" not "TH DU"; "IMFSE", not "IM FSE"). Lines in latin (printed in italics) that appear between lines of verse but are not numbered with the verse have been recorded as <NOTE PLACE="inter">; on consideration, these should probably be treated as part of the preceding line of verse, separated from it only by a <Q> tag (these Latin lines are invariably quotations). E.g. in pt.2, page 105, line 228, record as <L N="228">Theigh &thorn;ei done yuel &middot; late &thorn;ow god [y-wor&thorn;e]:&mdash; <Q><I>Michi vindictam, &amp; ego retribuam.</I></Q></L>. Footnotes that are attached to two lines and which deal with the relationship between those lines make no sense when attached separately to each of the lines. E.g., pt.2, p.110, lines 329 and 330: footnote reads "329, 330. Transposed in B." To make sense, this note needs to be attached to line 330 and retain the line references, so that it continues to read <NOTE PLACE="foot">329, 330. <I>Transposed in</I> B.</NOTE>. That is, a note to "329, 330" should be treated as if it were to the span "329-330". The same applies to the note to lines 122, 123 on p. 309 of pt. 2, which should be recorded only once, after line 123, with the line numbers retained in the note, as if it had read "122-23" instead of "122, 123", since the note applies to the two lines taken together, not separately to each line. [The contents of this same note consist of a passage of verse, which should have been recorded not as a sequence of paragraphs (one paragraph for each line), but as a <Q> containing verse <L>s, as discussed below in the appendix.] The same multi-reference problem occurs with three lines on p. 15/16 of pt. 3. The note to lines 11, 12, 13 should have been treated as a single note referring to the span "11-13", not as three notes attached separately to the three line. Other examples appear on pp. 46, 88, 265, 294. The head note reading "Passus octauus de visione ..." on p. 125 (of pt.2) should probably be treated as a <HEAD>, not a note.
• BS : Not easy to distinguish stanzas; should have supplied more instructions for this book.
• BT : Both italic problems (numbers 4 and 6 in list of general problems above) are present throughout. Note 4 on page 247 really should be treated like the notes that use a doubled reference number ("4-4"), since the two numbers are used to indicate the beginning and end of a span of text, not two different spots at which the same note applies. But the two types of usage are not distinguished typographicaly in this edition, so there is no way to specify distinct renderings. Note 4 on page 460 is somewhat similar, though that one could as readily be turned into two notes (again, no way to specify a way to treat these, since they are not typographically distinct). "Nota" at line 14,597 (page 506) is a marginal note, not part of the line. Dots that are placed at the beginning of many lines have been treated as periods, which is ok, but instructions should have said to ignore them.
• BU : Editor's odd rendition of Edmund Stonor's monogram :

     S
    rot.
     n
  

  should probably be changed to simple "Stonor" (or "[Stonor]" with an encoder's note); check treatment of names in curly braces; reconsider treatment of ellipses (ordinary ellipses ... shouldn't be increased to five dots; this instruction misleading; it was intended for cases in which four or more dots appeared in the original).
• BV : One misplaced note (misplaced by one line); several notes that are misnumbered in the original ("1149" instead of "1649" etc.) are in the wrong place as a result.
• BZ : Folio refs around p. 318 (and prob. elsewhere) add "a" to the bare folio ref. (e.g. "Fol. 23" recorded as "fol. 23a"). This is the correct procedure when "23" is contrasted with a following "23b", but this book seems to list only the beginning of the leaf, not the beginning of the page: the references run like this: 22, 23, 24; not: 22, 22b, 23, 23b, 24), so "a" should probably not be used, since there is no contrasting "b," though it is not incorrect. Italic phrases in the margin (throughout; see p. 318 for an example) are not notes, though they have been recorded that way. They are headings for sections of modern English summary, and should have been omitted. Some missing <LG>s on p. 332 where poem alternates between longer stanzas and couplets (not easy to see break between couplets).
• CB : [Note to self: add "version" as TYPE of DIV2 in case of variant versions of works in this volume.] Note to lines "166,167" on page 129 is rendered according to instructions, but this should really be rendered according to rules for notes of type "166-167" (i.e. attached to second line of pair, with line reference retained in note). Are there other notes like this?? There is some sign of the standard italic þer (etc.) problem in this book.
• CD : As noted in vendor conversion report, footnotes to some headnotes begin with apparent reference numbers like this: "1)" but no corresponding reference number appears in the text. See pp. 172, 185, See also the mismatched references on p. 192, 176, 224. Need to at least spot check some odd characters in this book: 9-shaped abbreviation mark (found in notes); little curl or apostrophe after letter (found in text); flourish after letters (found in head note p. 185; see also p. 78).
• CE : <LG>s on p. 52 et env. probably unnecessary but do no real harm. Some examples of italic þat problem.
• CG : [Note to self: consider removing brackets from notes (if entire note is contained in brackets), and place formatting responsibility on the style sheet.]
• CH : Consider changing book's style of quot. marks for quot. within quot. from "" to '. Decide what to do about "Amen" (treated as CLOSER but has line number). Probably change to TRAILER and drop line number (see 215:60). Decide what to do with bibliographical reference(s) at the head of most items. Perhaps simply BIBL; perhaps BIBL within NOTE; perhaps HEAD or BIBL within HEAD. I like the last best; see e.g. p. 222.
• CI : "explicits" at ends of tales or prologues ("Here endeth the prologe of the Wyf of Bathe," p. 153; "Here endeth the prologe of the ffrere," p. 166) are classic <TRAILER>s (or possibly <CLOSER>s), but are sometimes recorded as a <NOTE>s or (worse) as verse lines. When milestone is repeated (e.g. at the head of a DIV that begins in the middle of a particular folio), we'll need to go back and remove the second (duplicate) reference, e.g. page 166, folio 73b; p. 352, folio 153b. Milestones located in footnotes should not only be treated as <MILESTONE>s, not footnotes, but should be placed outside of the note, within the text proper (see Instructions for examples; see p. 411 for wrong practice). [Note to self: headings supplied in notes should probably be pulled out of the notes and made <HEAD>s in brackets, e.g. "The Remedy against Envy" (p. 597), with consequent alteration of DIV structure.]
• CJ : folio references in deferred latin marginal notes (see e.g. p. 249) should probably be placed back into the notes rather than extracted as MILESTONEs. Likewise with marg. English note on p. 312 ("on folio 119a" which is rendered as <NOTE> on </NOTE> <MILESTONE> folio 119a </MILESTONE>, clearly nonsense. Similarly on p. 414. Perhaps do a global search of notes containing only the word "on"). Should have required that MILESTONE tags be deferred till end of word (and punctuation) in same way as PB tags (see p. 591).
• CK : I failed to notice systematic cross references to Teseida in Knight's Tale. These should either have been omitted or tagged as a distinctive series of marginal notes (PLACE="marg2") (some perhaps even tagged as Milestones). As it is, they are mixed in with other marginal notes. Trailer on p. 126 cannot be correctly tagged because of lack of NOTE in content of TRAILER--something that simply has to be fixed. Need to figure out how to deal with milestones related to extracts quoted from other mss, whether in note or separately; see p. 439. "Aprez moult ..." on p. 522 is probably best treated as an inline note.
• CL : "End note" on p. 25 should be a TRAILER. Likewise on p. 110, "Here endeþ þe mylers tale." is a TRAILER. [Overlines ignored on p. 32 are perhaps generic abbreviation strokes, in which case the easiest thing to do is to place the overlined words in ABBR tags.] MILESTONE/NOTE confusion on p. 269 needs to be tidied up, probably in favor of NOTE, probably to be placed one line further on. Likewise on p. 296
• CM : "Desinit prima pars" (p. 142) should be a TRAILER, not a NOTE (and the marg. note should be embedded in the TRAILER, now that we can do that.) Folio references in some notes should probably be placed back into the notes rather than extracted as MILESTONEs: see e.g. p. 312 ("on folio 119b" which is rendered as <NOTE> on </NOTE> <MILESTONE> folio 119b </MILESTONE>, clearly nonsense. Similarly on p. 311, 513:4343, as well as in notes that lack "on" but contain other discursive material, e.g. 547:711. Perhaps do a global search of notes containing only the word "on", though that won't catch all of these.) End note "Heere endeth..." p. 547 should be <TRAILER>; so should "Hic desinit fabula ..." 582:362.
• CN : "¶Narrat" on p. 430 (treated as marg. note) could probably be better treated, perhaps as an "inter" note at the beginning of the line, or even as a HEAD?? (there are other examples, mostly marking divisions between tales, or between tales and prologues (?). Ellipses on p. 430 should be treated as literal dots within <L> tags, indicating missing lines, with the comment "no spurious lines ..." encoded as a inline note (as it is, the ellipses, abbreviated to one line, are themselves treated as an inline note probably because they are in brackets.
• CO : Marginal references to the Teseide in the Knight's Tale (see e.g. p. 33) need work. Consider: (1) should they be recorded as MILESTONES rather than as NOTES?; and (2) if that is not feasible, as I suspect that it is not, how can they be made to make sense, given that their relationship to the main text is expressed by vertical lines in the margin (among other things) which are not recorded in the electronic transcript? Perhaps they should simply be removed, though that would take some work as well: probably the best solution. "NO gap in the MS" (p. 71) is a note, not part of the HEAD. MILESTONE within word should be treated as PB within word: i.e., its placement should be deferred till the end of the word and any attached punctuation (see "ta [folio 338b] kyn" on 445).
• CP : Some folio references, p. 237, p. 602, and p. 524, within notes were extracted and treated as <MILESTONE>s within the <NOTE>; these should either be removed from the note entirely and treated as milestones or (better in this case), left in the note but not treated as milestones. "Here endith the parson his prolog" (p. 602) should have been recorded as a TRAILER, not as NOTE. Probably tagged that way because of TEILITE inability to include NOTE within TRAILER. Now that we've fixed that in the dtd, we can fix it here. Small "a" in marg. note to p. 611 should have been superscripted.
• CQ : Note to line 316, p. 28, has been recorded as the end of the note to line 311. Italic problem (no. 4 in Misc. Problems above). "Man's Sixth Answer" at head of stanza 48 on p. 217 might better be treated as a <HEAD> than as a <NOTE>. Similarly, 'OR, "GYF ME LYSENS TO LYVE IN EASE."' at head of poem on page 244, is clearly a subtitle: i.e. a <HEAD>, not a <NOTE>.
• CR : In "Hic incipt" at head of page 21, the final "t" should be superscripted. And the whole line is really a <HEAD>, not a <NOTE>. Incipits are generally <HEAD>s.
• CT : [Note to self: milestone for page 149 (on page 77, line 621) appears within a word; in future we should probably extend the current instruction for <PB> tags to other milestone-type tags, that is: if it appears within a word, wait for the word to be completed before inserting the tag.]

Appendix. Some problems in Beues of Hampton

The dtd does not allow for infinitely mixed content in notes. Many of the notes contain either a passage of verse, or a set of individual variants followed by an extended passage of verse (two or more lines). These have usually been rendered either as a single line group or as a paragraph (containing only the line reference) followed by a line group. Neither is quite right; the first is quite wrong, since the list of individual variants certainly is not a line of verse. And the lines quoted rarely form a coherent line group. Suggested alternative: Embed the extended passages in the note within <Q> tags. <Q> may contain either individual lines, or line-groups, though lines (<L>) are good enough in most cases. If necessary, place the <Q>s within <P>s, but in most cases it will not be necessary. <Q>s can coexist with #PCDATA in <NOTE>s. Examples:

a. As coded:

<NOTE PLACE="foot"><LG>
<L><I>long] g,</I> one letter blotted out before it M ; om. O.</L>
<L><I>Hyr nose was comely, hyr lyppes swete,</I></L>
<L><I>Wyth a louely mouth and fayre fete,</I></L>
<L><I>With tethe whyte &amp; euen set,</I></L>
<L><I>Hyr handes were swete as vyolet,</I></L>
<L><I>Hyr body was gentyl withouten lacke,</I></L>
<L><I>Wel shapen both body and backe.</I> add. O.</L></LG></NOTE>

a. As preferred:

<NOTE PLACE="foot">
<I>long] g,</I> one letter blotted out before it M ; om. O.
<Q>
<L><I>Hyr nose was comely, hyr lyppes swete,</I></L>
<L><I>Wyth a louely mouth and fayre fete,</I></L>
<L><I>With tethe whyte &amp; euen set,</I></L>
<L><I>Hyr handes were swete as vyolet,</I></L>
<L><I>Hyr body was gentyl withouten lacke,</I></L>
<L><I>Wel shapen both body and backe.</I></L>
</Q> add. O.</NOTE>

b. as coded:

<NOTE PLACE="foot">
<LG>
<L><I>faderys</I> ESNC. <I>schel wel] schal</I> E ; <I>wyll</I> C ; <I>wol</I> N ; <I>wolde</I> S. <I>awreke</I> SNC ; <I>be wreke</I> E.</L>
<L>(<I>&THORN;at chyld</I> (<I>Al he</I> SN) <I>tolde &thorn;ere</I> (<I>him in</I> SN) <I>hys sawe,</I></L>
<L><I>Hou &thorn;e emperour hadde his fadyr islawe</I> (<I>slawe</I> SN). add. ESN.</L>
</LG>
</NOTE>

b. As preferred (showing optional <P>)

<NOTE PLACE="foot">
<P><I>faderys</I> ESNC. <I>schel wel] schal</I> E ; <I>wyll</I> C ; <I>wol</I> N ; <I>wolde</I> S. <I>awreke</I> SNC ; <I>be wreke</I> E.</P>
<P>
<Q>
<L>(<I>&THORN;at chyld</I> (<I>Al he</I> SN) <I>tolde &thorn;ere</I> (<I>him in</I> SN) <I>hys sawe,</I></L>
<L><I>Hou &thorn;e emperour hadde his fadyr islawe</I> (<I>slawe</I> SN).</L>
</Q> add. ESN.</P>
</NOTE>

c. As coded:

<NOTE PLACE="foot"><LG>
<L><I>all&mdash;fresh] other wedes fayre</I> O. <I>clere] nere</I> (!) <I>M.</I></L>
<L><I>Wel furred wyth great valour:</I></L>
<L><I>`Haue this,' he sayde, `for thy labour !'</I> add. O.</L></LG></NOTE>

c. As preferred:

<NOTE PLACE="foot">
<I>all&mdash;fresh] other wedes fayre</I> O. <I>clere] nere</I> (!) <I>M.</I>
<Q>
<L><I>Wel furred wyth great valour:</I></L>
<L><I>`Haue this,' he sayde, `for thy labour !'</I></L>
</Q> add. O.
</NOTE>

d. As coded:

<NOTE PLACE="foot"><LG>
<L><I>&thorn;is]</I> om. SN.</L>
<L><I>In which lond so</I> (<I>that</I> N) <I>&thorn;ou wende,</I></L>
<L><I>Spendyng ynow&yogh;e</I> (<I>euer</I> N) <I>y shal</I> (<I>wol</I> N) <I>&thorn;e sende,</I></L>
<L><I>Where &thorn;ou be in eny londe,</I></L>
<L><I>Euer &thorn;ou sende me &thorn;y sonde :</I> add. SN.</L></LG></NOTE>

d. As preferred:

<NOTE PLACE="foot">
<I>&thorn;is]</I> om. SN.
<Q>
<L><I>In which lond so</I> (<I>that</I> N) <I>&thorn;ou wende,</I></L>
<L><I>Spendyng ynow&yogh;e</I> (<I>euer</I> N) <I>y shal</I> (<I>wol</I> N) <I>&thorn;e sende,</I></L>
<L><I>Where &thorn;ou be in eny londe,</I></L>
<L><I>Euer &thorn;ou sende me &thorn;y sonde :</I></L>
</Q> add. SN.</NOTE>

e. As coded. This one is acceptable. But a more consistent approach might be to separate out the lines with a <Q>

<NOTE PLACE="foot"><P>1271&mdash;1274:</P><LG>
<L><I>Palmars wede &thorn;ou schalt were,</I></L>
<L><I>So mayst &thorn;ou &thorn;e bettur aftur hym speer,</I></L>
<L><I>And euyr whodur &thorn;at &thorn;ou wende,</I></L>
<L><I>Golde ynogh y schall the sende.'</I></L>
<L><I>Tho seyde Tarry : `Be the trynyte,</I></L>
<L><I>I schall hym seke yn many a cuntre.</I> C.</L></LG></NOTE>

e. As preferred:

<NOTE PLACE="foot">1271&ndash;1274:
<Q>
<L><I>Palmars wede &thorn;ou schalt were,</I></L>
<L><I>So mayst &thorn;ou &thorn;e bettur aftur hym speer,</I></L>
<L><I>And euyr whodur &thorn;at &thorn;ou wende,</I></L>
<L><I>Golde ynogh y schall the sende.'</I></L>
<L><I>Tho seyde Tarry : `Be the trynyte,</I></L>
<L><I>I schall hym seke yn many a cuntre.</I></L>
</Q> C.
</NOTE>

Many notes begin with a line number followed by "f." (haven't seen any with "ff." but it is possible). This possibility was not foreseen by the instructions; as a result, they have been treated as ordinary notes: the line number removed, and the "f." left to begin the note, like this:

<NOTE PLACE="foot"><P>f.:</P><LG>
<L><I>Syr Befyse askyd yn &thorn;at stounde,</I></L>
<L><I>Who them all mete founde.</I> C.</L>
<L><I>Sere rabastor (?) to &thorn;e gate go&thorn;</I></L>
<L><I>And askyd hem, what &thorn;ey &thorn;ere do&thorn;.</I> E.</L></LG></NOTE>

Unfortunately, this makes no sense. In print, this note begins "2073 f.: Syr (etc.)". The "f." here means "and following line"; i.e., it means the same thing as "2073-74"; the note should therefore be placed at the end of 2074, with the line reference retained, rather than at the end of 2073, with half the line reference omitted ("2073") and the other half retained ("f.").

<NOTE PLACE="foot">2073 f.:
<Q>
<L><I>Syr Befyse askyd yn &thorn;at stounde,</I></L>
<L><I>Who them all mete founde.</I> C.</L>
<L><I>Sere rabastor (?) to &thorn;e gate go&thorn;</I></L>
<L><I>And askyd hem, what &thorn;ey &thorn;ere do&thorn;.</I></L>
</Q> E.
</NOTE>

Likewise, this: <NOTE PLACE="foot">f. om. E.</NOTE>
should be changed to this, and placed at the end of line 2076, not 2075: <NOTE PLACE="foot">2075 f. om. E.</NOTE>

and this:

<NOTE PLACE="foot"><P>f.: </P><LG>
<L><I>He &yogh;ede aboute faste wi&thorn; alle</I></L>
<L><I>And beheeld &thorn;e castel walle,</I> E.</L></LG></NOTE></L>
<L>Wende aboute &thorn;e barbican,<NOTE PLACE="foot"><I>Wende] To go</I> C. <I>&thorn;e b.] or it bygan</I> SN.</NOTE>

should be changed to this, and placed at the end of line 2094, not 2093:

<NOTE PLACE="foot">2093 f.: 
<Q>
<L><I>He &yogh;ede aboute faste wi&thorn; alle</I></L>
<L><I>And beheeld &thorn;e castel walle,</I></L>
</Q> E.
</NOTE>