Shakespeare's Dissenting Open Scholarship by Eirenarcha

SHAKESPEARE’S DISSENTING OPEN SCHOLARSHIP

A Revised and Condensed Version of a Previous Paper, “Knowledge Networks and Digital Scholarship: Communities of Practice in the Public Sphere,” Presented by Cohen and Cohen at

Understanding and Enacting Open Scholarship Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) Victoria, Canada January 2019

Professor Hart Cohen School of Humanities and Communication Arts Institute of Culture and Society Western Sydney University h.cohen@westernsydney.edu.au

Gerald Cohen Independent Scholar https://trymbelrod.com https://x.com/masterquickly

PREFACE Addressing the concept of “Open” in Open Scholarship: What knowledge does not know The versions of “Open” in accounts of Open Scholarship1 are deceptively straightforward. The values of Open are linked to a commons ethos where access and sharing of knowledge is facilitated. There are variants on this basic ethos, but the overall consensus is that the public benefits of knowledge sharing are multiple and seen as socially advantageous. This paper agrees with this approach and explores the use of digitization in both the conceptual formation of the research undertaken by two scholars (William Shakespeare and William Lambarde) negotiating the boundaries of open scholarship as well as in its dissemination. In this regard, the boundary between publishing and disseminating academic research is shrinking to the extent that digitization is able to afford new strategies of knowledge increase as well as new forms of presentation. The work that follows attempts to frame the research case with some caveats to the character of “open” that suggest that open scholarship proceeds best by way of reflexive engagements with these kinds of emergent knowledges. The first qualification is that the progenitors as sources of knowledge may themselves be “in a process of becoming open,” that is to say moving in and out of academic contexts where their work may only ambivalently be said to occupy the space of academe. The implication here, is that the idea of “open” may refer more to a process of alienation from academic contexts than one that appears seamlessly embedded within them. Thus, the main subjects, William Shakespeare and William Lambarde, are interesting examples whose scholarly connections move in and out of porous institutional boundaries. These nonetheless permitted dissemination of their significant contributions to the public sphere through the prisms of the theatre and jurisprudence respectively. A second caveat is linked to the status of knowledge forms to which the knowledge itself is blind. Cultural, political and religious conditions can be highly restrictive in the choices and desires that knowledge producers negotiate in the process of disseminating their work. The results may be unpredictable and, in some instances, lethal. In this regard, the research case outlined below being mobilized by digitally networked textual formations adds another layer to the scaffolding of the concept of “open” where like the “free” of free speech, the need for qualification and the understanding of how this concept is bounded are paramount to advancing the case for Open Scholarship in the age of what Felix Stalder2 has termed the “digital condition.”

Introduction When first uncovered in a private collection in 2004 and relevant scans subsequently shared with selected scholars via e-mail, this annotated copy of a manual of common law from the Tudor-Stuart era, Lambarde’s Eirenarcha, prompted responses that were crucially informative to the beginning investigation, although the information shared by those scholars at that time (e.g., transcriptions, publication data) was provided in a notably circumspect manner. Of course, these scholars’ caution was an obvious and understandable reflection of the underlying controversial claim of the possible discovery of a rare exemplar of Shakespeare’s handwriting, in a book Shakespeare might have owned. The project moved to Twitter in 2010, thus launching a critical apparatus that links a body of relevant Shakespeare criticism to the annotated features and text found in the book. A case for slow digitization Gathered under the inscription ‘Willm Trymbelrod’ (a pseudonym of William Shakespeare in which Trymbel is to Shake as rod is to speare) is a body of annotative evidence that includes numerous other intriguing portions of manuscript: a personal index, a range of marginalia, some dolorous lines of doggerel bearing a thumb- or fingerprint, and various underlinings, pinpoints, and other inscriptions, many of which, at least tentatively, can be considered to be subsumed under—as well as validated and endorsed by—the signature:

In their essay “Why Do We Digitize? The Case for Slow Digitization,” Andrew Prescott and Lorna Hughes identify a “primary value” of digital projects by pointing to the 1

advantages of exploring manuscripts gradually, viz. how a slow accumulation of knowledge and understanding of a particular manuscript will in turn affirm the importance of detailed scholarly research and analysis—as well as increase access—and will help build a truly multifaceted digital archive of the manuscript. In the present case, the task of engaging in ongoing, multiple close readings of the Eirenarcha source text over a ten-year period has been aided incalculably by digital affordances such as the increased range and fingertip accessibility of magnification. These tools have enabled the developing analysis to reveal and reflect the tract’s inherent syntactic rhythms, its relevant and potentially influential inventory of noteworthy lexical items, as well as the possible ‘deep structure’ semantic implications of its surface forms, e.g., from the liberal use throughout of rhetorical hendiadys (see ‘d,’ below). Ultimately, the pragmatic application of the compelling force of this annotated corpus migrates from the statutory interface into the amphitheatres. Elements of Wisdom Literature One notable overall impression of the source tract is that, in some respects, it appears to conform to what Michael Witmore identifies as Wisdom Literature, a distinct literary genre drawn from Christian and classical literary forms, comprised of printed collections of “wise” proverbs used to justify an action or make a witty point. Witmore believes that for Shakespeare, the preoccupations of Wisdom Literature shaped “both his own theatrical practice and the context in which his plays are interpreted.”3 In examining the process itself of this literary genre, Robert Miola4 describes Quotation Intertextuality as compilations of quotations in text fragments, decontextualized from their source text and existing anew in a new dialogue with each other, “the boundaries of which have been determined by the compiler…which may include complicated strategies of imitatio…although the calibration of intertextual distance must be to some degree subjective”:5

The source text in various ways shapes the later text, its content or its rhetorical style and form… Source coincident—Here the earlier text exists as a whole in dynamic tension with the later one, a part of its identity… Source proximate—The source functions as the book-on-the-desk; the author honors, reshapes, steals, ransacks, and plunders… Dynamics include copying, paraphrase, compression, conflation, expansion, omission, innovation, transference and contradiction… [and] numerous verbal and non-verbal markers identifying the primary source… (29)

Shakespeare’s Intertextuality In considering the evidence for intertextuality in Shakespeare’s composing process, John Drakakis,6 whose expertise runs the gamut of 17th-century textual bibliography, suggests that we need to acknowledge an endlessly expanding constellation of circulating and receding narratives the writer encounters… They evolve a category of context that returns the text to its surrounding discourses in such a way that what is privileged is the process of interaction that takes place at various levels… Composition is thus not a creation ex nihilo, nor is it either ‘imitation’ in the weak sense of the term, nor is it an entirely arbitrary collocation of quotations. The text becomes a palimpsest whose sedimented layers interact creatively as producers of meaning that alter as personal, professional, social, and cultural pressures change. (72)

Drakakis further quotes Stephen J. Lynch’s assertion in Shakespearean Intertextuality (1998) that ‘Shakespeare’s plays are no longer seen as based on a few assorted borrowings, but are now seen as interventions in pre-existent fields of textuality’; however, Drakakis thinks Lynch’s account of intertextuality “owes far too much to the traditional vocabulary of sources,”7 and he proceeds to cite numerous other studies focusing on the variety of the relationships between texts and generated meanings, including Gérard Genette’s Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (1997), in which Genette’s main concern is with ‘parody’ and ‘travesty,’ with both these categories presenting as highly dependent on prior knowledge of pre-existing texts. Genette describes ‘intertextuality’ as ‘a relationship of co-presence between two texts or among several texts: that is to say eidetically and typically as the actual presence of one text within another.’8 Within the broader political context of that period, we agree with Chris Fitter9 that Shakespeare’s dramatic purpose is to frequently question legal authority. We submit that we find traces of that purpose in the 3

Eirenarcha, in the annotations described below. This may represent a very real “struggle for independence from sacred [or ‘Supreme’] authority” to “achieve an autonomous secular identity,” as David Quint writes.10 Thus, with this discovery, in tying Shakespeare’s canonical creations to these annotations, the works become “historically contingent” and “historically de-limited” (quoting Quint again), and the meaning and authority of the source text [as well as Shakespeare’s new creations] also become, therefore, “as relative as its literary style,” as Quint suggests. So, it may be that Shakespeare has created and developed these rhetorical strategies to counter and invalidate Lambarde’s intertextualized authoritarian laws as an overarching response to the increasing social pressures of humanism and resistance.11 These apparent strategies are thus revealed here for the first time, centuries later, by the complex intertextual pathways our studies have excavated. A corpus of challenges An attitude of ‘anti-jurisprudence’12 and ‘taking exception to the law’13 pervades the present annotated corpus, signifying the annotator’s (Trymbelrod/Shakespeare’s) apparent objection to numerous aspects of the characteristic rhetoric used by Lambarde in framing his common-law statutes, which comprise the Eirenarcha: (Limited space here permits only a brief selection and cursory summary of these ‘objections’ observed throughout the corpus; however, this study forms part of a larger contiguous investigation, in which more detailed descriptions and additional context for each item of evidence are developed in a series of conference papers dating from 2013 to the present. These research papers are readily accessed via links in the Works Cited section.)

1. (a) Lexical items: Through indirect dialogue with the Eirenarcha’s compiler (Lambarde), the annotator of this corpus mounts a series of challenges across the common law/theatrical interface. The lexical items selected from the corpus (see below) are instantly recognized as hallmarks of the Shakespeare canon: ‘strained’—"The quality of mercy is not strain’d” (Merchant of Venice). A key Shakespeare word; references themes of ‘letter of the law’ vs. applications of mercy (or grace) in Merchant. Page 530: The annotator’s marginal marking beside ‘the grace and dispensation of the prince may not be strained beyond the words.’14

‘brawle’—"How meanest thou? brawling in French?” (Love’s Labour’s Lost) Page 166: ‘from the French word Riotter (or brawle)’

‘shoale’—"But here, upon this bank and shoal of time, We’d jump the life to come.” (Macbeth). Page 23: ‘to shoale out themselves (i.e., certain religious groups) from ordinarie government.’

(b) challenges the Eirenarcha’s use of biblical ‘wisdom’: “O! You are men of stones.”15 Page 222: ‘Sermo Josuae, ad Achan, the Chapter [i.e., 7]: 19 verse’

(c) challenges the Eirenarcha’s use of Classical ‘wisdom’: Dog-as-Authority- Martial’s ‘disdaine’ in King Lear’s Edgar: “Into a madman’s rags t’assume a semblance That very dogs disdained.” Page 422: ‘Inter raucos ultimus Rogatores, Oret caninas panis improbi buccas. And ranged last among the roaring Rogues, In vaine a morsell may he begge of bread, So bad as hungry Dogs disdaine to byte.’16

Primacy of Orality- Virgil in Sonnet 55.17 Page 59: Ink smudge near ‘Si ritè audita recordor’: The Aeneid- “If what I properly (or ritually) heard, I can recall from my memory (or ‘from my heart’)”; ‘records,’ ‘monuments,’ and ‘memory’/‘memorials’ in both:

(d) contests the Eirenarcha’s apparent pervasive use of hendiadys, in Hamlet (“rogue and peasant slave”) and in Measure for Measure (“some six or seven, the most sufficient of your parrish”): Page 191: ‘Rogues and the poore’

Page 21: ‘3. or 4. of the mightiest men in that countie’

(e) resists, with salient dissidence, a draconian statute punishing servants for disobedience—(First Servant in King Lear): From the Eirenarcha’s annotated corpus:

‘Servant that will not serve fol 340’ In Radical Shakespeare (2012), Chris Fitter finds Renaissance resistance theory at its “most radical” dramatized in King Lear, in which Shakespeare is “heroizing a nameless servant for drawing lethal sword upon the Duke of Cornwall in defense of the bound and tortured Gloucester.”19 (f) focuses sharply on various ‘hot-button’ statutory issues of the day: • homicide or [i.e., versus] manslaughter in Hamlet (Polonius), felo-de-se in Hamlet (Ophelia); From the Eirenarcha’s annotated corpus:

• immigrants– in The Booke of Sir Thomas More, and More’s historic concern and compassion for their plight; • enforcement by divine law– in The Booke of Sir Thomas More; More and the Oath of Supremacy. From the Eirenarcha’s annotated corpus:

The oth of the undersheriff fol 346 a proclam for vnlawfull assemblies 173 laborers. 176. vide the statute apprentices la. servantes 179

2. An awareness and confirmation of Shakespeare’s participation (Addition IIc-Hand D) in the authorship of The Book of Sir Thomas More began only in the late 19th century. The present hand conforms to a Secretary-Italic mix used during Shakespeare’s time, i.e., the late 16th and early 17th centuries; and thus this apparent Sir Thomas More ‘cluster’ of annotations (above) may point directly to Trymbelrod-Shakespeare as annotator: In the early 1600s only a small group of people would have known of Shakespeare’s contributions to The Book of Sir Thomas More. The hands are compared below. While the occurrences within Hand D of the legal abbreviations for “per,” “par” and “pro” to date have often been dismissed with utmost skepticism as not representative (inasmuch as such forms were common in Elizabethan hands), the present-day acceptance of Hand D as Shakespeare’s20 establishes it as a control exemplar for our purposes, as does the Belott-Mountjoy signature, in which the presence of the abbreviation symbol appears deftly executed, possibly out of habit and without thought:21 9

‘Hand D’

Eirenarcha

Some Comparisons of ‘Hand D’ (Booke of Sir Thomas More) & Eirenarcha Annotator: 1. Overcapitalization of ‘c’:

Crye (Eiren.)

Country (Hand D)

Comforts (Hand D)

2. Minims compared: assess (Eirenarcha)

possesse (Hand D)

3. Legal abbreviations pro- & par- compared: to procure our pardon (Hand D)

prosecute (Eirenarcha)

processes (Eirenarcha)

partyes (Eirenarcha)

parish (Eirenarcha)

province (Hand D) proclam (Eiren.)

proclamation (Hand D)

Also- Belott-Mountjoy (1612): Shaks + par

Conclusion Over the past decade, the study of this artefact, an annotated copy of Lambarde’s Eirenarcha, has been innervated by the affordances of digitization and social media. Previously obscured for centuries in private collections, this copy’s compelling annotations have been re-mediated into data that are now open and linked. The book’s presumed annotator, ‘Willm Trymbelrod,’ in the course of personally indicting the evident despotism he encounters in the content of the book’s statutes and in its author’s rhetorical tactics of “representationalism,”22 seems to express through his markings an angry dissidence remarkably similar to certain qualities of resistance recently assigned (e.g., by Fitter)23 to Shakespeare, who is now seen to have appropriated rhetorical brilliance to educate his audiences against manipulation by official political rhetorics...deploying in stagecraft...a variety of ideologically potent subtextual mechanisms, strongly hinted at in the scripts themselves...[the combination of which]...opens up the canon in a striking way to reveal populist, at times even radical meaning at the heart of the drama. (31)

Accordingly, this paper is suggesting that in this corpus we may have uncovered a snapshot in history of William Shakespeare at work under the guise of ‘Willm Trymbelrod,’ the poet seeking to “destabilize establishment ideology,"24 the dramatist captured in the act of developing his thematics of “demystification,” “embarrassment” and “delegitimation of power”25 noted to be recurrent throughout his famous canon. If that is so, then we have also uncovered in these early modern archival traces some striking echoes of open scholarship: Both William Shakespeare and William Lambarde managed to bypass the conventional scholarly communication cycles of the early modern era, one taking advantage of ubiquitous knowledge networks thriving in the theatre and the other in legal publishing, with both of those arenas coming functionally bundled with long-established traditions of vigorous public engagement.26 In the case of William Lambarde, MP and legal scholar (appointed, it should be noted, as one of the four “censors or visitors for...religion and good life” at Lincoln’s Inn),27 his Eirenarcha, with

eleven re-printings when two would have been unusual,28 was authoritative for a century or more, and it endowed the author with a vast mandated ‘audience’ consisting of…all citizens, including, of course, the intended justices of the peace, who were required to subscribe to “a statement of their fidelity, including acceptance of the Establishment, its liturgy and communion, and rejecting all other forms of religious belief.”29 Lambarde seems to have taken full advantage of these captive readers’ trust by crafting statutes loaded with ‘rigorous’ arguments, many of them, as noted previously, peppered with learned exegeses from scripture, or laced with a steady stream of allusions to classical literature and philosophy (featuring, e.g., the aforementioned Martial, Virgil, and Cicero references, as well as to many others, including, e.g., Valla, Horace, Seneca, and Aristotle), and to the Oath of Supremacy and the divine right of kings. Shakespeare appears to have countered Lambarde’s use of these idiosyncratic forms of open social scholarship (or of “bamboozlement,” if we choose Oliver Arnold’s term)30 to frame the common law, with an open rebuttal of his own, using in his plays “safely alien screen[s],”31 such as the Roman Republic and other distant settings for his critiques of the English Parliament’s rhetoric and secretive practices, in which “the impenetrable House of Commons stands in stark opposition to an open theater of judgment”;32 and Arnold assumes the Poet was familiar with the works of Hooker (especially, e.g., 1571, 187, “every person of the Parlement ought to keep secret and not to disclose the secrets and things spoken and doon in the Parlement house”), in which it is likely Shakespeare encountered the defining contradiction between early modern representationalism’s rhetoric of radical presence and its practices of secrecy and exclusion.33 34

Similarly, Carolyn Sale,35 in a chapter titled “Measure for Measure and the ‘Open Court’ of the Theatre,” cites Lorna Hutson36 in advising that we ‘take seriously the idea that a participatory justice system might have had an impact on dramatic epistemology, and vice versa’; and, to this point, on page 387 of the Eirenarcha, the annotator’s ‘E’ in the margin (with, possibly, the ‘liz’ portion concealed with ink) appears next to Lambarde’s 14

clause, in which he (Lambarde) points out that the people have a right to be informed of the laws, “lest they offend unwares…”:

The annotator’s purpose here, therefore, seems to relate closely to Sale’s discussion37 of Isabella’s situation in Measure for Measure, viz., that she is compromised in part from being subject to judgments “rendered in one or another form of private adjudication,” thus confronting us with the reality that, despite the noble-sounding intent of Lambarde’s clause, legal facts are not necessarily even publicly known, never mind publicly tried, thereby making it impossible for a given polity to exercise its capacities for judgment together in relation to legal matter; and even those who believe they know the facts of such arrangements are publicly positioned in such a way that their capacities to use their discursive powers for another kind of law are, like Isabella’s, foreclosed.38

Fast-forwarding to the 21st century, it is salient that in the present case, the initiative of enacting open social scholarship has served to reveal some startling historical antecedents of effective open scholarly communication. Alas, pending further investigation, and relative to respecting recognized ‘valued’ forms of scholarly communication, including for the purposes of maintaining functional bibliographic records, the status of this copy of Lambarde’s Eirenarcha must remain, at least for now, ephemeral and informal.39 Yet, to date, thanks to the open, Twitter-sourced human agents, institutions, processes, and transcribed holographic and other textual manifestations, this newly-discovered copy has undoubtedly arisen as a niche resource: a 15

means of creating fresh and novel Linked Open Data from its annotations and providing, ultimately, an enriched reading environment on the topic of Shakespeare and Law and the evolution of open democracy. In “The Methodologies of Open Social Scholarship,”40 J. Matthew Huculak writes: “Implicit in the notion of understanding and enacting open social scholarship is that there is something broken with the current model of scholarly communication.” To which we might add, ‘and there always was.’

NOTES 1

For example, see Arbuckle, “Open+: Versioning Open Social Scholarship.” Stalder, The Digital Condition. 3 Loewenstein and Witmore, 193. 4 “Seven Types of Intertextuality.” 5 Miola, 18. 6 Drakakis, “Inside the Elephant’s Graveyard,” 72. 7 Ibid, 61. 8 Quoted in Ibid, 66. 9 Fitter, Radical Shakespeare. 10 Quint, Origin and Originality in Renaissance Literature, 219, cited in Drakakis, 59. 11 See Cohen and Cohen, “When old interfaces were new.” 12 Julius, “Introduction.” 13 Beecher, et al., Taking Exception to the Law. 14 ‘The Prince’ was considered the perfected physical embodiment of the Sovereign’s law; discussed in Cohen, “Shakespeare’s martial law,” 35. 15 King Lear, discussed in Cohen, Ibid. 16 Discussed in Cohen, ibid.; Cohen and Cohen, “When old interfaces were new.” 17 Discussed in Cohen and Cohen, “Shakespeare’s poetic monumenta.” 18 For example, see Shapiro A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare, 287; Bellamy, Shakespeare’s Verbal Art, 473. 19 Fitter, Radical Shakespeare, 23. 20 Jowett. 21 Everitt, “The Young Shakespeare,” 84. 22 A term introduced by Arnold in The Third Citizen to encapsulate the early structure and mechanisms of political representation: 2

[We] can just begin to glimpse the secular magic the Elizabethan and Jacobean antiquarians, political philosophers, legal theorists and MPs routinely attributed to political representation. At times, theories of representation matched the mysticism of divine kingship ‘…’ [R]epresentationalism and its subject mark the beginning of political

modernity; Shakespeare’s tragedies of political representation greet them with skepticism, bleakness and despair. (4) 23

For example, Fitter, Radical Shakespeare. Ibid., 263. 25 Ibid., 33. 26 Paul Raffield (2017) studies the various aesthetic devices employed both by common law and Shakespearean drama to capture the imagination and emotional commitment of their respective audiences. A principal theme of Raffield’s analysis of the centrality of classical rhetorical skills to legal education at the late Elizabethan Inns of Court is the “insularity and exclusivity” of common law and common lawyers (p. 17). He points to Abraham Fraunce’s The Lawiers Logike (1588) as evidence during that period, of published critique of the ethical and scholarly shortcomings of forensic rhetorical techniques as acquired at the Inns. Raffield reasons that, as so obvious a target, it was perhaps inevitable that the English legal profession would feature as a subject of satire in late Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. Specifically, Raffield references the satirical epigrams of Sir John Davies, and likewise considers the ‘little academe’ in Love’s Labour’s Lost as a “fictional analogue of the Inns of court”: 24

In the court of Navarre, Shakespeare depicts an enclosed society of young men, for whom rhetoric is a tool with which to beguile and bedazzle, rather than an art by means of which community may be established and enhanced. The parallels with a legal academy, the primary objective of which was the assimilation and employment of self-referential rhetorical skills, are clear and compelling. (18) 27

History of Parliament Online, Research – Members: Lambarde, William (1536-1601), of Lincoln’s Inn and Westcombe, near Greenwich, Kent. Accessed 19.06.01. https://bit.ly/3fyyiWx 28 Wilbur Dunkel, “William Lambarde of Lincoln’s Inn,” ABA Journal, Vol. 46, December1960, 1337-1340. https://bit.ly/30dHXvx 29 Trimble, The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England. 30 Arnold, The Third Citizen, 44. 31 Ibid., 19. 32 Ibid., 38. 33 Ibid., 21. 34 Arnold provides some details: The MPs were quick to suppress both published accounts of their proceedings and any description of Parliament that they considered heterodox or irreverent: printers, authors, and booksellers were arrested by the serjeant-at-arms, made to kneel at the bar of St. Stephen’s Chapel, fined and sometimes incarcerated in the Commons’ own prison. (17) 35

Sale, ‘Practis[ing] Judgment with the Disposition of Natures,’ 118. Hutson, The Invention of Suspicion. 37 Sale, 131. 38 Ibid., 134. 39 Arbuckle and Maxwell, “Modelling Open Social Scholarship Within the INKE Community,”2. 40 Huculak, “The Methodologies of Open Social Scholarship,” 1. 36

WORKS CITED Arbuckle, Alyssa. “Open+: Versioning Open Social Scholarship.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 3(1), p.18. (2019). DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/kula.39 Arbuckle, Alyssa, and John Maxwell. “Modelling Open Social Scholarship Within the INKE Community.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 3(1), p.2. (2019). https://bit.ly/3tWaF10 Arnold, Oliver. The Third Citizen: Shakespeare’s Theater and the Early Modern House of Commons. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. Beecher, Donald, Travis DeCook, Andrew Wallace, and Grant Williams, eds. Taking Exception to the Law: Materializing Injustice in Early Modern English Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. Bellamy, William. Shakespeare’s Verbal Art. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. Cohen, Gerald. “Shakespeare’s martial law, etc., via dumb-show pandemonia.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, Sydney, Australia, June 2015. https://issuu.com/m.cobweb/docs/shakespeare_s_martial_law__etc.__vi Cohen, Hart, and Gerald Cohen. “‘A writer essential to the others’: Towards a methodology and case study of a potential exemplar of Shakespeare’s hand in annotations to an edition of Lambarde’s Eirenarcha (c1605?).” Paper presented at the annual meeting of The Shakespeare Association of America, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 2013. https://issuu.com/m.cobweb/docs/earlymodernline ———. “When old interfaces were new: Shakespeare anatomizes the prince.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing, Victoria, B.C., Canada, June 2017. https://issuu.com/m.cobweb/docs/latewinter.2019when_old_interfaces ———. “Shakespeare’s poetic monumenta: Resisting the reification of orality in legal discourse.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing, Sydney, Australia, June 2018. https://issuu.com/m.cobweb/docs/38shaxpoeticmonsept.2019

Drakakis, John. “Inside the Elephant’s Graveyard: Revising Geoffrey Bullough’s Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare.” In Shakespeare and Authority: Citations, Conceptions and Constructions, edited by Katie Halsey and Angus Vine, 55-78. London: Palgrave, 2018. Everitt, Ephraim Bryson. “The Young Shakespeare: Studies in Documentary Evidence.” In Anglistica-Vol. II, edited by Torsten Dahl, Kemp Malone, and Geoffrey Tillotson, 1-188. Rosenkilde & Bagger: Copenhagen, 1954. Fitter, Chris. Radical Shakespeare: Politics and Stagecraft in the Early Career. New York: Routledge, 2012. Fraunce, Abraham. The Lawiers Logike, exemplifying the proecepts of Logike by the practice of the common Lawe. London: Thomas Gubbin and T. Neman, 1588. Genette, Gérard. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Hooker, John. “The Order and usage of the keeping of a Parlement in England,” 1571. Reprinted in Vernon F. Snow, Parliament in Elizabethan England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Huculak, J. Matthew. The Methodologies of Open Social Scholarship. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 3(1), p.1. (2019) DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/kula.61 Hutson, Lorna. The Invention of Suspicion: Law and Mimesis in Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Julius, Anthony. “Introduction.” Law and Literature: Current Legal Issues. Ed. Michael D.A. Freeman and A.D.E. Lewis, Vol. 2. Oxford: OUP, 1999: xi-xxv, 1999. Jowett, John, ed. Sir Thomas More. London: Arden, 2011. Lambarde, William. Eirenarcha, Or, Of the Office of the Justices of Peace: In Foure Bookes. London: 1604? Bound with The Duties of Constables, 1602. Lynch, Stephen, J. Shakespearean Intertextuality: Studies in Selected Sources and Plays. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press, 1998. Miola, Robert S. “Seven Types of Intertextuality.” In Shakespeare, Italy and Intertextuality, edited by Michele Marrapodi, 13-25. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.

Prescott, Andrew, and Lorna Hughes. "Why Do We Digitize? The Case for Slow Digitization” Archive Journal, (September 2018). https://bit.ly/3jnXWzN Quint, David. Origin and Originality in Renaissance Literature: Versions of the Source. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983. Raffield, Paul. The Art of Law in Shakespeare. Oxford: Hart, 2017. Sale, Carolyn. “‘Practis[ing] judgment with the disposition of natures’: ‘Measure for Measure,’ The ‘Discoursive’ Common Law and the ‘Open Court’ of the Theater.” In Shakespeare and Judgment, edited by Kevin Curran, 115-138. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U. Press, 2017. Shapiro, James. A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare-1599. New York: Harper Collins, 2005. Stalder, Felix. The Digital Condition. Cambridge: Polity, 2018. Trimble, William R. The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England (1558-1603). London: OUP, 1964. Witmore, Michael. “Shakespeare and Wisdom Literature.” In Shakespeare and Early Modern Religion, edited by David Loewenstein and Michael Witmore, 191-213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.