Appendix

Emily Ulrich

Yale University

This index includes complete transcriptions of all commentary written by the three annotators from Echoes in the Margins (XX-XX). The transcriptions are arranged chronologically according to annotator, with cross-references to folio number in the Dartmouth Brut and page and chapter number in Friedrich Brie's printed edition of the Common Brut.

Expansions are marked in italics, line breaks with a long line [|], thorn and yogh are kept as /þ/ and /ȝ/, and /u/ and /v/ have been transcribed in accordance with the annotator's usage. Editorial comments are inserted in square brackets [...], and annotator punctuation is represented by the corresponding modern equivalents: [ - , . / : ; ]. When later annotators respond to the comments of earlier annotators, the earlier comment is transcribed in carets <...>, and the earlier annotator is identified in square brackets. The later annotator's expansion on the earlier comment will be transcribed according to the aforementioned rules.

Hand 1450+

Hand-1450+ writes in a clear Anglicana script, and dates to the second half of the fifteenth century. He is the only annotator who comments in Latin, the spelling of which occasionally reflects his vernacularized pronunciation (see folios 14v and 106v). In one annotation (folio 107r), Hand-1450+ appears to have added an extra minim to the word indignum so that it reads indiginum. Hand-1450+ also occasionally adds otiose flourishes to word-final consonants (for example, the /f/ in of, 11r; /d/ in called, 11v), and to end his commentary with a forward slash [ / ], sometimes combined with a period [ ./ ].

Hand-1530

Hand-1530 writes with a mix of secretary and Anglicana features, and dates to the first half of the 16th century. His script features a significant amount of variation in individual letterforms, particularly his /e/ (he uses both secretary /e/ and anglicana /e/ - see peter pens; 60v) and /s/ (long /s/ at the beginning and middle of words, round /s/ and 6-shaped /s/ alternating in word-final positions). Hand-1530's script includes sporadic flourishes in word-final /g/ (see pykeryng; 17v) /d/ (see yngland; 11r) /l/ (see battell; 51r) /n/ (see steven; 54r) and /h/ (see; chirch 60v). These are considered otiose, and have not been expanded into final /e/.

Hand-1623

Hand-1623's script features many variations in letterform, particularly /e/, /a/ and /r/. It also includes idiosyncrasies such as using /ii/ both as the Roman numeral 2 and the Arabic numeral 11, and capital H in the middle of a word (see madHan; f. 12r). In all cases where /ii/ is used for 11, it has been noted in editorial brackets. Hand-1623's word-final /n/ /h/ and /r/sporadically have flourishes, although these are considered otiose and have not been expanded to final /e/. Hand-1623's word-final /s/ not only appears in many forms, but is very flexibly applied to plural nouns and possessive nouns. Hand-1623 seemingly keeps plural nouns in the singular at random, and chooses from three options when denoting a possessive: no possessive, a single possessive (in accordance with modern usage) or possessives on both the noun and proper noun (see kings Humbares; 11v).

Due to the amount of commentary in this annotator's hand, several unique issues arose in transcription. Hand-1623 annotated so frequently that he occasionally had to use the inside, upper, or lower margins of the folio (all other commentary is in the outer margin of the folio). This can make his commentary appear out of order. Where this has happened, the comments have been transcribed in the order that the Brut narrative would have inspired them (see f. 11r). Any time commentary is intentionally in the inner, upper, or lower margins, it has been noted in the first column of the table, below.

At other points, Hand-1623's annotations are so dense that they need to be decoded in transcription. For example, on folio 17v, Hand-1623 makes an extensive list of 34 kings, along with their length of reign. To limit confusion between the years of reign and the numbers of the list, I have put in bold the numbers of the list. As a final consideration, emendations to, and annotations within, the main text of the Dartmouth Brut have been distinguished from substantive annotations in the margins by the use of italics for all three columns of information. It should also be noted that some of Hand-1623's early comments were either written at a different time than the others, or after a change of pen (see variations in ink thickness on f. 10v). This variation (limited to folios 10v and 11r) has not been represented in the transcriptions.

Finally, on folio 20r, Hand-1623 responds to a comment by an annotator who does not otherwise feature in my research. This annotator, called Hand-A, wrote sometime after Hand-1530, and before Hand-1623.

Last Updated: 4/19/17