The first accurate quantitative re-attribution of all central texts of the British Renaissance. Describes and applies the first unbiased and accurate method of computational-linguistics authorial-attribution. Covers 303 texts with 8,106,059 words, 123 authorial bylines, a range of genres, and a timespan between 1510 and 1662. Includes helpful diagrams that visually show the quantitative-matches and the identical most-frequent phrases between the texts in each linguistic-signature-group. Detailed chronologies for each of the six ghostwriters and the bylines they wrote under, including their dates of birth, death, publications, and other biographical markers that explain why each of them was the only logical attribution. A full bibliography of the 303 tested texts. All of the raw and processed data, not only in summary-tables inside of the book, but also in-full on a publicly-accessible website: https://github.com/faktorovich/Attribution. One table includes all of the data from the first-edition title-pages (byline, printer, bookseller, date, proverbs), and the first-performance (date, troupe). A table on structural elements across all “Shakespeare”-bylined texts summarizes their plot-movements, character-types, settings, slang-usage, primary sources, and poetic design (percentage of rhyme and hendiadys). To explain why these are the first truly accurate re-attributions, numerous reasons for discrediting previous attribution claims are provided throughout. Re-Attribution of the British Renaissance Corpus describes a newly invented for this study computational-linguistics authorial-attribution method and applies it and several other approaches to the central texts of the British Renaissance. All of the attribution steps are described precisely to give readers replicable instructions on how they can apply them to any text from any period that they are interested in determining an attribution for. This method can be applied to solving criminal linguistic mysteries such as who wrote the Unabomber Manifesto, or theological mysteries such as if any of the Dead Sea Scrolls might have been forged by a modern author. This method is uniquely accurate because it uses 27 different quantitative tests that measure a text’s dimensions and its similarity or divergence to other texts automatically, without the statisticians being able to skew the outcome by altering the experiment’s analytical design. Re-Attribution guides researchers not only on how to perform the basic calculations, but also how to perform the biographical and documentary research to derive who among the potential bylines in a single signature-group is the ghostwriter, while the others are merely ghostwriter-contractors or pseudonyms. Reliable accuracy is achieved by also performing other types of attribution tests to check if these alternative approaches validate or contradict the 27-tests’ findings. Non-quantitative tests discussed include deciphering the hidden implications of contemporary pufferies, as well as comparing structural elements such as characters, plot, and element borrowings. Part II presents a revised version of the history of the birth of the theater in Britain by reviewing forensic accounting evidence in Philip Henslowe’s Diary, and the documented history of homicidal lending practices and government corruption connected with troupes and theaters. Parts III-VIII explain precisely how this series derived that the British Renaissance was ghostwritten by only six linguistic-signatures: Richard Verstegan, Josuah Sylvester, Gabriel Harvey, Benjamin Jonson, William Byrd and William Percy. The parts on each of these ghostwriters, not only explain how their biographies fit with the timelines of the texts being attributed to them, but also provide various types of evidence that explains their motives for ghostwriting. And Part IX returns for an intricate analysis of a few pseudonyms or ghostwriting-contractors who were uniquely difficult to exclude as potential ghostwriters; in parallel, these chapters question the reasons these individuals would have needed to purchase ghostwriting services. “The complete series on British Renaissance Re-Attribution and Modernization by Anna Faktorovich is a remarkable accomplishment. Based on her own unbiased method of computational-linguistic authorial-attribution, she has critically examined an entire collection of texts, many previously inaccessible and untranslated to modern English. From a variety of distinct factors that have been ignored or unnoticed in the past, she identifies a group of ghost writers behind many miss-attributed Renaissance works. Of particular interest are works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare. Dr. Faktorovich is a prolific writer, very well informed in English literature, philology, and literary criticism, and she is clearly thorough and detail-oriented. Her re-attribution and modernization series demonstrates solid scholarship, fresh perspective, and willingness to challenge conventional thought and methodology.” —Midwest Book Review, Lesly F. Massey (December 2021) “I have long had an interest in linguistics and enjoy reading the frequent ‘Who really wrote Shakespeare’s works?’ Therefore, this book was extremely interesting to me… So, my recommendation is that if you have an interest in linguistics and scholarly research you will love this book… Very interesting and well laid out book. *****” —LibraryThing, Early Reviewers, February 2022 Anna Faktorovich, PhD, is an English professor who previously published Rebellion as Genre and Formulas of Popular Fiction. She is also the Director and Founder of Anaphora Literary Press.

The launch of Britain’s “Anglo-Saxon” origin-myth and the first Old English etymological dictionary. This is the only book in human history that presents a confessional description of criminal forgery that fraudulently introduced the legendary version of British history that continues to be repeated in modern textbooks. Richard Verstegan was the dominant artist and publisher in the British Ghostwriting Workshop that monopolized the print industry across a century. Scholars have previously described him as a professional goldsmith and exiled Catholic-propaganda publisher, but these qualifications merely prepared him to become a history forger and multi-sided theopolitical manipulator. The BRRAM series’ computational-linguistic method attributes most of the British Renaissance’s theological output, including the translation of the King James Bible, to Verstegan as its ghostwriter. Beyond providing handwriting analysis and documentary proof that Verstegan was the ghostwriter behind various otherwise bylined history-changing texts, this translation of Verstegan’s self-attributed Restitution presents an accessible version of a book that is essential to understanding the path history took to our modern world. On the surface, Restitution is the first dictionary of Old English, and has been credited as the text that established Verstegan as the founder of “Anglo-Saxon” studies. The “Exordium” reveals a much deeper significance behind these firsts by juxtaposing them against Verstegan’s letters and the history of the publication of the earliest Old English texts to be printed starting in 1565 (at the same time when Verstegan began his studies at Oxford). Verstegan is reinterpreted as the dominant forger and (self)-translator of these frequently non-existent manuscripts, whereas credit for these Old English translations has been erroneously assigned to puffed bylines such as Archbishop Parker and the Learned Camden’s Society of Antiquaries. When Verstegan’s motives are overlayed on this history, the term “Anglo-Saxon” is clarified as part of a Dutch-German propaganda campaign that aimed to overpower Britain by suggesting it was historically an Old German-speaking extension of Germany’s Catholic Holy Roman Empire. These ideas regarding a “pure” German race began with the myth of a European unified origin-myth, with their ancestry stemming from Tuisco, shortly after the biblical fall of Babel; Tuisco is described variedly as a tribal founder or as an idolatrous god on whom the term Teutonic is based. This chosen-people European origin-myth was used across the colonial era to convince colonized people of the superiority of their colonizers. A variant of this myth has also been reused in the “Aryan” pure-race theory; the term Aryan is derived from Iran; according to the theology Verstegan explains, this “pure” Germanic race originated with Tuisco’s exit from Babel in Mesopotamia or modern-day Iraq, but since Schlegel’s Über (1808) introduced the term “Aryan”, this theory’s key-term has been erroneously referring to modern-day Iran in Persia. Since Restitution founded these problematic “Anglo-Saxon” ideas, the lack of any earlier translation of it into Modern English has been preventing scholars from understanding the range of deliberate absurdities, contradictions and historical manipulations behind this text. And the Germanic theological legend that Verstegan imagines about Old German deities such as Thor (Zeus: thunder), Friga (Venus: love) and Seater (Saturn) is explained as part of an ancient attempt by empires to demonize colonized cultures, when in fact references to these deities were merely variants of the Greco-Roman deities’ names that resulted from a degradation of Vulgar Latin into early European languages. Translations of the earlier brief versions of these legends from Saxo (1534; 1234?), John the Great (1554) and Olaus the Great (1555) shows how each subsequent “history” adds new and contradictory fictitious details, while claiming the existence of the preceding sources proves their veracity. This study also questions the underlying timeline of British history, proposing instead that DNA evidence for modern-Britons indicates most of them were Dutch-Germans who migrated during Emperor Otto I’s reign (962-973) when Germany first gained control over the Holy Roman Empire, and not in 477, as the legend of Hengist and Horsa (as Verstegan satirically explains, both of these names mean horse) dictates. The history of the origin of Celtic languages (such as Welsh) is also undermined with the alternative theory that they originated in Brittany on France’s border, as opposed to the current belief that British Celts brought the Celtic Breton language into French Brittany when they invaded it in the 9th century. There are many other discoveries across the introductory and annotative content accompanying this translation to stimulate further research. Acronyms and Figures Exordium Verstegan’s Publishing Technique Earliest “Anglo-Saxon” Texts Published in England “Archbishop Parker’s” Antiquarian Project (1565-1575) The Percys’ Patronage of the Workshop (1580-1597) “Learned Camden’s” Society of Antiquaries (1590-1607) The “Cowell” Revenge-Attribution: Plagiarism and Innovation in Saxon Dictionaries British Pagan and Christian Origin Myths Scientific Evidence and Its Manipulation in Establishing the Origin of Britons and Europeans Critical Reception of Restitution Verstegan’s Handwriting Synopsis Primary Sources The Northern Theological Histories of Saxo (1534; 1234?), John the Great (1554) and Olaus the Great (1555) Text 1. Of the origin of nations 2. How the Saxons are the true ancestors of Englishmen 3. Of the ancient manner of living of our Saxon ancestors 4. Of the isle of Albion 5. Of the arrival of the Saxons into Britain 6. Of the Danes and the Normans 7. Our ancient English tongue, and explanation of Saxon words 8. The etymologies of the ancient Saxon proper names of men and women 9. How by the surnames it may be discerned from where they take their origins 10. Titles of honor, dignities and offices, and names of disgrace or contempt References, Questions, Exercises

A pastoral satire about homicidal women- and men-haters being forced into marriage. A standard “Shakespearean” comedy takes a group of youths who are attracted to those who are not interested in them, and regroups them by the conclusion into neat pairings of three or four marriages. In contrast, Fairy Pastoral appears to have been censored because the men in the pairings are wooing their intended partners from the beginning, while the women are homicidally opposed to marriage and prove to the men how much they hate them during the plot, only for them all to be forced into four marriages that all of them are miserable in by the resolution. The setting is the Forest of Elvida inhabited by a kingdom of fairies. Events open with a power-transfer from Princess Hypsiphyle to Prince Orion over accusations of mismanagement. Then, the Princess attempts to regain power across the competitive hunt the Court undertakes. Political and romantic tensions are repeatedly interrupted with slap-stick comedy of Schoolmaster Sir David trying to teach literature while his rear-end is showing, he is falling asleep, and in rare instances when he manages to relate a coherent lecture, the students fail to comprehend his meaning. This is a satire not only on the miseries that accompany forced-marriage, but also about the failures of pedagogic institutions, and irrational transfers of political power through subterfuge and sexism. “Ably presented by Professor Anna Faktorovich, Fairy Pastoral… will have a very special appeal to students and academicians with an interest in Elizabethan era pastoral plays and satiric dramas… Highly recommended for academic library literary fiction and drama collections… [and] for the personal reading lists of students, academia, and non-specialist general readers with an interest in the subject”. —Midwest Book Review, James Cox, July 2022 “The Fairy Pastoral and ‘Songs’ is an inherently fascinating study that will have special and particular appeal for readers with an interest in Shakespeare, Elizabethan Drama, and the Shakespeare/Percy controversy. Highly recommended for personal, professional, community, and academic library Literary Criticism collections.” —Midwest Book Review, Susan Bethany, August 2022 Plot and Staging Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises “Songs” from MS 509 (1636)

The neglected actual first part of the Robin Hood series. Both in terms of its plot and date of first-publication and performance, Look Around You is the first part of a trilogy that was followed by the two famous Robin Hood plays, Downfall of Robert and Death of Robert Earl of Huntington. The latter two are tragedies that have been previously falsely attributed to “Anthony Monday”, while Look is a comedy that has remained unattributed since its anonymous release. Censors might have neglected to connect Look to the others because in it, Robin Hood (Earl of Huntington) spends most of the play cross-dressing as Lady Faukenbridge, and being wooed on a balcony by Prince Richard. Meanwhile, Skink wears a myriad of disguises to escape Old King Henry’s wrath over the Queen hiring Skink to assassinate the King’s lover, Rosamund. And Young King Henry has been given the throne by his father, Old King, after several military battles between them. One of the main passions for Young King during his reign is his attempts to see the “fantastical” Earl of Gloucester executed for speaking too freely at Court. Lady Faukenbridge, Robin Hood and their supporters scheme to free Gloucester, and then to aid his life-on-the-run, while the other side schemes to re-capture and execute Gloucester. These schemes force several of the otherwise virtuous characters to take on fraudulent disguises and to succumb to highway robbery to support themselves while on the run from the law. The comedy is enhanced with the absurd constant running in the wrong directions by Redcap, whose ridiculous stuttering is imitated by other characters who take on his red cap as a disguise. This stuttering subversively restates that the attempts to execute Gloucester for speaking the truth are barbaric; hinting that such policies can cause all subjects of a kingdom to stutter instead of directly expressing their ideas. An excerpt from “Raphael Holinshed’s” Chronicles that covers the history of Henry II is included with an explanation of how it was adapted in Look. “Editions of Look are rare and obscure — I’d never heard of the play until this volume came along. The text is… modernized, with… improved stage directions and prefixes, plus on-the-page glosses. And a section of Holinshed’s Chronicles that has… relevance… to this play.” —LibraryThing, Early Reviewers, Robert B. Waltz, Editor of Minnesota Heritage Songbook Exordium Plot and Staging Segments About Henry II from “Raphael Holinshed’s” The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises

A closeted first attempt to present the complexities and elegance of the Islamic faith and the prophet Muhammad on the English stage. Thirsty Arabia was written over a century before the first English translation of the Qur’an was published. Despite this shortfall in primary sources about Islam, this comedy incorporates with unbiased research a wealth of theological and cultural details. Information flowed into Britain from Muslim countries alongside general trade in goods after Pope Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth I in 1570, but trade was halted shortly after this play was written in 1603. The narrative is launched when Muhammad declares he will destroy all mortals in Arabia for their sins in forty days with a drought. Muhammad’s angelic council objects that there might be good people in the region worth saving, so Muhammad allows Harut and Marut to travel across Arabia disguised as humans to attempt to find any do-gooders to save Arabia. The main romantic entanglement across this plot is the unsuccessful courtship of Marquess of the Deserts Epimenides by most of the eligible bachelors, including two imams (Caleb and Tubal), the wealthy magician astrologer Geber, the two disguised angels (Harut and Marut) and Muhammad himself. While most of the characters are distracted with love, the Arabian people are dying of thirst, and fraudsters such as Çavuş work to capitalize on this desperation with tricks such as selling water-licenses. Spirits, magic, time travel and fortune telling are used to gain favor and preferment, while angels and good spirits punish evil-doers. The Aristotelian “Square of Opposition” in a logic game the angels play with Muhammad is only one of the many educational and entertaining devices. The poetic, wooing love songs, and witty refusals alone are sufficient for readers to explore the surprises along this narrative. “An extraordinary, inherently fascinating and entertaining drama that is enhanced with expert notations and commentaries by the editor and translator Anna Faktorovich… A unique and recommended addition to community, college, and university library English Drama & Literature collections and supplemental curriculum studies lists.” —Midwest Book Review, Clint Travis (March 2021) Plot and Staging Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises

The censored satirical or “bad” version of the “Shakespeare” classic that features a homosexual affair between Hamlet and Horatio, and Ofelia’s deflowering to feign heterosexual normalcy. The standard summary of Hamlet describes it as a “tragedy” about a “mad” or “tormented” Prince of Denmark, who follows the solicitation of the Ghost of his assassinated father to revenge-murder his incestuous and homicidal uncle Claudius. The commentary that accompanies this never-before fully-modernized First Quarto of Hamlet explains how it was initially designed to be a satire that diverged from Saxo Grammaticus’ Danish History where Amleth pretends to be mad not only to execute revenge but also to successfully win the crown from his uncle. The First Quarto subtracts any desire for the crown from Hamlet, and instead subversively explains that Hamlet is motivated to feign madness and to deflower Ofelia to disguise his outlawed homosexual love for Horatio. Hamlet makes no direct expressions of attraction towards Ofelia’s beauty. And in the resolution, Horatio offers to poison himself to death when he learns Hamlet is dying. The satirical perspective of this history is especially apparent in the cemetery scene where the Clown 1 gravedigger sifts through a mass-grave to help Hamlet find a dried skull among those that are still decomposing. The heavy re-write between the 1603 and 1604 editions of Hamlet also help to show Percy’s re-writing habit that confirms the attribution to him of diverging versions of anonymous and then “Shakespeare”-bylined versions of Leir/ Lear, and Tragedy of/ Richard III. “Hamlet: The First Quarto is an iconoclastic, unique, informative, and inherently interesting study that is highly recommended for personal, professional, community, college, and university library Literary Studies collections in general, and supplemental curriculum Shakespearean Studies lists in particular. It is volume twelve of the simply outstanding British Renaissance Re-Attribution and Modernization Series from Anaphora Literary Press. Ably translated by academician Anna Faktorovich, Hamlet: The First Quarto will have a particular interest and value for Shakespearean scholars and students, as well as the non-specialist general reader with an interest in the subject.” —Midwest Book Review, James Cox, February 2022 Exordium Plot and Staging Segments from “Book Three” and “Book Four” of Saxo Grammaticus’ The Danish History Introduction to the 1825 Edition by William Nicol Introduction to the 1860 Edition by Samuel Timmins Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises

A comedy that juxtaposes fame with anonymity, and tyrannical abuse with fair governance. The rapid succession of monarchs across Nobody and Somebody satirizes the standard plots of “Shakespearean” histories that end with the overthrow or death of the preceding tyrannical monarch, and suggest hope that the next monarch will be better, before this hope is dispelled in the next tragic history, as is the case with the chronological series of Edward III, Richard II, and 1 Henry IV. Nobody is set in 85-60 BC, or just before the Roman invasion of the British Isles. The plot opens with two Court advisors, Cornwall and Marcian, scheming to overthrow their corrupt King Archigallo who unfairly confiscates land to grant it to Lord Sycophant and names a common Wench as his Queen. The coup d’état succeeds, and Elidure accepts the crown when the advisors explain he is the only rational choice. A while into his reign, Elidure finds Archigallo in exile in a forest, and insists that Archigallo retakes the throne from him. While Archigallo’s second term is less tyrannical it ends shortly thereafter due to his natural death, upon which the throne passes back to Elidure. Without a reprise in the events, Elidure’s two younger brothers then wage war against Elidure and overthrow him. And then these brothers cannot agree on who between them should have power over the other, and so they wage war against each other and both die, leaving Elidure to again reclaim the throne. The radical moral story against tyranny in this central plot is dampened by the constant interruptions of a rival plotline about Nobody and Somebody. Nobody is a fair, charitable and unassuming land owner, against whom the corrupt and fraudulent landowner called Somebody wages a slander-campaign. Every word in this play is dense not only with this extremely violent, sexually-charged and outrageous plotlines, but also with subtexts of implied meanings and historical backstory. Exordium Plot and Staging Primary Sources “The Seventh Chapter” About Elidure from the “Raphael Holinshed”-bylined and Gabriel Harvey and Richard Verstegan-Ghostwritten The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland “The Well-spoken Nobody” Alexander Smith’s “Note” from the 1877 Old-Spelling Glasgow Edition Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises

An allegorical morality comedy about criminality and the rivalries between London, Lincoln and Spain. This play is an exercise by a young dramatist who is grappling with understanding philosophical and legal concepts by simplifying these into personifications. Three Lords of London (called Pleasure, Pomp and Policy) declare their superiority with puffing emblems and insist that they have an innate right to marry the three Ladies of London (Love, Lucre and Conscience). The Ladies have been imprisoned in the first part of this series (Three Ladies of London) for their sins, and Nemo has decided that he would only release them if precisely three suitors bid for all of their hands in marriage simultaneously. The Ladies are told to remain silent and to obey whoever is willing to marry them, or they would have to return to prison to be tortured by Sorrow. Thus, instead of the standard comedic objections from female characters to potential matches, the only obstacles to this pre-determined resolution are that the three Lords of Spain and the three Lords of Lincoln appear to also bid for the Ladies. The defeat of the Spaniards is presented in an exchange of insults about emblems and epithets during a meeting that alludes to the Spanish Armada attack. And the Lords of Lincoln are briskly defeated when they are told they merely deserve the symbolic stones the Ladies have been sitting on. The introductory remarks explain how Lords should be part of the main canon because it might be one of only three pre-“Shakespearean” British comedies. And a section presents an alternative explanation for the mystery of how the seven copies of Lords’ print-run ended up with strange combinations of varying typos. The annotations explain how the detail of Usury’s parents being Jewish has been misinterpreted by previous critics as anti-Semitic, when this passage actually summarizes the ethnic backgrounds of the actual members of the Ghostwriting Workshop, as the merchant-lender among them Sylvester was Jewish, and Percy was from a region near-Scotland and had been educated in France. And evidence is presented why the series that includes Lords and Ladies should be re-attributed away from “Robert Wilson” and to Percy. “Enhanced for academia with the inclusion of a 6 page listing of Acronyms, a 1 page Summary, a 23 page Exordium, 21 pages of Plot and Staging, a 104 page Text, and and 5 pages of Terms, References, Questions, and Exercises, The Three Lords and Three Ladies of London is Volume 10 of that Anaphora Literary Press British Renaissance Re-Attribution and Modernization series. A unique and unreservedly recommended addition to community, college, and university library Shakespeare, British, and Irish drama collections”. —Midwest Book Review, James Cox, The Theatre/Cinema Shelf Exordium Plot and Staging Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises

A country comedy about the absurdly corrupt purchases of military titles. Captain Underwit has succeeded in becoming a “paper” Captain by bribing the Lieutenant with favors and a below-value land-purchase. Underwit then sends his servant Thomas to purchase books to prepare him to actually carry out military duties, but Thomas instead purchases the “Shakespeare” Folio, and other impractical or irrelevant books in a manner that echoes Don Quixote’s belief he could imitate the actions of knights in romance novels. Meanwhile, Underwit withdraws from London into his father-in-law Sir Richard’s country estate. Underwit hires Captain Sackburie to build his military acumen, but Sackburie only has him perform a few military dances before they escape to drink at a tavern. The plot then digresses from these heavy subjects to romantic entanglements as Sir Richard’s wife (Lady) attempts to have an affair with Sir Francis, and Sister flirts with Mr. Courtwell, and Lady’s maid, Mistress Dorothy, devises a fraudulent scheme to make suitors falsely believe she comes from an aristocratic family to secure a husband. There are gems under this visage of simplicity, as Engine is attempting to bribe his way into a monopoly on periwigs, and Device the poet recites elegant songs to Sister that he is not sure if he has plagiarized. The introductory materials explain that the plagiarism of the “Catch” dice-game-song that repeats in the “James Shirley”-bylined Poems &c. (1646) re-affirms Percy’s ghostwriting of most “Shirley”-bylined plays as well as Captain, instead of proving “Shirley’s” authorship of this group of texts, as critics have previously claimed. “A classic English country comedy from the British Renaissance era, and now ably translated by Anna Faktorovich into Modern English for an appreciative readership with an interest in the literature and stage dramas of the time. Captain Underwit is an eloquent, unique, and highly recommended contribution to academic library collections… It should be noted for the personal reading lists of students, academia, and non-specialist general readers with an interest in the subject…” —Midwest Book Review, James Cox, The Literary Fiction Shelf Exordium Plot and Staging “Introduction to Captain Underwit” (1883) by A. H. Bullen Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises

The only actual collection of sonnets written by William Shakespeare Percy. Discover a collection of extraordinary sonnets that have been nearly invisible to scholars and students alike because they were misunderstood or deliberately suppressed by censors of the canon. As the introduction explains, one of its only preceding reprints was an 1818 edition that was prefaced by its editor as a poetic failure that was a typical example of “the court style”. A close analysis of Coelia’s poetic structure and linguistics proves this collection to be one of the best examples of metered and rhymed verse from the Renaissance. The real reason for the cold critical reception that has ostracized Coelia becomes apparent in the synopsis of the content of the unified narrative these sonnets relate. Coelia is a plea addressed to Elizabeth I for ending the Buggery Act that sentenced homosexuals to death. Sonnet XI refers to a suicidal sacrifice, and Percy was indeed risking his life when he put his own name in the byline of this poetic appeal. Because he was writing under his own name, Percy subverts some of this homosexual subject-matter by instead referring to ugly or masculine features behind a feminine or cross-dressing mask in Sonnet XIII. Each sonnet explores a new philosophical dilemma, with beautiful descriptions, complex mythological allusions, and tragically romantic appeals for love and sympathy. Percy was the dominant ghostwriter of most of the “Shakespeare”-bylined tragedies, but he only wrote a few pieces out of the “Shakespeare”-bylined multi-ghostwriter collection called Sonnets (1609); thus, readers have not really read a full collection of sonnets by “Shakespeare” the Tragedian until they explore Coelia. “Historians have long recognized that the revered Hippocratic Corpus is an accretion of the writings of many ghost writers and imitators. The analysis of a similar process of accretion in the instance of the British Renaissance Corpus has brought to the fore contributors and ghostwriters here-to-fore largely unknown. Such is the case with William Percy, obscure poet of the 17th century./ At first glance, the notion that careful analysis of this phenomenon may be assisted by artificial intelligence seems contrary to humanistic literary values. But Anna Faktorovich has been a full and sensitive participant in the process and the result is not only her computational-linguistics re-attribution, but also a sensitive, accessible rendition of William Percy’s twenty Sonnets to Coelia./ The poems are contextualized by exordia from multiple historical authors and perspicaciously by Anna Faktorovich herself. Such contextual writings illuminate the central purpose of Percy’s poetizing; the Sonnets to Coelia are an apologia for alternative forms of human love, more specifically an apologia for homosexual love. It is, therefore, of considerable modern interest as an important milestone (or millstone) in the historical record of laws governing human sexuality. Sonnets to Coelia is a plea to Elizabeth I to reverse the ‘Buggery Act’ of 1533, which she instead reinstated./ The poems themselves exemplify the period. They conform to the sonnet form with considerable consistency. What makes them seem most archaic to the modern ear is their rhyme. Commitment to rhyme over-rides all other considerations: it over-rides rhythm, it over-rides accessibility and often renders locutions awkward. Still a careful reading, aided by the abundance of footnotes, is rewarded by considerable amusement and insight./ Perhaps the greatest reward is received if the ‘beholder’s share’, that which the reader brings to the poem, is the presupposition that Coelia is a rubric signifying all the manifold and various forms of human love. Consider for example Sonnet 16 where a grain of cruelty seems to be welcomed:/ ‘Then, if I swear thy love does make me languish;/ Thou turn away, and smile scornfully./ And if I weep; my tears thou despise.’/ In summary, William Percy’s Sonnets to Coelia are a fascinating read and receive my highest recommendation.” —Midwest Book Review, Lloyd Jacobs (December 2021) “Dr. Anna Faktorovich’s writing is not only erudite but also beautiful and simple. Her persuasive and fascinating argument that William Percy was the main tragedian behind the ‘William Shakespeare’ pseudonym is most convincing in her work, Sonnets. She projects more credibility than any trial lawyer.” —LibraryThing, Valerie Ogden, past chairperson of the Mayor’s Animal Advisory Committee for the City of Philadelphia and president of the Board of Directors for the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Exordium Text Terms, References, Questions, Exercises Introduction to the 1824 Edition by Joseph Haslewood Commentary on Haslewood’s Introduction The Title Page of William Percy’s Transcripts William Percy (1567?-1648) is the dominant tragedian behind the “William Shakespeare” pseudonym according to the computational-linguistic study in The Re-Attribution of the British Renaissance Corpus. Percy was a younger son of the assassinated 8th Earl of Northumberland and the brother of the imprisoned in the Tower 9th Earl.