PSEUDOBIBLIA AND RACE IN THE WORKS OF H.P.

LOVECRAFT

A Thesis Presented

By

Kenneth F. Haley

To

The Department of English

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

In the field of

English

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

December 2019

1
PSEUDOBIBLIA AND RACE IN THE WORKS OF H.P. LOVECRAFT

A Thesis Presented

By

Kenneth F. Haley

ABSTRACT OF THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts in English

in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of

Northeastern University

December 2019

2
 ABSTRACT

Over the past several decades, interest in the works of the 20th century horror author H.P.

Lovecraft has been on the rise, both within academia and within the mainstream pop-cultural

landscape. In an attempt to explain this surge of interest in an author noted for his racism, this

thesis engages in an analysis of his use of pseudobiblia, defined as the use of and creation of

fictional citations, and race through a two pronged approach. First, it engages in the creation of

TEI encoded editions of three of his works—“Call of Cthulhu,” “History of the Necronomicon,”

and “The Festival”—a process which includes highlighting and noting the presence of

pseudobiblia and othering language. It then utilizes the decolonial theories of Walter Mignolo

and others—with a particular focus on the Colonial Matrix of Power, a concept through which

expands the idea of colonialism into the realm of knowledge formation and epistemologies—to

produce a reading of the texts which argues that unbeknownst to him, Lovecraft’s stories both

represented the Colonial Matrix of Power in action, while also highlighting its weaknesses and

shortcomings. A potent combination which has since been picked up by contemporary authors

and creators to tell stories which seek recenter the racialized other by utilizing Lovecraft’s own

creations.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Doctor Julia Flanders and Professor Ryan Cordell, without whom

this thesis would not exist. They encouraged me to follow my passion and proved to be endlessly

helpful in the construction of the TEI encoding and the writing of the work. I am forever grateful

for their help and support.

I would also like to thank Sarah Elizabeth Connell, Syd Bauman, and Ashley Clark, who

all provided help, suggestions, and feedback at various stages of the encoding process. Their

willingness to make time in their busy schedules to answer my questions and point out obvious

solutions when I was overthinking things enabled the creation of the TEI portion.

4
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 4

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO: Editorial Statement ......................................................................................... 14

General Principles ............................................................................................................. 14

Selecting the Texts ............................................................................................................ 15

Textual Approach.............................................................................................................. 17

CHAPTER THREE: Analysis of Selected Texts.......................................................................... 23

Call of Cthulhu.................................................................................................................. 23

History of the Necronomicon............................................................................................ 27

The Festival ....................................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER THREE: Conclusion .................................................................................................. 36

CHAPTER FOUR: Appendix ....................................................................................................... 41

TEI Description and Use ................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER FIVE: References....................................................................................................... 46

Primary Sources ................................................................................................................ 46

Secondary Sources ............................................................................................................ 46

5
 CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

Over the past several decades, interest in the works of H.P. Lovecraft has been on the rise

both within academia and within the mainstream pop-cultural landscape. In their introduction to

The Age of Lovecraft, Carl H. Sederholm and Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock highlight this surge of

interest and note that as of January 2015, a “search of the MLA International Bibliography using

‘Lovecraft’ as a keyword yields 525 hits, including 374 journal articles, 100 book chapters, and

33 monographs or edited collections,” before adding, “[o]ver 45 percent of these [were]

published in 2000 or later” (Sederholm 4). The essays appear across a myriad of academic

journals, ranging from specialist publications such as Lovecraft Studies to the highly regard

Critical Inquiry. Meanwhile, in the pop-cultural sphere editions of Lovecraft’s stories have been

published by numerous mainstream and academic publishers, including Penguin Classics, the

Library of America, and Oxford World Classics. On the creative side, Lovecraft’s influence can

be found in nearly every form of artistic expression, ranging from the films of Guillermo del

Toro, to the comics of Junji Ito, to the prose fiction of Ruthanna Emrys and Victor LaValle.

While Lovecraft’s place within academia and his importance to the American pop-cultural

sphere seems firmly established, questions remain surrounding how the works of a pulp-fiction

author known for his racism have persisted and spread to gain such influence nearly a century

after his death. Furthermore, the four previously listed examples raise very important questions

as to the legacy of Lovecraft’s work due to their ethnic, gender, and sexual identification; Del

Toro, a Mexican director; Ito, a Japanese comic creator; Emrys, an openly queer author; and

LaValle, an African American author, are all members of communities which would have been

vilified and cast as the monstrous other by Lovecraft. Despite this, all four draw upon him for

inspiration, and several choose to directly engage with the worlds, creatures, and mythos he

6
created. What about Lovecraft’s work makes it a viable choice for these creators’ to work with?

An answer to this question may be found in approaching Lovecraft’s work with an eye towards

his use of pseudobiblia—the creation and use of fictional citations and texts—and race.

Through the use of text encoding and the creation of digital editions for several of

Lovecraft’s typescripts and manuscripts, it becomes possible to highlight and draw connections

between the presence of pseudobiblia, Lovecraft’s use of race, and the way in which Lovecraft

draws upon both to generate the horror within his works. Once these aspects of his work have

been identified and isolated, it then becomes possible to view them through the lens of decolonial

theory, as envisioned by Anibal Quijano and Walter Mignolo. Doing so reveals how Lovecraft’s

use of pseudobiblia may be situated in relation to the decolonial concept of Colonial Matrix of

Power (CMP)—a conceptual framework which details the methods used by colonialism in the

occupation of land and people by casting Western civilization as the arbiters of knowledge and

power. With this approach, it becomes possible to identify how, despite Lovecraft’s racism and

use of the racialized, monstrous other, he constructs a fictional world in which these others have

the power to undermine the CMP via access to their epistemologies which exist outside of the

CMP. Doing so creates a potentially fertile ground for authors and creators he would have

othered to then work and claim the power he gave to them in a reformative action. To best

understand how this is possible, it is first important to understand what pseudobiblia is and how

it will be used within this project.

The concept of pseudobiblia has been a minor part of academic discourse for over four

decades. While the MLA bibliographical database only records two instances of the term, the

earliest instance appears within the S.T. Joshi edited H.P. Lovecraft: Four Decades of Criticism

(1980). In his introduction to Edward Lauterback’s “Some Notes on Cthulhuian Pseudobiblia,”

7
and in his accompanying footnotes he directs readers to further work done by Lovecraft fans and

scholars into the use and presence of pseudobiblia within his works. Further investigation site

produces an additional 15 results, though several are duplicates, with most of them appearing in

the wake of Leif Sorensen’s 2010 article, “A Weird Modernist Archive: Pulp Fiction,

Pseudobiblia, H. P. Lovecraft.” For the purpose of this project, I will draw heavily upon two

articles, Leif Sorensen’s 2010 essay, and Roger Luckhurst’s 2014 article, “The Weird: A

Dis/Orientation.” In his later article, Luckhurst describes Lovecraft’s use of pseudobiblia as “the

invention of fake books, fake libraries, and fake traditions” (Luckhurst 1047). It is important to

note that while most of the articles being cited here deal with Lovecraft’s use of pseudobiblia,

the act of citing fictional works within a narrative does not originate with Lovecraft or his

contemporaries. Its presence can be found in works of authors such as Arthur Machen,

M.R.James, and others (Luckhurst 1047). Importantly, while Lovecraft and his fellow Weird

Tales contributors used this technique to great effect, Sorensen notes “the paradigmatic example”

of pseudobiblia is actually “[J.R.R.] Tolkein’s elaborate catalogues of the linguistic, geographic,

and historical minutia of Middle Earth” (Sorensen 506). By referencing Tolkien’s practice and

highlighting it as “the paradigmatic example,” Sorensen opens up the definition in a way in

which Luckhurst’s later work doesn’t through the inclusion of languages, geographies, and

histories, allowing it to grow beyond the strictly literary practice of faux intertextuality. To this

end, this project approaches the idea of pseudobiblia as one not limited to the tradition of

Lovecraft’s fictional tomes, but one which embraces all of the fictional creations Lovecraft uses

in the construction of his fictional world. As such, the catalogue of pseudobiblia recorded for this

project will include not only the fake books, fake libraries, and fake traditions, but also the fake

locations and fake personages created by Lovecraft. Together, these fictional creations combine

8
to produce a faux archive which exemplifies Lovecraft’s epistemological anxiety—a major

source of the horror within his works.

Lovecraft’s relationship with the archive in an important aspect of Sorensen’s article,

particularly his discussion of how Lovecraft draws upon “techniques from ethnography and

antiquarianism to produce both a model of culture and a fantastic universe that draws its claims

to verisimilitude by means of a strategic practice of citation” and how Lovecraft’s use of these

“two different modes of cultural collection” shapes his work (Sorensen 502). Luckhurst

elaborates upon this idea within his own work, noting Lovecraft views the archive as both “an

antiquarian trove of the familiar and reassuring and a pseudo-ethnographic one of the different

and horrifying” (Luckhurst 502). Thus, within his works Lovecraft creates an archive containing

both real historical works, often within the Anglo-American tradition, and containing

pseudobiblia which is often cast in pseudo-ethnographic, epistemological texts of the other. This

understanding of Lovecraft’s approach is further detailed by Sorensen, who states, within

Lovecraft’s fiction, “[r]eading ethnography of the other thus threatens a sense of familiar, stable

embodiment” (Sorensen 516). When Lovecraft’s protagonists interact, read, or otherwise

encounter artifacts from this pseudobibliographical archive of the other, it inevitably results in

horrific and sanity threatening revelations which completely upend the protagonists

understanding of the world, an understanding firmly situated within the safety and comfort of the

Angle-American epistemological tradition and archive. Thus, Lovecraft’s use of pseudobiblia,

his attempts to lend it verisimilitude by placing them in continuity with existent Anglo-American

archival texts, and situate these fictional works as potent enough to threaten the stability of his

protagonist’s epistemological foundations—this construction of Lovecraft’s archive

inadvertently mirrors the decolonial understanding of the Colonial Matrix of Power, and it is this

9
aspect of Lovecraft’s work which makes it so easy to engage with by those who would be

Lovecraft’s monstrous other for it gives to them the power to undermine and destroy the CMP.

To better understand this decolonial approach to Lovecraft’s work, one must turn to the

decolonial theory of Walter Mignolo and Anibal Quijano, two foundational figures in decolonial

theory who articulated the modern conception of the Colonial Matrix of Power.

Originally described by Quijano and elaborated upon by Mignolo, the Colonial Matrix of

Power (CMP) is a conceptual map which details the various methods employed by colonialism,

and which is still in place to this day. Mignolo explains how the CMP is constructed upon and

supported by four interlocking pillars: “control of the economy, of authority, of gender and

sexuality, and of knowledge and subjectivity” (Mignolo 8). Of primary importance to decolonial

theory is the idea of knowledge and subjectivity. According to decolonial theory, coloniality is

not simply the occupation of land and subjugation of people, it is also the colonizing of the

colonial subjects’ conceptual space—their ways of thinking, understanding, and interacting with

the world. When the European nations engaged in colonialism, they actively discouraged,

destroyed, and discredited epistemic formations which clashed with their own understanding of

the world and how it functions. What this meant in practice, was non-western “knowledge-

configuration and epistemic desires were hidden, and the accent placed on the mind in relation to

God and in relation to Reason. Thus was the enunciation of Western epistemology configured,

and thus was the structure of the enunciation holding together the colonial matrix” (Mignolo 9).

The decolonial project, or decoloniality, as explained by Romero Garcia and Dante Baca, “would

be a political, epistemic, and ethnical project that surfaces from local histories, elsewhere and

otherwise” which “emerges from the hope and vision that it is possible to explore ‘border

thinking’ as the site of knowledges and epistemic alternatives that can move us beyond Western

10
categories of epistemology, thought, and feeling” (Garcia 2-3). However, this positivist approach

to decoloniality is a description coming from those invested in the decolonial project, from those

who see this moving and upending of Western epistemologies as a positive thing. Lovecraft, on

the other hand, is a figure firmly embedded within the CMP by virtue of being an Anglo-

American, heterosexual, male, descended from those who engaged in the colonial endeavor.

Therefore, his work is reflective of the epistemic anxiety and epistemic approach experienced by

those whose find their positioning with the CMP threatened by these emerging epistemologies.

The reemergence of these epistemologies and the threat they represent to the CMP, is the source

of the horror and fear permeating his fiction.

Lovecraft’s stories are often predicated upon revelations which upset the foundations of

his protagonists epistemological understanding of the world and themselves. Typically, his main

characters are white, male, academics, who narrate their literal or metaphorical journeys which

culminate in a revelation following contact with forbidden knowledge and outside

epistemologies in some fashion. The encounter reveals to the narrator that the Anglo-American,

western, colonial understanding of the world is flawed and incorrect. That which had been

suppressed and dismissed as epistemologically invalid within the CMP instead turns out to be the

truth. Essentially, Lovecraft’s own position within the CMP is reflected within his protagonists,

and his own fear of the ethnographic archive and its ability to destabilize western epistemologies

manifest through his enunciation of the ethnographic archive’s as consisting of monstrous,

otherworldly, and alien knowledge. In other words, he recognizes the power of outside

epistemological traditions to endanger the CMP and its privileging of the Anglo-American

people. In a sense, Lovecraft’s fiction was ahead of its time, for as Mignolo states,

Westernization was on its own for five hundred years, building knowledge and
expanding, disavowing all other mediating epistemologies. Today this is no

11
 longer possible, because the set of mediations (the rhetoric of modernity and the
logic of coloniality) on which the West built itself as such and by which it
expanded, were protested but not contested. Today they are not only protested,
but also contested. (Mignolo 67)

Lovecraft’s work recognizes this aspect of the CMP, senses the coming contestation of

Westernization from disavowed and dismissed outside epistemologies, and so depicts contact

with them as apocalyptically revelatory. They reveal truths and knowledge which are potentially

world ending threats or at the very least, threats to the sanity of his white, Anglo-American,

male, academic characters. Unlike typical horror stories, however, Lovecraft’s characters rarely

prevail over the threats they encounter, and instead merely survive, often times at great mental

and psychological cost. This can be seen throughout numerous stories of his, including “The Call

of Cthulhu,” “The Festival,” “Shadow Over Innsmouth,” “Pickman’s Model,” and more. As the

narrators merely survive, the threats they encounter—both physical and epistemological—remain

an ever present threat with the ominous suggestion of their eventual return. By crafting his tales

in such a manner and framing the threats in such a way, Lovecraft inadvertently relocates the

ultimate power of enunciation to those he others. The CMP and its Anglo-American archive are

not inviolable, are not indestructible, but are instead fragile things which must be constantly

defended against, which must not be contaminated by interaction with outside epistemologies.

Sorensen highlights this when he emphasizes how “the reactionary ends to which Lovecraft

directs his skeptical interaction with the idea of a stable or impartial archive offers a useful

reminder that not all attacks on objectivity and scientific rationality lead to a liberatory

undermining of official discourse” (Sorensen 503). Lovecraft’s work emphasizes the horror

inherent with having one’s understanding of the world upended, however it does so from the

perspective of one who’s privileged position is supported by maintaining the CMP. What is

horrific and upsetting to one, however, is in fact liberatory and freeing to another. For those who

12
have found their cultures being subsumed, othered, and dismissed by the CMP, its destabilizing

provides room for them to once more enunciate themselves.

Within his body of work, Lovecraft grants the epistemologies of the other the power to

continually return and threaten the CMP’s stability. In doing so he creates a sense, not of the

CMP’s superiority, but one of its inevitable defeat and destruction. Thusly framed, Lovecraft has

unwittingly created an opening within his own works which later writers of those persecuted

groups may draw upon, claiming the power he inadvertently cedes to them, and moving forward

within his creations by shifting the emphasis to the experiences and epistemologies of those he

othered, thus recognizing their humanity, and using Lovecraft’s work to instead speak from the

positions of the other. The works of authors such as Emrys and LaValle, or directors such as Del

Toro, draw upon Lovecraft’s stories for the conceptual foundation of their own works in a way

which may be seen as decolonial. The stories they tell highlight the experience of Lovecraft’s

others, an act which mirrors the decolonial turn, which

has as its foundation the stories, epistemologies, thoughts, and feelings of the
anthropoid. That is, decoloniality is marked by a shift and break from the
storytellers of the past—think white Western male subjectivity—to the antrhropoi,
the ‘others’ themselves. Here the anthropoi’s act of delinking from the “West” for
an “otherwise” local epistemology and understanding that has been repressed and
oppressed… (Garcia 4)

In order to better explain and describe the ways in which Lovecraft constructs a stage for such

work, it is necessary to examine his corpus. To aid in this endeavor, this project utilizes text

encoding in order to create digital editions for several of Lovecraft’s prose pieces which were

then edited in order to emphasize the various ways in which his use of intertextuality,

pseudobiblia, and race interact to create a sense of horror within his work which in turn situates

the power to threaten the epistemological underpinnings of the the Colonial Matrix of Power to

the very people he loathes.

13
 CHAPTER TWO: Editorial Statement

General Principles

This project is focused on electronically publishing three texts by the early twentieth

century American author H.P. Lovecraft and, through the use of TEI-encoding. For the purpose

of this project three texts were collected and encoded; two typescripts, “The Call of Cthulhu” and

“The Festival”, and one manuscript, “History of the Necronomicon.” The entirety of the texts is

encoded in XML, including any front and back matter, and adhere to the P5 specifications of the

Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), with some minor modifications. Further attempts were made to

adhere to the Modern Language Association’s (MLA) “Guidelines for Editors of Scholarly

Editions.” A detailed account of the specific elements used and any non-standard variation in

their use may be found elsewhere in this document.

The encoding preserves original spelling, additions, deletions, hyphenations, and other

details in an effort to represent the original physical texts as closely as possible. Attempts were

made to avoid standardization, normalization, or modernization, and as such the spelling of some

names and places throughout the corpus may vary. Whenever possible, these name variants were

recorded and encoded in their respective lists in the various header sections. Despite these

efforts, however, as Martha Nell Smith explains in her essay, “Electronic Scholarly Editing”:

[no] advances in markup, nor any of these guidelines, is robust enough to

accommodate all facets of the actual textual experience of editors working with primary
artifacts. Original documents, the raw materials with which editors must work, are by
their very nature queer, and must be normalized to some degree in order to be put into an
edition. (“Electronic Scholarly Editing” 314)
Due to a combination of the queerness and limits of encoding, certain information is not

preserved and conveyed through the encoding process. This is the case with specific typeface or

font information and abnormal spacing issues within the typescripts. Similarly, damage to the

physical page was not encoded unless it impacted the ability to read and understand the text. In

14
certain cases, the position of the text on the page is lost as well, though in such cases a notation

will appear to explain the case-by-case editorial reasoning behind the loss while also describing

the original position of the text upon the printed page. Further detail on this aspect of the

encoding, along with other element and attribute specific features and uses are described in more

detail below.

Selecting the Texts

The selection of the three texts—“The Call of Cthulhu,” “History of the Necronomicon,”

and “The Festival”—to be examined and edited was deliberately kept small and grew out of my

previous work with Lovecraft’s corpus for an earlier DH project. For that project I examined his

work with several tools, before focusing on two specific short stories. Only one of those texts,

“The Call of Cthulhu,” appears within this project due to its importance in Lovecraft’s overall

world building and legacy. It represents the first appearance and mention of Cthulhu, arguably

his most popular creation, as well as the third appearance of what is arguably his second most

enduring creation, the fictional tome the Necronomicon. The presence of both creations, which

would go on to appear numerous times throughout his work, made this text an ideal choice to

help highlight the way he interwove factual items, people, and locations with fictional ones. “The

History of the Necronomicon,” was similarly chosen for this intertextual quality. The text is a

short piece chronicling the fictional history of Lovecraft’s creation and was only published

following his death. Despite this, it represents a perfect opportunity to expand upon the technique

previously mentioned, as the fictional tome’s history situates it in a network of historical and

fictional localities, and sees it interact with numerous historical and fictional figures and events.

It also provides further details on the tome’s origins, and helps to expand upon the intersection of

race and the idea of pseudobiblia in Lovecraft’s work by highlighting the way the forbidden

15
book spreads and linking its origins to both the foreign other and monstrous other. The third text

is “The Festival,” a short story published shortly before “The Call of Cthulhu,” which not only

includes yet another early mention of the Necronomicon, but also features the second use of

Kingsport; a reoccurring fictional, New England location which serves as a foundational unit of

what is sometimes referred to as “Lovecraft Country”—a collective name for the fictional New

England locations created by Lovecraft and situated alongside real world locations.

The specific versions of “Call of Cthulhu” and “History of the Necronomicon” were

chosen due to their temporal positioning as early or original drafts of each story. Over the years

Lovecraft’s corpus has been subject to numerous alterations, large and small, by a number of

editors. These range from the editors of Weird Tales and other pulp magazines which originally

published his stories, to scholarly editing attempts at recreating the earliest drafts, and other

editors who attempted to standardize the text by changing spellings, word choices, and similar

aspects for readability issues. In choosing versions of the text which existed prior to their initial

publication I am attempting to adhere to a combination of two editing traditions, “the copy text

tradition aims at establishing a text that is as close to the author’s intentions as possible. Whereas

the diplomatic edition aims to accurately represent a manuscript down to the grapheme and even

allograph level” (Huitfeld 159). Doing so helps to ensure the individual texts are free from the

competing intents and interpretations of these various editorial figures, and hopefully represent a

less filtered version of Lovecraft’s original work, including whatever stylistic ticks he may have

had. The one exception to this practice is this particular edition of “The Festival,” which

represents a post-publication revision. According to Brown University’s archival data, this

typescript is believed to have been prepared by Lovecraft’s associate and contemporary, Donald

Wandrei, at Lovecraft’s request.

16
 While other versions of these texts are available from a myriad of sources, these specific

editions are—to the best of my knowledge—currently available only in two forms: the original

physical editions located with Brown University’s John Hay library, and the digitally scanned

images found on Brown University’s Digital Repository website. Encoding and publishing these

specific editions online will hopefully make them more widely available to other scholars and

fans who may never have seen these typescripts and manuscripts before. Furthermore, by

transcribing, encoding, and publishing them in a more easily readable form, they become

available to anyone interested in his work, but who may have been unable to read them as image

files due to various accessibility issues. While the scanned images are important and significant,

through the encoding process they become open to textual searches, screen readers, and other

forms of text-based analysis, thus opening them to a wider range of analytical possibilities than

the image format allows.

Textual Approach

The text was approached with an eye towards two goals: create a schema and produce

encoded texts based upon early versions of Lovecraft’s work which may provide a foundation for

the future work of building digital genetic editions of his work; and to utilize TEI encoding to

highlight the ways in which Lovecraft’s use of race and pseudobiblia interact with one another.

The encoding process was structured to serve both ends and thus required a combination of

editorial approaches.

This project was initially undertaken as an attempt at creating genetic edition of these

three works. The genetic approach to editing “aims to record the sequence of scribal acts of

which the manuscript is the tangible result” (Huitfeldt 159). This aim played a strong role in the

early stages of planning for this project, from designing the schema and deciding what should be

17
recorded by the encoding, to the selection of the texts themselves. As the project progressed,

however, the focus shifted. Instead of compiling multiple, significant, steps in each texts history

and encoding them to examine different editorial interventions which may have affected the

works transmission and reception, it was decided to encode a single edition of each text in such a

way that would leave in place the infrastructure needed to create a proper genetic edition at a

later date. As a result, the TEI schema contains elements which could preserve and convey

information in a way which would aid this endeavor. As Odd Einar Haugen, in his contribution

to Digital Critical Editions, explains, the traditional genetic edition “tries to display the growth

of a text, typically in a single conflated display. For this end it uses various graphical devices

such as special signs, layout, or fonts, or a combination of these. A successfully genetic edition is

able to display the variation in the edited text itself without resorting to an apparatus” (Haugen

230). Thus, elements which highlight and describe aspects of the structure of the text, such as

paragraph layouts, the location of quotes, form work, page breaks, and more where all included.

Additionally, attributes recording the number of paragraphs, the break of paragraphs across

pages, word breaks across lines, and similar aspects where also included. Perhaps most notably,

the corrective process was recorded through the use of addition, deletion, and substitution

elements. Further, the identities of those making the alterations where included whenever

possible with the use of the handnote and handshift elements, as well as the hand attribute. In

certain cases, some of these elements may not appear within these texts, however their presence

in the schema ensures their presence in future iterations of the project. Whenever possible, the

replaced or deleted material was recorded as well, thus ensuring that the growth of the texts

within these specific editions are recorded and noted. At a later date, it will be possible to not

only encoded later editions with their own alterations and changes, but to see how such

18
alterations align with these early, authorial corrections and interventions. Going forward with

this project the genetic edition aspect will aided as access to other major editions of the texts are

located and encoded. It is not implausible to imagine these texts may be altered for their initial

publication, or by later editors attempting to produce “corrected” editions of the text, or who

attempt to produce editions privileging what they believe to be the authorial intent.

Ultimately, my goal with this genetic approach is to chronicle the major variations of

these texts and examine how these alterations affected their presentation and their reception. To

this end I attempt to avoid certain attitudes which are traditionally associated with the genetic

editorial approach, as explained by Geert Lernout in his contribution to The Cambridge

Companion to Textual Scholarship, “Continental Editorial Theory.” These include this historic

bias towards privileging the “final authorial intentions” and the view some genetic editors have

of themselves as the executors or curators “of the last wishes of the author.” Nor do I seek to

“[privilege] the aesthetic superiority of the final versions created by the author.” Instead, I hope

to echo the sentiments expressed by “the editors of the new Akademie-Ausgabe of Goethe” who

“identified a text’s version as one stage in its development, not necessarily a step towards a

‘better’ final text, but just substantially different from earlier or later versions and, on principle,

of equal value” (Lernout 91). Therefore, despite using the earliest editions of these texts as a

starting point, it is important to note I am not doing so in an attempt to maintain or claim they are

somehow better or superior to later editions, or that they represent a purer versions of Lovecraft’s

intent. I do so because they provide a clear starting point and baseline, a clean slate which will

allow future iterations of the project to more clearly chronicle the various editorial interventions

made to them throughout their publication history. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest

Lovecraft’s works have a history of editorial interventions which have potentially altered and

19
changed the reception of his work over time. As Steffen Hantke in his essay, “From the Library

of America to the Mountains of Madness: Recent Discourse on H.P. Lovecraft,” notes, “[m]ass

market paperback editions” of Lovecraft’s works “were often shoddily edited, and only when

Penguin, under the expert editorial supervision of…S.T. Joshi” published three collections of his

work, did it appear in a “more respectable format” (Hantke 138). While Hantke’s frames his

discussions of Joshi’s collaboration with Penguin against the shoddy editing of early editions, it

is worth noting how a number of scholars and authors have touched Lovecraft’s work in the

editorial endeavor. In their introduction to The Age of Lovecraft, Sederholm and Weinstock

touch upon the long and lengthy of list of names which include figures such as the

aforementioned S.T. Joshi, scholars such as Roger Luckhurst, ardent Lovecraft supporters such

as August Derleth and Donald Wandrei—founders of Arkham House Publishing, an independent

publisher initially created solely to publish Lovecraft’s library—to authors such as Peter Straub

and Joyce Carol Oates (Sederholm 9). This is in addition to the editors of the pulp magazines,

such as Farnsworth Wright, where much of Lovecraft’s work was originally published. By using

the earliest available typescripts or manuscripts of his work, these various editorial interventions

are elided and a viable starting from which to track editorial changes to each text is created.

Future steps for this aspect of the project would involve tracking down specific, editorially

important and significant editions of his work. The most obvious example of this would be

gathering the first published editions of these texts, though other important iterations would also

be included, such as the first Arkham House editions, and the S.T. Joshi editions which have

been widely accepts as the universal standard for Lovecraft’s work, as noted above. In gathering

and digitally encoding such a collection, it would be possible to see what changes were made,

20
how these changes affect the text and its interpretation, its reception at the time, and how they

shaped our understanding of both the works themselves, but of Lovecraft as an authorial figure.

While I may attempt to limit the level of editorial impact and intervention with regards to

this genetic edition aspect of the texts, it would be foolish to believe there is no bias at play. As

Kathryn Sutherland notes in “Anglo-American Editorial Theory,” her own chapter in The

Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship, “[e]diting as the preparation of serviceable texts,

like the principles or theories that underlie its practices, confers authority and that authority,

however explained or defended, is subject to its own historical present” (Sutherland 48). Quoting

Louis Hay, she explains how “editing has always embodied the main ideological and cultural

concerns of its day,” before noting “[a]ll editorial theories imply the authority to represent or

speak as the text; and all are ultimately revealed as temporal and temporary protocols for

interpretation” (Sutherland 48). Essentially, the very act of editing is a claim of authority. In the

case of this project, I am engaging in a process which will emphasize the ways in which

contemporary concerns are interpreted within the texts. While this may not be immediately

apparent with the laying of foundations for future genetic editions of these works, my decision to

highlight Lovecraft’s use of intertextuality, pseudobiblia, and racial/ethnic language, is

absolutely inspired by contemporary issues and concerns surrounding Lovecraft’s place within

the American literary tradition, his pop cultural influence, and the recent uptake of his work by

members of various non-white and non-heteronormative communities.

For this second goal, the project takes advantage of digital functionality to produce

annotations and links which highlight this dual engagement with the pseudobibliographic

practice across the three chosen texts. This involved the creation of three lists containing

information on the historic and fictional characters, places, and texts mentioned within each of

21
the texts. This information was encoding using the standard elements as laid out by the Textual

Encoding Initiative. The information recorded with elements such as <title>, <persName>, and

<placeName> was then separated into two groups through the use of the @type attribute—“real”

and “mythos.” Each unique item was then compiled into three different lists and given a unique

@xml:id value. Each instance of every item was then linked within the text through a @ref

attribute, which points the element back to the entry located within the lists. For example, H.P.

Lovecraft would be encoded with a <persName> and given a @ref of “#hplovecraft”. This @ref

ties any occurrence of his <persName> to the entry in the persons list with the @xml:id value of

“hplovecraft”. In turn, this entry contains further information on each item, including authorial

information, first appearances (when applicable), a brief summary of the item, and geographical

coordinates (when applicable and viable). There will then be a second layer of editorial

annotations which will serve to highlight and discuss certain recurring themes and connections

between the pseudobiblia and the fear of the other. This second level of annotations will again

make use of standard TEI elements, with seg being used to highlight portions of the text which

deal with the racial/ethnic other via a controlled attribute list. While this approach to the

encoding may seem straight forward and simplistic, the implementation of this will result in a

flexible infrastructure which may be built upon in future iterations of this project. To this end,

there may be aspects of the encoding which do not appear within this version of the project, but

whose presence are included to aid it going forward—for example, the seg element will include a

controlled attribute list, though at this time only a single attribute will be used. In looking at the

proximity of this segs in relation to instances of pseudobiblia, it will be better possible to draw a

connection between the interactions between the two. It should be noted, however, that while the

seg element highlights specific instances of racially charged language within the text, it is not the

22
only marker of the intersection between race and pseudobibilia, additional indications of the

connection can be found in examining the location of placeName with regards to pseudobiblia as

well. The regions in which Lovecraft locates his pseudobiblia may be seen as racially charged

instances. Perhaps the most notable and obvious example of this comes in the form of the

Necronomicon, which is intimately connected with race, the orient, foreign religion, and similar

concepts.

CHAPTER THREE: Analysis of Selected Texts

Call of Cthulhu

Originally published in the February 1928 edition of Weird Tales, “Call of Cthulhu”

represents an important moment in the career of H.P. Lovecraft. The work is notable for its

importance in Lovecraft’s world building and features a number of important creations which

would go on to have a life of their own outside of Lovecraft’s works and long after his death. It

features Cthulhu, the undersea city of R’lyeh, the Necronomicon and its author, Abdul Alhazred.

For the purposes of this project, the earliest publically available copy of “Call of Cthulhu” was

utilized—a typescript from Brown University’s archive identified as having been prepared by

Lovecraft sometime in the third quarter of 1926 (“Call of Cthulhu”). Its early place in the

revision process allows it to serve as a foundation for later examinations of the editorial process

and how different editors altered the text, an examination which will help in understanding how

potential editorial interventions may have affected the material and its reception. Additionally,

the combination of the aforementioned “mythos” elements provide the perfect example of how

Lovecraft’s interwove his pseudobiblia with real world archival texts, and its interaction with

race as discussed earlier in the “Introduction” casts it as a form of forbidden and illegitimate

knowledge in the eyes of the West.

23
 The narrative itself is narrated to readers by Francis Wayland Thurston as he attempts to

reconstruct the series of events which led to the death of his uncle, George Gammell Angell, a

Professor Emeritus from Brown (“CoC” 2). From this two figures it is immediately possible to

see Lovecraft situating the perspective of the story within a privileged class of people. Not only

is Angell a professor at an ivy league institution, but Thurston alludes to his own education while

discussing his attempts to corroborate his uncle’s research, noting how he correlated his uncle’s

“theosophical and anthropological notes with the cult narrative” and how he was sure he “was on

the track of a very real, very secret, and very ancient religion whose discovery would make me

an anthropologist of note” (“CoC” 21). In placing control of the narrative in the hands of

educated, white men, Lovecraft’s story and the depictions of the various individuals, ethnic

groups, and classes are all being enunciated from those firmly embedded within the CMP. This

becomes clear as the story continues with Thurston invoking dismissive and othering language to

describe non-whites on numerous occasions. We see this throughout the text, with references and

description of non-whites and those of other cultures and locales—such as Cape Verde, Africa,

indigenous groups, Asia, and the Middle East—using terms such as “mongrels”, “half-castes”,

“evil looking”, “degenerates”, “queer looking”, “human abnormalities”, “hybrid spawn” or the

menacing “deathless Chinaman”. The dehumanizing language is further compounded in how

these individuals are often situated as members of the mysterious cult Thurston is investigating.

A cult whose existence and whose practices are initially dismissed and disavowed by Thurston as

legendry and superstition. This cult and their practices are further connected to the

Necronomicon, Lovecraft’s infamous fictional tome of forbidden knowledge, authored by

apostate Muslim, Abdul Alhazred. Additionally, their religious ceremonies—which includes

human sacrifice and kidnapping—are framed in terms with suggest a subhuman or inhuman

24
aspect. The ceremonies witnessed by white men in positions of power are described as

“braying,” “bellowing,” “writhing,” “roaring” and similar to a “Bacchanale.” The combination of

dehumanizing language used to describe the cultists, its links to foreign epistemologies, belief

systems, and an understanding of the world, in addition to violent religious practices, and the

seemingly subhuman description of their worship, all build to frame them with a primitive

aspect. This is emphasized by the numerous objects tied to the cult’s practices which are all

framed as ancient, such is the case with the Louisiana cultist who worship before a stone

monolith “[t]hey said it had been there before D’Iberville, before La Salle, before the Indians,

and before even the wholesome beasts and birds of the woods” (“CoC” 14). Not only are the cult

and its members portrayed as criminal and other, both in race and in the knowledge underpinning

their worship, but also as atavistic, a throwback to an earlier age and time of man pre-dating

Western civilization.

While it may be tempting to view this through the lens of a fictional cult which is clearly

linked to inhuman beings, the story seeks to create a sense of verisimilitude, not only by situating

the cult in real locations, but by tying it firmly to real cultures and people who have traditionally

been persecuted and othered by the CMP. Further connections to these real religions may be seen

scattered throughout the text, and particularly within a series of press cutting’s Thurston’s uncle

had saved during his research into the cult. The various news items situate the cult’s existence

and their actions as not only being widespread and global, but distinctly rooted in non-white

cultures and communities. They reference “items from India speak guardedly of serious native

unrest…Voodoo origins multiple in Hayti, and African outposts report ominous mutterings”

meanwhile, “American officers in Philippines find certain tribes bothersome about this time, and

New York policemen are mobbed by hysterical Levantines” (“CoC” 8). This linkage between the

25
cult and real world communities and people not only reveal how Lovecraft seeks to enunciate

them as primitive and dangerous from within position in the CMP, but it also inadvertently

begins to open up a space which later modern writers may utilize to reclaim and reform

Lovecraft’s fiction for their own work. For, in framing these instances as mysterious, seemingly

unrelated, and without immediately discernable cause, the text not only to links non-Americans

to the cult, but also suggests the presence and validity of epistemologies outside of the Anglo-

American CMP.

The members of these groups are acting on some form of awareness or with a knowledge

of events the academic, journalism, and law enforcement communities seem ignorant of. Indeed,

when Thurston later links the events to problems at asylums, he notes it was “only a miracle”

which “stopped the medical fraternity from noting strange parallelism and drawing mystified

conclusions” (“CoC” 9). He further notes on numerous occasions how his rationalism kept him

from making the connection between these seemingly unconnected incidents. This use of

rationalism as a blinder can almost be seen as a critique of the CMP, as one’s position within it

keeps them blind to the truth of the world around them. Indeed, it is this aspect which

Lovecraft’s horror is primary built. Thurston, like his uncle before him, becomes aware of the

knowledge and understanding possessed by these othered peoples which have traditionally been

dismissed, forbidden, and otherwise invalidated. The seemingly mythical Cthulhu is not a

primitive tale, but an actual, monstrous, being whose awakening heralds the destruction of

civilized human society. The rational world supported by the CMP which situates Western

epistemologies and understandings is undermined and revealed to be a fragile concept which

crumbles in the face of reality. This understanding and awareness does not bring a liberating

epistemological moment, but instead leads only to madness, paranoia, and the deaths of the two

26
Anglo-American scholars. In framing this revelatory understanding in such a way, the text and

Lovecraft frames contact with outside epistemologies and understanding as the death of the CMP

and those within it.

History of the Necronomicon

Initially written on a recycled letter in 1927, and part of a personal correspondence with

friend and contemporary, Clark Ashton Smith, “The History of the Necronomicon” saw its first

official publication in 1938 in a “Memorial Edition” pamphlet by Rebel Press (“History of the

Necronomicon”). The creation of this project’s digital edition drew upon the original,

handwritten, manuscript now residing at Brown University. The text presents itself as a piece of

pseudobiblia purporting to be a short, brief, publication history of Abdul Alhazred’s original

text. As such, it intertwines the fictional text’s history with real world figures and events,

documenting its transmission, translation, suppression, and eventual enshrinement in several

notable library archives both real and fictional (Sorensen 518). Due to this extensive

development and exploration of its history, “History of the Necronomicon” is arguably one of

the clearest and most straightforward examples of Lovecraft’s use of pseudobiblia. Furthermore,

by situating the tome’s author as an apostate Muslim, and the location of its creation among lost

civilizations and ancient epistemologies hidden within the Middle East, Lovecraft not only

furthers the tome’s sense of realness with connections to real world mythologies and texts, but he

also invokes ideas of modernity and pre-modernity, concepts closely tied to the CMP’s

epistemological arbitration. According to Mignolo, modernity “is a complex narrative whose

point of origination was Europe; a narrative that builds Western civilization by celebrating its

achievements while hiding at the same time its darker side” (Mignolo 6). The darker side being

the colonial endeavor. As part of celebrating its achievements, Western civilization split the

27
world into two conceptual halves, the modern and pre-modern and in doing so they engaged in

what Linda Tuhiwai Smith dubs, “[t]he globalization of knowledge” (Decolonizing

Methodologies 66). In her book, Decolonizing Methodologies, Smith explains how the

globalization of knowledge allows Western culture to reaffirm its “view of itself as the centre of

legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’

knowledge” (DM 66). “The History of the Necronomicon” exemplifies these ideas, and—as the

backstory for a tome which is often the focal point of horrific knowledge and understanding—is

a clear depiction of how Lovecraft’s fear of the ethnographic archive, and how the CMP’s

approach to outside epistemologies through dismissal, forbidding their practice, or through the

ethnographic cataloguing and archival of items produced by these cultures, ultimately plants the

seeds for the CMP’s own undoing.

Lovecraft’s work had previously connected the tome to the foreign other primarily

through its author, the Mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred—a figure who is doubly othered, first through

his status as a non-Westerner and secondly through the ablest labelling of him as mad. With

“History of the Necronomicon,” Lovecraft deepens the tome’s connection to the foreign other, as

he elaborates upon Alhazred’s history and the events leading up to the Necronomicon’s creation,

all of which are situated within the exotic, mysterious, and ancient world of the Middle East. He

explicitly ties the tome’s origins to remote and rarely explored locations within the region as he

discusses how Alhazred “spent ten years alone in the great southern desert of Arabia-Roba El

Khaliyeh or Empty Space of the ancients-+Dahna or Crimson desert…which is held to be

inhabited by protective evil spirits + monsters of deaths” before writing the tome (“HoN” 1).

This vision of the work’s knowledge growing out of a foreign culture whose form of knowledge

production and understanding the world is tied, not to the reason championed by the CMP, but

28
mythology and folklore instead. This situates the location as a region of “non-thought” to the

CMP, an area of the world whose epistemologies are founded upon myth, non-Western religions,

folklore, underdevelopment involving region and people (Mignolo 119). The vast empty swaths

of desert and the legends of demons reflect this colonial understanding of the world. When it is

revealed that Alhazred’s madness led him to claim he visited “the fabulous City of Pillars” and

found beneath a further unnamed city, “the shocking annals + secrets of a race older than

mankind” (“HoN” 1), Lovecraft ties the tomes origins to a non-Western religion. The City of

Pillars is a reference to the legend Irem, a lost city mentioned in the Islamic holy book, the

Quran. This reference not only furthers the conception of the area as one outside of the CMP’s

approved epistemologies, but it also casts ties the Middle East with the ancient or premodern.

This concept of the premodern is furthered with the invocation of a “race older than mankind,”

echoing sentiments from “The Call of Cthulhu” which saw the Necronomicon and the Cthulhu

Cult’s practice and worship linked to a pre-human lineage.

As the text is finally translated and disseminated in the West, it comes under fire from

Western authorities, beginning with its suppression and burning, first Michael I Cerularius, the

patriarch of Constantinople and then later by Pope Gregory IX (“HoN” 1-2). Despite these

attempts, it would continue to appear throughout history in connection to incidents and

individual involved with occult or forbidden practices, most notably in the brief reference to the

tome appearing in “a certain Salem man’s library” during the Witch Trials (“HoN” 2). This

conflict not only represents the CMP’s attempts to control or destroy outside epistemologies and

forms of knowledge and knowledge production, but it does so by situating it alongside the long

standing conflict between Islam and Christianity. Indeed, Patriarch Michael’s and Pope Gregory

IX’s connection to the Western institution of the Catholic Church is notable and unsurprising, for

29
the historical foundations of the CMP are rooted in Christian theology and its obfuscation of

knowledge formation as stemming from Christian conception of God—something which would

later give way to Western concepts of Reason (Mignolo 8-9). Thus, even if our contemporary

envisioning of the CMP is not present due to the era predating what we may think of as the

colonial endeavor, the foundations for our current understanding are present within the Christian

suppression of a text which emerged from a part of the world long connected to Islam, a

distinctly non-Christian and non-Western epistemology.

Lovecraft’s treatment of the Necronomicon’s history further invokes the CMP through

his description of the tome’s modern status. The text makes it clear, that by the 20th century

copies of the Necronomicon were present within the libraries of real, well known Western

institutions which were intimately involved in the production and dissemination of approved

epistemologies. Institutions such as the British Museum, the Biblotheque Nationale in France,

and Harvard’s Widener Library (“HoN” 2). This move not only shows how the book has gone

from being actively suppressed as a heretical object, to instead situating it as an artifact of the

ethnographic archive. It is no longer an item to be feared, but a curiosity to be studied and

examined. Smith, quoting James Clifford, explains how the ethnographic archive “highlights the

ways that diverse experiences and facts are selected and given enduring value in a new

arrangement” (DM 64). The Necronomicon’s presence in the archive places it within this

tradition intended to elevate Western epistemologies and cultures above those it othered. As

Ellen Cushman explains in her essay, “Wampum, Sequoyan, and Story: Decolonizing the Digital

Archive,” archives and museums seek “to structure, establish, and maintain modernist thought by

training visitors to view artifacts along a singular linear concept of time” which places Western

modernity as the latest in an ongoing process of development (Cushman 119). This in turn,

30
places non-Western cultures and epistemologies as lesser and earlier developmental steps leading

to the modern Western concept of modernity. In placing his fictional tome in these archives,

Lovecraft reinforces the idea of the Necronomicon and its originating epistemologies as

something pre-modern and therefore lesser. However, as shown in the other texts within this

project, the Necronomicon is far from lesser and far from inert. Thus, its placement within the

archive is a manifestation of Lovecraft’s aforementioned fear of the ethnographic archive’s

potential for contamination of the Anglo-American archive.

Thus, “History of the Necronomicon” not only connects the tome to non-Anglo American

people and othered religions, locations, and temporalities, but also shows how the treatment and

preservation of other epistemologies as pre-modern and lesser leaves open the potential for them

to act as a destabilizing influences upon the CMP. Lovecraft continues to situate the power to

undo modernity and the colonial era with those who are its unwilling subjects, leaving open the

door for acts of resistance through the continued existence of what the CMP seeks to supplant.

“History of the Necronomicon”, when put into context with the other two texts—in addition to

further texts from Lovecraft’s body of work—results in the archive becoming a crack within the

CMP through which those it colonized, marginalized, and victimized may seek to once more

assert their own epistemological understanding of the world.

The Festival

Published in the January 1925 edition of Weird Tales, “The Festival” represents a

confluence of several strands within Lovecraft’s work. The text is noticeable for the second

appearance of Kingsport, a fictional town created by Lovecraft and a recurring element within

Lovecraft’s fictional New England. Meanwhile, the presence of the Necronomicon connects the

story to Lovecraft’s larger network of pseudobiblia. Unfortunately, no pre-publication

31
manuscript of typescript of The Festival was available at the time of this project’s creation,

necessitating the use of a post-publication typescript housed in Brown University’s archive.

According the Brown’s records, this typescript was created sometime after 1927 and was likely

prepared by Donald Wandrei—a member of Lovecraft’s circle of friends, correspondents, and

contemporaries (“The Festival”). Unlike “Call of Cthulhu” or “History of the Necronomicon”

which highlight how Lovecraft’s pseudobiblia interacts with ideas of the racialized other, and

epistemologies which exist firmly outside of the CMP, “The Festival” draws its horror by

questioning the CMP’s ability to fully enunciate bio- and geo-political epistemologies and

understandings. Mignolo describes both concepts as being key to colonial endeavor and explains

how, “historically Western Christianity and Western Europe were successfully constructed as the

geo-historical places where specific bio-graphies of Christian and European men were thinking

and producing knowledge. The rest of the world was to be civilized” (Mignolo xxii). Essentially,

the CMP situates the production of knowledge in specific geographical locations, and to specific

ethnic categories it itself defines. During the colonial period, the Anglo-American was added to

the center of the CMP’s control of knowledge production. “The Festival” undermines the Anglo-

American’s position within the CMP through revelations brought about by contact with the

other—both racial and epistemological. Further, in situating such revelations firmly within

locations commonly understood as an Anglo-American, colonial space, the text further questions

the ability of the CMP to enunciate a geographic location as belonging to the Western culture.

“The Festival” tells the story of an unnamed narrator—initially situated as a white,

Anglo-American male—as he returns to his ancestral home of Kingsport during the Christmas

season. Much time is devoted to describing Kingsport, framing it as a traditional Massachusetts

seaside town with its “ancient vanes and steeples, ridgepoles and chimney-pots” in addition to

32
noting its colonial architecture and its sense of age and antiquity (“TF” 1-2). At the same time,

however, Lovecraft seeks to contrast this sense of familiarity with the setting through the

narrator’s constant emphasis on the town’s sense of ancientness. Similarly, the narrator casts

down on the epistemological underpinnings of the holiday itself, noting that men call the season

Christmas, “though they know in their hearts it is older than Bethlehem and Babylon, older than

Memphis and mankind” (“TF” 3). The ancient lineage is not unique to the town or the season,

but also to the town and the narrator himself, as he notes, Kingsport is “the ancient sea town

where my people had dwelt and kept festival in the elder time when festival was forbidden,”

before explaining how his ancestors “were an old people, and were old even when this land was

settled three hundred years before,” and had been “dark furtive folk from opiate southern

gardens” who had spoke another language “before they learnt the tongue of the blue-eyed

fishers” (“TF” 2). Such descriptions not only serve to call into the question the narrators heritage,

but are ambiguous enough to possibly situate him as a descendent of the indigenous people,

something furthered by the idea of his people’s festival and ceremonies being forbidden and his

people scattered and forced from their homeland. Doing so immediately differentiates the

narrator from Thurston from “The Call of Cthulhu,” who was never framed as anything but an

Anglo-American figure. Not only does Lovecraft potentially situate the narrator as non-white,

but these gestures toward the pre-colonial indigenous population call into question the narrator’s

own placement within the CMP.

In opening the story and framing the narrator in this manner, the text defamiliarizes what

should be a warm comfortable setting, a well-known holiday, and our point-of-view character in

ways which call into question our own epistemological understanding of these things. Instead, it

gestures towards the effects of colonization upon the indigenous people and their culture. The

33
origins of the picture-esque New England setting, Christmas, and the narrator himself are all

defamiliarized and called into question. A move which echoes Mignolo’s theorization of the

CMP serving in part to obscure and hide non-Western knowledge production and their epistemic

desire, and suggests the CMP’s attempt to situate the source of understanding and knowledge

production in these areas to the Anglo-American or Western-European paradigm are not as

complete or successful as one might think (Mignolo 9).

This defamiliarization is furthered when the narrator arrives at his destination and

encounters an odd, mute, and presumably married couple who will lead him to the festival.

While the silence and description of the two figures as having waxen complexions, unmoving

eyes, and gloved, flabby hands are suggestive of a strange and inhuman aspect within the

familiar setting of a living room, Lovecraft pushes this further and connects it to his pseudobiblia

through their odd library. The narrator description of library highlights several texts include:

Morryster’s Marvell’s of Science, Joseph Glanvill’s Saducismus Triumphatus, Remigius’s

Daemonlatreia, and the Necronomicon (“TF” 4). This library mixes historical and fictional

tomes in a pseudobibliographic maneuver which not only lends a sense of reality to Lovecraft’s

fictional creations, but also serves to highlight the unstable nature of libraries and archives

through the inclusion of fictional texts alongside real historical documents. The very presence of

such a collection of esoterica itself is a destabilizing influence upon the setting, taking the cozy

fireplace setting and making it the home for books on occult lore and non-Western

epistemological tomes.

As the text continues the unnamed narrator journeys through the catacombs of Kingsport

before he ultimately arrives at a vast underground cavern which houses inhuman monstrosities

where a ritual which mocks the traditionally festive Christmas holiday occurs, “[i]t was the Yule-

34
rite…the primal rite of the solstice and of spring’s promise beyond the snows; the rite of fire and

evergreen” in which the narrator watches on as the townspeople gather around and adore a green

“sick pillar of flame” (“TF” 7). This perversion of the familiar celebration involving the

Christmas tree ultimately leads to a revelation about the nature of the mute couple and the rest of

the townsfolk. The narrator flees and later awakens in a hospital where he gains access to a copy

of the Necronomicon and reveals the townsfolks true nature:

Wisely did Ibn Schacabao say, that happy is the tomb where no wizard hath
lain…For it is of old rumor that the soul of the devil-bought hastes not from his
charnel clay, but fats and instructs the very worm that gnaws; till out of corruption
horrid life springs, and the dull scavengers of earthy wax crafty to vex it and swell
monstrous to plague it…and things have learn to walk that out to crawl. (“TF” 9)

In revealing the narrator as descendent of wizards turned into worm-men, with origins predating

the colonization of the Americas, Lovecraft not only engages in casting their people as the

racialized monstrous other, but the connection to the narrator also serves to suggest his own

origins as being rooted in epistemologies and cultures outside of the Anglo-American, Western-

European cultures centered within the CMP. While the revelation lacks the apocalyptic

implications present with “The Call of Cthulhu,” it does serve to call into question the narrators

own underlying heritage. Not only is it ancient and non-white, but it is suggested to be even

older, perhaps predating the known indigenous groups of New England. Thus, despite attempts

of colonization and the CMP to enunciate the Americas as an area in need of civilizing due to its

location and lack of European, white, male thinkers, it is clear knowledge was being produced

prior to European arrival. Previously viewed as a place of “non-thought” (Mignolo 119), the

epistemologies were dismissed and disavowed, however—much like in his other works—these

epistemologies are shown to have a level of truth within them which the CMP and Western

epistemological understanding lacks. By tying the horror so closely, not only to the narrator’s

35
biological heritage, but also to his geographical heritage, the text calls into question the CMP’s

success in controlling both the bio- and geo-political understanding of the New England area.

Thus the horror stems, not only from the physical monstrosity of the other, but also from the

CMP’s inability to full eliminate or control the non-white, non-Anglo-American, non-Western

Europeans ability to create knowledge. Indeed, the very idea that the CMP can is revealed as a

lie upon which Western civilization is built.

CHAPTER THREE: Conclusion

In examining the three selected texts after encoding them to highlight not only the

presence of pseudobiblia, but racially othering language and the way in which the two separate

concepts interact with one another in Lovecraft’s works, it becomes possible to not only identify

Lovecraft writing from a position of power within the Colonial Matrix of Power, but also to see

how his works express the CMP’s approach to the world. However, despite writing and

expressing his own fears and anxieties over the racialized other and their various cultures,

Lovecraft inadvertently opened up cracks within the CMP for later authors, creators and scholars

to work with. Furthermore, in connecting his fictional tomes and locations so closely to real

world books and locations, Lovecraft sought to create a sense of verisimilitude and aura of

threatening mystery within his works. However, mystery only works if the object in question

remains vague and undefined. By creating objects of pseudobiblia such as the Necronomicon,

but never explicitly detailing the contents or cultures which produced these items, locations, and

figures, Lovecraft created a void into which other authors may work. This combination of the

cracks and the pseudobibliographical void expose possibilities for producing works which chip

away at the CMP while utilizing creations based upon that very fear.

36
 Within “Call of Cthulhu,” despite Lovecraft’s attempts at framing the cultists as racial

monstrosities, subhuman figures, barely civilized, animalistic hordes, he grants these figures an

epistemology rooted in a truth the CMP, and those invested in it, are incapable of accepting. This

access and understanding of the true nature of Lovecraft’s fictional world situates the power to

upend and destroy the CMP to those he attempts to paint as beneath the Anglo-American people.

“History of the Necronomicon” reveals how the CMP’s approach to non-Western epistemologies

and the works they produce—such as archival in the name of situating Western modernity as the

linear result of civilization’s progress—fails to fully silence these epistemologies. Indeed, they

instead preserve them, ironically allowing for their later projects of reclamation at later points in

time. It also reveals how pre-modernity and modernity serve as artificial constructs with no

bearing on the validity of the epistemological forms associated with each—if it were otherwise,

the Necronomicon’s references to worm-men and Cthulhu would be empty and hollow and not

the functional revelations of the world’s true nature. Finally, in “The Festival,” Lovecraft

highlights the artificiality of the CMP’s attempts to colonize and destroy geo-political points of

enunciation, as depicted in the presence of the pre-colonial worm-men within and beneath a

colonial era town, in a region synonymous with colonial America. The attempts to resituate New

England as a home for Western epistemologies—the only valid epistemologies within the

CMP—fail as the local epistemologies and practices survive and preserve. Indeed, the story

suggests this is true for all of the CMP’s attempts to instill a reasoned order upon the world, but

the true nature of reality is always lurking beneath the placid façade.

In each case, the seeds for the CMP’s undoing are a result of its attempt to situate itself as

the sole arbiter of valid knowledge and understanding. As Mignolo and Smith highlight within

their respective works, indigenous epistemologies are resurfacing and intermingling with those

37
within the CMP to create new forms of border thinking—a form of epistemology which involves

thinking from disavowed epistemological traditions and methods of knowledge production and

of viewing and interacting with the world (Mignolo 206). Such ideas can be found within all

three stories as well. Mignolo’s conception of delinking from the CMP may be seen within “The

Call of Cthulhu.” The Cthulhu cult’s roots in ancient, forbidden epistemologies long labeled as

myth, echoes Mignolo’s discussion of how delinking requires the use of “forms of knowledge

and ways of being that have been pushed aside of buried in the past” (Mignolo 206). The cult’s

membership, which is often cast as non-white individuals belonging to ethnic, racial, or cultural

classifications cast as lesser within the CMP, draw upon marginalized beliefs and understandings

in the hopes of upending the CMP. While this does not happen as they hoped, Thurston’s

encounter with them shakes his faith in the CMP and the Western epistemological conception of

the world. “History of the Necronomicon,” meanwhile, may be seen to echo Smith’s discussion

of how archival and museum “collections have become the focus of indigenous peoples’

attempts to reclaim ancestral remains and other cultural items…belonging to their people”

(Smith 64). The continued existence of the Necronomicon, despite previous attempts at

eliminating it, make it possible for the cultists and others who seek the forbidden epistemologies

it contains to gain access to what they seek. Likewise, Smith’s discussion of how decolonial

projects of “Connecting” are predicated upon “connecting people to their traditional lands

through the restoration of specific rituals and practices” (Smith 149) can be seen within “The

Festival” through the narrator’s journey to his ancestral homeland in an attempt to maintain his

people’s traditional, seasonal ritual.

While all these instances are situated as monstrous and horrific, and those who engage in

them are framed as vile beings, their depictions are being rendered by one firmly embedded

38
within the CMP and with a vested interest in seeing it maintained. Indeed, the existence of these

fissures and cracks in no way suggests that Lovecraft was a critic of the CMP or the colonial

endeavor, his racist depictions of non-whites and epistemologies outside of the CMP as being

monstrous, destructive, and terrifying suggest otherwise. Despite this, looking at these cracks

through a decolonial framework allows one to see possibilities for a reframing of Lovecraft’s

work in a way which is sympathetic to those he others.

Such reframing may be furthered by drawing upon the pseudobibligoraphic void left by

Lovecraft’s refusal to flesh out his fictional tomes, cultures, and locations. By drawing upon the

works and locations they are situated against, it becomes possible to reconstitute the items

existence in a far less racist and destructive manner than Lovecraft ever intended. The inhuman

braying of the Cthulhu cultists become foreign languages the white, Anglo-American narrators

have no experience with. The attempt to suppress and destroy the Necronomicon becomes yet

another attempt by the CMP at discrediting Middle Eastern epistemologies. While the ancient

worm-men and their rituals—alien though they may seem to us—can be recontextualized as an

indigenous practice forced underground by the colonization of their homeland.

By drawing on concepts from decolonial theory and writing in the pseudobibliographic

void, it becomes possible for creators to work with Lovecraft’s creations while using them to

depict decolonial methodologies and possibilities to undertake liberatory projects. Perhaps

nowhere is this more evident than in the stories of Ruthanna Emrys who writes and works with

Lovecraft’s creations, not from the perspective of the white male at the top of the CMP, but from

the perspective of one of the CMP’s victims. Her short story, “The Litany of Earth” is the story

of one of the monstrous others from Lovecraft’s lore, and the survivor of an attempted genocide

by the United States government depicted in the closing events in Lovecraft’s “Shadow Over

39
Innsmouth.” Emrys recasts them not as inhuman monstrosities, but as three dimensional beings

and grants them a humanity Lovecraft never did. The survivor’s tale echoes that of other

colonized people:

The state stole nearly two decades of my life. The state killed my father, and
locked the rest of my family away from anything they thought might give us
strength. Salt water. Books. Knowledge. One by one, they destroyed us. My
mother began her metamorphosis. Allowed the ocean, she might have lived until
the sun burned to ashes. They took her away…They never returned the bodies.
Nothing has been given back to us. (Emrys 22)

It is a tale which echoes the colonial endeavor and the treatment of those people and cultures it

colonized. A tale which draws upon works which sought to reinforce the Colonial Matrix of

Power’s approach to non-white, non-Euro-centric epistemologies and knowledge production. In

Emrys’ hands, not only do the inhuman creatures of Lovecraft take on roles which parallel the

treatment of indigenous and persecuted minorities, but instances of Anglo-American Cthulhu

cultists become examples of bastardizing indigenous or other cultures religious practices with

little to know understanding of what they actually mean (Emrys 44-48). Thus it is the very

cracks, fissures, and voids which Lovecraft perceived and feared make his work pliable to

creators seeking to give voice to those he othered and depicted as less than human. A situation

which allows them to utilize his work to criticize the CMP and push towards the very end

Lovecraft feared: a world not centered on the white, Anglo-American male.

40
 CHAPTER FOUR: Appendix
TEI Description and Use
• Elements
o Core
<add> – denotes an addition made to the text, typically uses @hand to denote
the author
<addrLine> – address line contained with the address element block
<address> – used to denote a formal mailing address
<author> – the creator of the work or the work being cited in the case of
epigraphs
<bibl> – bibliographical entry and information, this project adheres to the
MLA format whenever possible.
<cit> - records the presence of a quotation from a different document, may
contain a @ref which points towards a bibliographic entry with further
information on where the text originates from.
<date> – records temporal information in a numerical yyyy-mm-dd format.
<desc> - used to contain descriptive information of an object, typically used
within <listPerson> or <listPlace> to convey further information.
<del> – denotes the removal of material made to the text, typically uses a
@rend or @type, often used in conjunction with subst and add to represent the
removal and replacement of text by the texts author. In cases where this was
not done by the author, it may also contain @hand. May also be used in
conjunction with damage and gap elements
<gap> – Is used to denote holes in the transcription process. For the most part,
this only occurs in tandem with subst and add/del groupings, though it may
also appear if the manu/typescript is damaged.
<head> - used to mark text which serves a header
<hi> – Used to indicate when something is renditionally distinct. Requires the
use of a @rend to specify the difference, when necessary a rendition ladder is
employed to properly encode multiple renditonal distinctions (ie. italicized
AND underlined, or surrounding with multiple borders).
<lb> – represents the beginning of a new line of text, may contain a @break to
note the presence of a single word that spans the end of one of line and the
beginning of another
<name> – catch-all element for named subjects which don’t easily fit into
place/org/persName categories. For the purposes of this project creature,
ethnicities, and objects (boats, monuments, etc) are all encoded with the name
element and a @type and @subtype as needed.
<note> – The note element contains supplemental and editorially added
information regarding the text. It is primary an analytic tool.
<p> – represents a paragraph within a text. Contains @n to denote which
numbered paragraph it is, and @part to represent a break in the paragraph
across pages in the original manuscript. The breaks are encoded this way for
future use in constructing genetic editions of these texts, enabling future
encoding to highlight any reformatting that may have occurred in the creaton
of differing editions.

41
 <pb> – used to make the beginning of a new page in the manuscript, contains
@n to track the page numbers
<quote> – a line of text denoting a spoken or quoted phrase
<title> – the title of a book or story. Often, the @rend element is used to
encode renditional distinctions. These distinctions reflect the title’s rendition
in the original text and have not been normalized to fit modern conventions,
thus there instances of titles being underlined rather than italicized or quoted.
<unclear> - Is used to denote holes in the transcription process. For the most
part, this only occurs in tandem with subst and add/del groupings. Unlike gap,
this is for missing text that is still viewable and not completely destroyed.

o Texturestructure
<body> – indicates the body of a single text, not including any possible front
or back matter.
<byline> – the author of the text within the document
<div> – used to denote various divisions within a text, further information
may be added through the use of a @type attribute.
<epigraph> - used to denote the presence of a quote which typically appears at
the beginning of a text or portion of text, such as a chapter page.
<opener> - used to group together various portions of text at the beginning of
a textual division, such as the greeting in a letter
<text> - used to contain a single text
<floatingText> – This is used to encode and set apart chunks of text which
exists outside of the texts natural structure.

o Namesdates
<birth> – represents the date of birth for a person, contains @when
<death> – represents the date of death for a person, contains a @when
<persName> – used to indicate the presence of an individual, contains @ref
which connects the individual element to a list, may also contain a @subtype
or @type
<placeName> - used to indicate the presence of a location, contains @ref
which connects the individual element to a list, may also contain a @subtype
or @type
<orgName> - used to indicate the presence of an organization of one kind or
another, contains @ref which connects the individual element to a list, may
also contain a @subtype or @type
<geo> – contains geographical location data of a location
<listPerson> – contains a list of all known persNames from within a
document, the list contains further elements which convey more information,
including birth, death, alternate names, and contextual/notational information
about the individual and their role and gender
<person> – contains information on a single individual present within the text,
connected to the persNames in the body of the text via @xml:id
<listPlace> – similar to listPerson but for placeNames
<place> – functions similarly to person

42
 <location> – contains the geo element

o Transcr
<subst> – Is used when a del and add are used in tandem to represent a
substitution (deletion then addition) within the text.
<damage> – Represents sections of the text affected by physical damage.
<handNotes> – denotes a shift in the hand which intervenes with the text. It is
typically used in conjunction with del/add to note who is responsible for the
edits, requires the use of a @hand.
<fw> – Form work, typically used to encode page numbers, though it may be
used in other areas
<supplied> – Represents text added by editorial intervention (ie. the
encoder/edition editor/me).

o Corpus
<particDesc> – List of the various “participants” within the document,
contains their xml:id, name variants, and other information
<settingDesc> – List of places mentioned within the text, contains names,
name variants, geographic co-ordinates, and more.

o Linking
<ab> – Used to encode any unit of text that is not, strictly speaking, a
paragraph. Used to encode piece of text which and certain form work which
doesn’t fit anywhere else.
<seg> – used to represent any segment of the text below the sentence level,
used for EDITORIAL annotation and critical commentary purposes here.
Must contain an xml:id that links to a note/span element. Must contain a
@type which is currently limited to “othering” with a subtype describing what
manner of othering language is used (ie. racial/ethnic, gender, religious, etc.)
• Attributes
o @end – used to indicate how the element is presented within the source text, similar
to place but far more varied as it denotes general visual rendition and not just the
elements location in the text. It can convey information regarding alignment, text
formatting (ie. italic, quoted, underlined, etc). When needed, a loose rendition is
ladder is used for multiple renditional distinctions.
o <xxxName> @Type – Is applied in order to help organize and categorize them. In the
long run, this will be removed from the individual Name elements and relegated
solely to –ography lists, but for now it will remain. At the moment, there are two
major categories for Type, which may then be further broken down into several
separate subtypes for further sorting. In addition, the specific Name element helps to
sort them into categories as well.
Real – This category is used for xxxxName elements which exist outside of
the fictional world of the texts. It applies to real states, countries, historical
individuals, groups, texts, and more. Additionally, it applies to those
categories which exist within historical mythologies (ie. mythological figures,
creatures, places which are not the creation of the texts author)

43
 Mythos – Is used for xxxxName elements which were created by the texts
author and were not parts of pre-existing real world mythologies, religions,
etc. In some cases, there may be some overlap, those will be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis.
o <xxxName> @Subtype – Allow for further categorization of certain xxxxName
elements, these are optional categories and are only used in conjunction with a Type
attribute.
Creature – This is a catchall category for any Name element which doesn’t
have prefix. It applies to monster, deities, fictional animals, etc.
Mythological – I used to categorize xxxxName elements which are attached to
a historical mythology, religion, or folklore.
o <seg> @type – Is applied in order to help organize and categorize uses of the seg
element. At the moment, the only available option is “othering” though in the future
other types are possible and likely depending on what kind of information one is
seeking to highlight through this element.
Othering – This category is used to note instance of language which serves to
emphasize or create an “othered” individual or group. A subtype attribute may
be used to further describe the specific type of language being used.
o <seg> @subtype – Offers further categorization of the seg element, the current
categories are suggested by not mandatory, this is to allow the creation and
improvisation of further categories as needed.
Racial – This category is used to specify when a seg is intended to highlight
othering language which is racial in some form. This can include blatant racial
slurs, or language which establishes an individual or group is not part of the
accepted racial norm (ie. Anglo-American or white).
Religious – This category is used to specify when a seg is intended to
highlight othering language which is religious in some form. This includes
language intended to highlight how the religion in question sets the individual
or group up as different or apart from the accepted religious norm.
Gendered – This category is used to specify when a seg is intended to
highlight othering language which is gendered in some form. This includes
language intended to highlight how an individual or groups gender is used to
cast them as something other than the acceptable norm.
o @hand – Points to the handNote to represent places of intervention within the text.
o @place – Denotes the locations of an element on the source page.
o @n – used to indicate where the numeric sequence an element falls (ie. <p n=”1”>
would be paragraph 1).
o @part – When attached to the p element it denotes the beginning and ending a
paragraph which is broken up for whatever reason. Tracking the division of
paragraphs and their placements across pages will be useful in later research requiring
information on variation from edition to edition.
o @reason – Typically attached to an add/del or gap element, it clarifies the reason for
the elements use.
o @cert – States the editorial (ie. me) certainty of a specific element. Often used among
the add/del or gap element. Sometimes used in conjunction with dates as well.
o @ref – points back to a xml:id or other link

44
o @xml:id – a unique identifier used for pers/place/org/Name elements
o @when – may contain temporal data in the yyy-mm-dd format, or a variation thereof
(ie. yyyy)
o @from/@to – Used in conjunction with the date element to represent date spans.
o @quantity – Attached to add/del or gap elements, it denotes the length of an addition
or gap, typically with regards the number of characters or words involved (ie. gap
quantity=“two_words/six_characters/etc”).
o @indent – used to represent an indentation which sets off a portion of text from the
main body. It is typically assumed that the first line in any p element is intendented,
as such it is primarily used here to represent block quotes.

45
 CHAPTER FIVE: References
Primary Sources
Lovecraft, H. P. (Howard Phillips), "The Call of Cthulhu" Howard P. Lovecraft
collection. Brown Digital Repository. Brown University
Library. https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:425219/

---. "The Festival" Howard P. Lovecraft collection. Brown Digital Repository. Brown University
Library. https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:425239/

Lovecraft, H. P. (Howard Phillips), and Bryant, William L., "History of the

Necronomicon" Howard P. Lovecraft collection. Brown Digital Repository. Brown
University Library. https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:425243/

Secondary Sources
Cushman, Ellen. “Wampum, Sequoyan, and Story: Decolonizing the Digital Archive.” College
English, vol. 76, no. 2, 2013, pp. 115–135. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24238145.

Emrys, Ruthanna. The Litany of Earth. Tor.Com, 2014.

García, Romeo, and Baca, Damián. “Introduction”. Rhetorics Elsewhere and Otherwise:
Contested Modernities, Decolonial Visions, 2019.

“Guidelines for Editors of Scholarly Editions.” Modern Language Association, Modern

Language Association, 29 June 2011, www.mla.org/Resources/Research/Surveys-
Reports-and-Other-Documents/Publishing-and-Scholarship/Reports-from-the-MLA-
Committee-on-Scholarly-Editions/Guidelines-for-Editors-of-Scholarly-Editions.

Harms, Daniel, and John Wisdom Gonce. The Necronomicon Files: The Truth Behind
Lovecraft's Legend. Weiser Books, 2003.

Hantke, Steffen. “From the Library of America to the Mountains of Madness: Recent Discourse
on H.P. Lovecraft.” New Critical Essays on H.P. Lovecraft, edited by David Simmons,
Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. 135-156

Haugen, Odd Einar. “The Making of an Edition: Three Crucial Dimensions.” Digital Critical
Editions, University of Illinois Press, 2014.

Huitfeldt, Claus. “Markup Technology and Textual Scholarship.” Digital Critical Editions,
edited by Daniel Apollon et al., University of Illinois Press, 2014, pp. 157–178. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/j.ctt6wr6r8.10.

Lernout, Geert. “Continental Editorial Theory.” The Cambridge Companion to Textual

Scholarship, edited by NeilFraistat and Julia Flanders, Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Luckhurst, Roger. “The Weird: A Dis/Orientation.” Textual Practice, vol. 31, no. 6, 2017, pp.
1041–1061.

46
Mignolo, Walter. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options.
Duke University Press, 2011.

Sederholm, Carl H., and Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock, editors. “INTRODUCTION: Lovecraft
Rising.” The Age of Lovecraft, University of Minnesota Press, 2016, pp. 1–42. JSTOR
www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1b9x1f3.5.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed
Books and Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Smith, Martha Nell. “Electronic Scholarly Editing.” A Companion to Digital Humanities, edited
by Susan Schreibman, et al., John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2008. ProQuest Ebook
Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/northeastern-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=350868.

Sorensen, Leif. “A Weird Modernist Archive: Pulp Fiction, Pseudobiblia, H. P.

Lovecraft.” Modernism/Modernity, vol. 17, no. 3, 2010, pp. 501–522.

Sutherland, Kathryn. “Anglo-American Editorial Theory.” The Cambridge Companion to

Textual Scholarship, edited by Fraistat, Neil, and Flanders, Julia. Cambridge University
Press, 2013.

TEI Consortium. TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange, edited
by C.M. Sperberg-McQueen amd Lou Burnard. Text Encoding Initiative, 2019.

47