Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

Representativeness and how to check it

As the number of TEI encoded titles in Digital Lacy is about to reach a milestone, it seems a good moment to consider its representativenessity. So I have been dusting off my utterly decayed spreadsheet knowledge, and doing some counting. I can compare (fairly easily) the following characteristics for all plays in the LAE:

– first performance date

– size

– genre

Other possibly useful categories might include

– popularity as measured by the number of performances or revivals

– text type (translation, adaptation, burlesque etc.)

– resource usage (size of cast, effects, music etc.)

Reliable and consistent data covering these is however rather more difficult to compile.

First performance date

This table shows the number of titles claiming a first performance date for each decade between 1820 and 1880 in each of the complete LAE, the subset of it included in the VPP, and the subset of it available in TEI format. It shows that there are 1512 titles in the LAE, of which only one was first performed in the 1880s, a decade barely represented in the LAE. Moving back in time, however, 99 titles (or 6.6% of LAE titles) have a premiere dating from the 1870s. The table allows us to compare this with the equivalenmt figures for VPP (which has a total of 335 titles) and TEI (total so far of 99). We can see that the TEI sample (at 5%) is close to the Lacy proportion, while the VPP sample (2.3%) really should have included more titles from this decade.

total1880s1870s1860s1850s1840s1830s
LAE1512199 (6.6%)442 (29%)406(27%)186(12%)164(11%)
VPP33518 (2.3%)115 (34%%)122(36%)43(13%)28(8.3%)
TEI9905%20%35%13%12%

For each decade, except the 1860s, the TEI proportion is close to the proportion of titles found in the whole Lacy corpus, which is encouraging. It does appear however that we need to add one or two more titles from the 1860s – and maybe remove some from the 1850s.

For titles premiered up to and including the 1820s, the situation is slightly different:

1820s1810s1800s18th c.
91(6%)32(2%)16(1%)15 (1%)
11(3%)2(0%)0 (0%)3 (0%)
2204

These figures suggest that VPP has made a determined effort to exclude older titles; the TEI however seems to over-represent titles from the 18th century, some of which might perhaps be removed.

Size

As an approximation for size, we use the number of pages in the printed edition, allocating each title a value of Large if it has more than 45 pages, Medium (25-44 pages), or Small (fewer than 25 pages).

Calculated in much the same way as above, the following table shows some discrepancies in the the TEI sample:


totallargemediumsmall
LAE1512209 (13.8%)547(36.1%)755 (49.9%)
VPP33550 (14.9%)125 (37.3%)160 (47.7%)
TEI99142659

The TEI sample has too many small texts, and not enough medium sized ones. (I admit it: the short texts are generally funnier and easier to encode rapidly)

Genre

Deciding on a genre for each play is a tricky matter, which I explored in this blog some time ago (see https://foxglove.hypotheses.org/828 and https://foxglove.hypotheses.org/876 ) Amongst other problems, the terminology used by the theatre (and hence the plays) is not stable. It’s clear that broad categories such as “drama”, “comedy” etc. fragment into particular niche terms (“melodrama”, “equestrian drama”, “burlesque”, “burletta” etc.) which then go in and out of fashion. A classification derived from formal properties (presence or absence of songs, use of verse, presence or absence of traditional characters, etc.) might well be preferable but is hard to implement (there’s a boot strapping issue here). So I have fallen back (again) on my own simplistic 15-category taxonomy. Which produces a table like this:


TotalFARCEDRAMACOMEDYSPECTACLEBURLESQUE
LAE1512461 (30.49%)339 (22.42%)190 (12.57%)121 (8.0%)86 (5.69%)
VPP33593 (27.76%)109 (32.54%)25 (7.46%)31 (9.25%)27 (8.06%)
TEI9936211175
MELODRAMACOMEDIETTABURLETTAOPERATRAGEDYPANTOBALLET
75 (4.96%)75 (4.96%)50 (3.31%)47 (3.11%)38 (2.51%)11 (.73%)2 (.13%)
17 (5.07%)11 (3.28%)10 (2.99%)1 (.3%)4 (1.19%)3 (.9%)0 (.0%)
6241410

This, to my surprise, shows that the proportion of TEI titles to LAE titles is more or less identical (i.e. they differ by about 1%) for all but a few categories, notably (and unsurprisingly) FARCE which is over-represented in TEI, as is (unexpectedly) TRAGEDY, while COMEDIETTA is mystifyingly under-represented.

Conclusion

The astute reader may have been fretting somewhat that I have presented as percentages values based on a total of only 99, rather than 100. This is because I am about to add the 100th title – and will of course be making sure that this one, at least, contributes to a balancing of the corpus. On the basis of the foregoing, I will need to select a title which is a COMEDIETTA, of medium length, and was first seen on stage during the 1860s. A quick Xpath shows me that there are 17 candidates: I narrow this down to six by adding the requirement that the title also appears in the VPP subset.

As we say in Xpath `div[@type='work' and ends-with(@ana,'COMEDIETTA') and starts-with(@ana,'M') and bibl[@type='printSource']/idno[@type='vpp']] … and then start browsing to choose one by an author as yet unrepresented, or with an interesting subtitle, as usual.

Better Affordances

The purpose of TEI encoding is to make explicit and hence accessible to a processor distinctions within a text which are likely to be of interest or importance when attempting to analyse the text, individually or by comparison with others. In the case of my 80 play subset of Lacy Acting Edition, the markup already distinguishes dramatic structure, speeches and stage directions, paragraphs and verse lines, and occasional outbursts of typographic salience. I say “occasional” because these transcriptions do not aim to capture every variation of printing or layout: they represent only potentially significant variation such as italicized words within a speech. Usage of small caps or italics elsewhere is ignored, as is the lineation of the source. Pagination is retained, however, since it makes it possible to link the transcription to page images. The transcription includes the whole of the printed source including prefatory matter such as cast lists and title pages.

The cast lists are particularly useful as a source of information about the characters represented in the play, though these are not always entirely consistent with lists one might obtain by simply looking at the indications of speaker in the running text. The same role may be indicated by different speaker codes, for example. Some roles appearing in a cast list are not identifiably present in the speaker list, either because they are non-speaking roles, or because they are just not there. Quite frequently a speaker label associates a speech with more than one role – either explicitly by giving multiple names or implicitly by using phrases such as “Omnes” or “All the Women” or “Both”. And there are occasions, notably in the representation of musical numbers, where the speaker must be inferred by inspecting the dramatic context.

To handle this, the TEI (and DraCor) proposes the use of specific metadata elements to hold a list of distinct roles. For example:


Each <person> element here carries a unique identifier (“L0321_M2” for example) and contains within it one or more <persName> elements indicating the speaker names used in the body of the text for this role. The role of “Undertone” for example is indicated by a speaker value “Under.” most of the time, but there is also one “Undertone.”

Within the body of the text individual speeches (<sp> elements) are associated with the appropriate <person> by means of the @who attribute:



To produce this encoding, I used a script (doPartix.xsl) which extracted relevant components from each playtext, and saved them in a participant desciption file. The script extracted each <role> found in a castList/castItem and created a <person> element, with an xml:id value derived by concatenatintg the play’s identifier with an indication of gender and a sequence number. The form of role name used in the castItem was also included as a child <persName type=’role’>. The script then added to the file a <persName type=’spkr’> element for each distinct value found in the text. The next step had to be done by hand, since many of the speaker names were present in ambiguous or abbreviated form: it consisted simply of deciding under which <person> a <persName type=’spkr’> should be grouped, and moving it there. In the process I identified a few non-speaking roles, some speakers not listed as roles, and many multi-person speakers, to which I gave a special identifier. Finally, I ran a second script (addWho.xsl) which used this revised participant description file to add @who values into the original text. Validating this enhanced file showed up a few cases where the speaker code had not been matched, and rather more where no speaker label existed in the source: again these were simply corrected by hand.

As a result of all this effort, I now have some numbers to share. In the 80 plays now in TEI form, there are 36,209 distinct speeches and 19,770 stage directions. 305 speeches are attributed to multiple speakers, but leaving them to one side I find 24,887 speeches spoken by male characters – roughly two-thirds– and only 11,066 attributed to female characters.

Much more to come when I have worked out how to feed this data into the DraCor toolkit…

How old are these plays?

Between 1848 and 1873, self-styled “theatrical publisher” Thomas Hailes Lacy published 100 volumes of Lacy’s acting edition of plays, dramas, farces and extravagances, etc., etc., as performed at the various theatres, each containing fifteen titles. This proved to be a highly profitable venture, which Lacy passed on to his friend and former collaborator Samuel French shortly before his demise in 1974, and which continued to be published into the next century.

Individual volumes in this edition carry no publication date, though we may assume they appeared in the order suggested by their number. Individual titles within the volumes are (almost all) blessed with an alleged date of first performance, however. Consequently, the best we can do to assign a date of publication to (say) volume 98 is that it is later than that of volume 97, and also later than the first performance date of any play it contains. Assuming we can rely on these performance dates (we can’t), it seems natural to wonder whether each volume contained a mix of old favourites and recent novelties. If there’s a mixture (and there is), is the ratio of old to current constant or does it change over time? And do the contents of each volume remain stable over the whole period of publication of the edition?

Here’s an infographic (click to enlarge it) which may help resolve some of these questions. Each vertical line here corresponds with a volume, numbered left to right from 1 to 97. Each vertical line contains differently coloured chunks corresponding in length to the number of titles in that volume whose first performance date lies within a given decade: the decades are colour coded. For example, the line for the first volume shows 7 “blue” titles (first performed before 1845) and 8 “red” ones (first performed between 1845 and 1854).

Almost every volume has a “blue” chunk, but the other colours are localised to particular groups of volumes. The number of “blue” titles — those first performed before Lacy started publication — is between one and five throughout, though a few volumes have more than eight. We may think of these as old war-horses or as steady background noise, occasionally building to a crescendo (as in vols 23 or 95). However, the majority of titles in most volumes are dated to one or other of the periods 1845-54 (red), 1855-64 (yellow) or 1865-74 (green). Titles from the earliest (red) period do appear after volume 25, but rarely more than once or twice per volume. Similarly, titles from the middle (yellow) period dominate volumes 25 to 68, with much reduced numbers continuing into the last period, which is dominated by titles from 1865-74 (green). It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Lacy astutely leavened the mix for each volume , using mainly contemporary titles to complement the old favourites.

This visualisation also exposes some oddities in the data. About twenty volumes have plays for which no performance information is available: these show up as white chunks. Three volumes have titles performed after 1875, which should not happen: on inspection, their dates are indeed dubious. And there are doubtless other oddities which it hides. My data so far derives from inspection of only two different sets of the Editions, along with a random selection of the advertising pages listing available titles: it is possible therefore that the contents of earlier volumes change more frequently than appears to be the case ; however I have so far found only 12 cases in which one title is replaced by another in a (presumably) later edition.

(This is a revised and improved version of an earlier investigation.)

Hunting down the dramatists



Of the 332 distinct author names attested on the title pages of Lacy’s Acting Editions, 30 remain stubbornly invisible elsewhere. In some cases there just isn’t enough information to identify them (the “Captain Arbuthnot” credited with the authorship of the burlesque L’Africaine; or, The Belle of Madagascar played at Covent Garden in October 1865 is a case in point) ; in others the name is just too common (“G. Smith” anyone?). But that still leaves 302 authors to investigate.

All of these works have been catalogued in some library somewhere however, which means (I naively supposed) that some cataloguer will have chosen a VIAF code for their authors. It seemed worthwhile therefore investing effort in trawling through the VIAF lists to pick out a code for each of my authors. No doubt ChatGPT could have done it quicker; in any case, at the end of the trawl, I had VIAF numbers for 300 of my authors – and only two mysteries. Firstly, George Marsh, author appropriately enough of “Lost and Found” and two other Lacy titles, who is listed as a member of the Dramatic Authors Society but is otherwise hitherto untraceable; secondly, George Roberts, who contributed seven titles under the stage name of “Robert Walters” including “Under the Rose” and “An Ample Apology”, but is listed only by the Era Almanac and in the ATCL database, described below.

Of the 300 authors anointed with a VIAF code , after a few days fighting with SPARQL (tx Stuart) I was able to endow 214 with a Wikidata identifier, which I had rather hoped would serve as the key to all manner of other useful things. It seems odd that over a quarter of the authors known to VIAF (86 of them to be precise) are otherwise unknown to Wikiworld, but there you are.

As might be expected, many of the authors (176 at the last count) have entries in Wikipedia. Some of these (but by no means all) provide links to other, perhaps more respectable, sources, notably the Dictionary of National Biography, in both its (wikisource-hosted) original and (paywall-protected) OUP versions. I was able to harvest links to ODNB entries for 144 of my authors via Wikidata; finding links to the Wikisource version was done by hand, which took a day or two. At the end of this part of the exercise, I had found ODNB biographies for 147 authors and DNB entries for 127. Unsurprisingly there were 22 authors with an entry in ODNB but not in DNB; less so, there was at least one case of a DNB author apparently purged from the ODNB, though present (admittedly as an appendage to the entry for his wife) in the original DNB. Where did you go wrong, Edward Stirling (1809-1894)?

I also checked all my author names against Boase’s Modern English Biography, which is a lot easier to search, and found 99 of them there. Interestingly, 30 of these were authors unknown both to ODNB and DNB.

The long-running theatrical newspaper The Era published in its annual Almanac volumes for 1868 and 1869 a set of short biographies of (then) living dramatic authors, ostensibly written by Edward Ledger. These brief notices provide an interesting contemporary perspective on 53 of my authors; 15 of them unknown to ODNB.

Impressively detailed exhaustive bibliographies and biographical notices for 27 of my authors are provided (behind a paywall) by Gale’s Dictionary of Literary Biography. In the absence of any such thing as an agreed canon of dramatic writers, it is difficult to see on what basis authors have been chosen for this particular collection. It cannot be anything to do with the number of titles they produced, since some of the most prolific of Lacy’s authors are conspicuously absent. Nor can it be related to the fame of the writer as witnessed by the number of other reference works mentioning them, since such well-known figures as Edmund Yates, Mark Lemon, G.H. Lewes, and even J.R. Planche are also missing.

I also sought traces of my authors in some less obvious quarters. The ATCL database (http://www.victorianresearch.org) is a wonderful resource documenting the production of the victorian novel, in the widest sense; 51 of my dramatists were not averse to churning out a few novels too, and hence feature in it; 6 of them are unknown to ODNB – indeed, one of them (Captain George Hatton Colomb) is listed by ATCL and nowhere else. ATCL also provides an interesting list of novelists who also wrote dramas; not all of these were Lacy authors, of course. It also indicates when the author concerned has a more detailed notice elsewhere.

Another wonderful resource, the Curran index (https://www.curranindex.org/) documents the wider world of Victorian journalism; it enabled me to determine that at least 66 of my dramatists also earned a living by contributing articles to periodicals indexed by Curran et al.

And finally, a footnote on the Dramatic Authors’ Society, which was “was the only organisation in the nineteenth century specifically devoted to the needs of dramatists. “ (Stephens) . Founded in 1834 after the Dramatic Authors Act became law, the DAS collected and redistributed fees on behalf of its members. All but two of its original 23 members were Lacy authors. During its fifty year life, the Society published lists of its members and their works with an indication of associated fees, for the use of provincial theatres. Putting together such lists as I have found, it seems that at least 91 of my authors are or were at some time DAS members.

The data thus far collected is feeding into a web page I am constructing: if you want to see its prototype version, check out the web site. And if you have information to fill my gaps, please get in touch by commenting on this page!



Going public(ish)

Despite silence here, I’ve been busy on all things Lacyesque for the last few weeks, getting ready to wheel out the first ever English-language presentation of what I now realize should be referenced as “The Digital Lacy Project” if it is to be taken seriously in the grooves of academe. So last week I gave said presentation, 20 minutes of introduction to the various ways in which 19th c drama as attested by Lacy’s Acting Edition has been passed on to us, along with some possibly dubious statistics about its representativeness. The occasion was a bijou, one might even say “boutique”, conference to launch the Punch Pocket Books Project at the University of Caen Normandie, a funded collaboration between said University and others, see website. From my perspective, this was a great opportunity to revisit the afore-mentioned grooves from the perspective of the unattached researcher, rather than the annoying technical expert. I got to hear a couple of excellent plenaries and a range of research presentations, plus, as a bonus, participated in a practical workshop on pocket-book construction. The ambience was laid back and the company was genial, even though the technical infrastructure was occasionally hostile (nobody seemed to know how to make zoom behave properly in the classy new amphitheatre). I read my script in 22 minutes exactly, and flashed through my prepared slides without incident. Nobody visibly fell asleep; and there were a few encouraging reactions. I even got invited out for a post-conference drink, which was nice.

In preparation for this event, I started writing at least three different papers: one on the varieties of format in which the components of the LAE have been transmitted to us; one on the vexed issue of representativeness; and one focussing on the burlesque. To boil all these down to a 20 minute presentation was an interesting challenge; I expect to recycle some of the inevitable rejectamenta on this platform anon.

Another Fine Mess…

As previously mentioned, I have been trying to mangle Allardyce Nicoll’s Handlists into a tractable database for what seems like forever. Here’s the latest and hopefully last update.

Some of the entries are just disambiguating cross references: these are (or should be) marked as eType=’note’. Some of them are partial entries including a reference to another entry which may or may not contain the same data: these are (or should be) marked as eType=’ref’. This classification of entries was carried out by the addAtts script early on in the pipeline; the same script also added a magic key for each entry to facilitate matching up Lacy and Nicoll entries, but ignored entries with eType=’ref’ for some reason. I did not notice this gaffe till later, much later, after I had spent weeks on the next stage of the pipeline, (the clever bit of matching up Lacy and Nicoll entries, which involved a lot of manual intervention)

Here’s what I did to fix that blunder…

  1. saxon -xi entries.xml addAttsAgain.xsl > oops.xml (run a corrected version of addAtts script (renamed addAttsAgain) to generate a file of corrected entry elements for the entries of eType ref, now renamed as eType=part).
  2. saxon oops.xml addWhen.xsl > oops2.xml (run the existing addWhen script to add a @when for these new entries)
  3. saxon allEntries.xml attributePatch.xsl > temp.xml (run attributePatch script to produce an improved version of allEntries.xml. )

The text is now quite intelligently tagged, and there is a (non TEI) schema to describe its markup. I need to do more on its documentation, but there is an ODD.

Dates

Round about now, I realised that @when values were missing for many titles, and were mostly not in ISO format, which matters, partly because I can now use my ODD-defined schema to validate the file but mainly because it would be nice to sort entries correctly by date. So I embarked on the long tedious process of dating the entries a bit more consistently.

Nicoll represents dates in one of three different ways.

  1. Where the full date of a performance or a license is known, it is given as DD/MM/YY or (occasionally) DD/MM/YYYY. This is easy to identify and extract to the @when attribute for the entry
  2. Where the date is only partial, it may appear in the form MM/YYYY. This is more problematic.
  3. Where the only date available is that of a publication, it will usually be in the form YYYY, possibly in brackets. I wrote a script to extract these to the @when attribute too.

There are quite a lot of OCR errors to correct (I instead of 1, u instead of 11, s instead of 5, redundant blanks or nonexistent punctuation, and so on). Many of these could be fixed with regexp search and replace. I also found cases where the end of a printed line had simply been ignored, which were more difficult to detect.

Eventually, I have plausible dates for as many as possible of the datable entries, in one or other of the three formats specified. I run another script to convert them all to a kosher iso format i.e. YYYY, YYYY-MM, or YYYY-MM-DD, and then validate. A surprisingly large number trip at this last hurdle, mostly because of a previously unspotted OCR error, but this does throw up five cases which can only be attributed to lax proof reading at Cambridge University Press. These five include obvious nonsense like “32/2/1822” given as the date for the Drury Lane performance of Edward P. Knight’s “The Veteran Soldier”, and more tangled cases such as “29/2/1823” given as the date for a performance at the Adelphi of Moncrieff’s “The Secret”. Sorry, Allardyce, but 1823 was not a leap year, so this cannot be true. Moreover, according to the Adelphi Calendar (https://www.umass.edu/AdelphiTheatreCalendar/auth.htm) , on 28 Feb 1823, the theatre was dark for Lent… and the same source is stubbornly silent on the existence of a play of this title and authorship anywhere. So someone is mistaken.

Just to put those peccadillos into perspective : by my reckoning, there are now 24,351 distinct entries in the Nicoll database, of which 24,301 are apparently now correctly dated . Fifty are genuinely undated; five have impossible datings. A pretty good error rate.

Multiple authorship

As I may have remarked before, the entries in Nicoll’s Handlists are of quite a few different types. Some of them are just cross references, supplying the name under which a pseudonym has been indexed but not documenting any particular performance; others (quite a few) are partial entries, associating a performance or publication for one author with an entry for the same performance or publication listed under the name of the “main” author in a collaboration. Nicoll supplies the following definition: “I have adopted the principle of placing the main entry of any particular play under the name of that author whose name appeared first in the play-bill, newspaper advertisement or review from which information regarding authorship was obtained”. For my purposes however, all these additional entries simply inflate the number of performances etc. (by a factor of nearly 10%) and are unnecessary for a resource in digital form. I therefore tag them differently, and process the multi-author entries so that all the authorship information is accessible in the same place. For example, here is the “main” entry for a play with multiple authorship:

<entry when="1897-09-06" xml:id="N08816" eType="multi" n="ohsusannah_AMBIENT">
<class group="FARCE">F.C.</class>
<author>AMBIENT, MARK </author>
<title>Oh! Susannah! </title>
<perf>Eden, Brighton, 6/9/97; Roy. 5/10/97.</perf>
<lic>L.C. </lic>
<bib>French </bib>
<note type="auth">[Written in collaboration with A. ATWOOD and R. VAUN .]</note>
</entry>

The Handlist also contains two fragmentary entries, one for each of the two co-authors:

<entryFrag when="1897-09-06" xml:id="N08946" eType="part" n="ohsusannah_ATWOOD">
<author>ATWOOD, ALBAN </author>
<title>Oh! Susannah! </title>
<perf>Eden, Brighton, 6/9/97.</perf>
<note>See M. AMBIENT.</note>
</entryFrag>

<entryFrag when="1897-09-06" xml:id="N19381" eType="part" n="ohsusannah1_VAUN">
<author>VAUN, RUSSELL </author>
<title>Oh! Susannah 1 </title>
<perf>Eden, Brighton, 6/9/97.</perf>
<note>See M. AMBIENT.</note>
</entryFrag>

I wrote a script to combine all these to produce a new multi-author entry, like this:

<entry when="1897-09-06" xml:id="N08816" eType="multi" n="ohsusannah_AMBIENT">
<class group="FARCE">F.C.</class>
<author>AMBIENT, MARK </author>
<author type="also">ATWOOD, ALBAN </author>
<author type="also">VAUN, RUSSELL </author>
<title>Oh! Susannah! </title>
<perf>Eden, Brighton, 6/9/97; Roy. 5/10/97.</perf>
<lic>L.C. </lic>
<bib>French </bib>
<note type="auth">[Written in collaboration with A. ATWOOD and R. VAUN .]</note>
</entry>

Note that e.g. “R. VAUN” now appears as “VAUN, RUSSELL”. Achieving that particular coup de main involved quite a lot of XSLT juggling before I found a 99% successful solution.

In the process, I found only the following five cases where the author name referenced by Nicoll was hard to find in the Handlists.

  • “TAIT” (but I found him in the errata list for vol 4)
  • “PINCROFT” Confusingly, this exists as a pseudonym for BANERO J.M. , which is also the name of the main author. Something wrong there: Nicoll nodded.
  • “MOUNTJOY” No other sign of this pseudonym.
  • “Corri” must be Clarence Collingwood Corri, who supplied the music for George Sims’ 1899 farce In Gay Piccadilly. Dan Leno was in it.
  • “CARGILL, G.B.” I have not yet found any other sign of this co-author.

The next challenge

It is definitely time to revisit the Lacy catalogue. What’s to do with the 196 catalogue entries for which no corresponding entry has shown up in either of Nicoll’s Handlists? Are they all old stuff, first published or performed long before 1800, and therefore reasonably omitted from the Handlists? Or are there some rogue components amongst them? Time will tell. Meanwhile, here’s the current state of affairs, according to my reportCounts script.

Today there are 24351 entries in this file, of which ....
24350 are classified
22995 are plain old entries
some of which are unclassified
1356 multi-authored entries
1750 fragmentary entries constructed from cross references
30 fragmentary entries constructed from notes
51 notes, xrefs, and comments
18784 with perf data
15896 with lic data
4158 with bib data
1169 have been matched out of 1300 Lacy references
1327 catalogue entries linked to a Nicoll entry out of 1511

391 entries have a bib referencing Lacy but no @matches
493 have a female author