This study is devoted to two of the oldest known manuscripts in which the oeuvre of the medieval mystical author Hadewijch has been preserved: Brussels, KBR, 2879-2880 (ms. A) and Brussels, KBR, 2877-2878 (ms. B). On the basis of codicological and contextual arguments, it is assumed that the scribe who produced B used A as an exemplar. While the similarities in both layout and content between the two manuscripts are striking, the present article seeks to identify the differences. After all, regardless of the intention to produce a copy that closely follows the exemplar, subtle linguistic variation is apparent. Divergences relate to spelling conventions, but also to the way in which words are abbreviated (and the extent to which abbreviations occur). The present study investigates the spelling profiles of the scribes who produced mss. A and B in a computational way. In the first part of this study, we will present both manuscripts in more detail, after which we will consider prior research carried out on scribal profiling. The current study both builds and expands on Kestemont (2015). Next, we outline the methodology used to analyse and measure the degree of scribal appropriation that took place when ms. B was copied off the exemplar ms. A. After this, we will discuss the results obtained, focusing on the scribal variation that can be found both at the level of individual words and n-grams. To this end, we use machine learning to identify the most distinctive features that separate manuscript A from B. Finally, we look at possible diachronic trends in the appropriation by B's scribe of his exemplar. We argue that scribal takeovers in the exemplar impacts the practice of the copying scribe, while transitions to a different content matter cause little to no effect.
翻译:本研究专注于哈德维赫的著作被保存在两本最古老的手稿中:布鲁塞尔皇家图书馆的KBR,2879-2880号(A手稿)和KBR,2877-2878号(B手稿)。根据编撰学和上下文的论证,我们认为,制作B手稿的抄写员使用A作为典范。虽然两个手稿在布局和内容上的相似之处令人注目,但本文试图找出它们之间的差异。无论意图是制作一个紧随典范的副本,都会呈现出微妙的语言变化。差异涉及拼写惯例,但也涉及单词缩写的方式(以及缩写的程度)。本研究以计算方法研究了制作A和B手稿的抄写员的拼写特征。在本研究的第一部分中,我们将更详细地介绍这两份手稿,然后考虑先前进行的编撰学分析。本研究建立并扩展了Kestemont(2015年)的研究成果。接下来,我们概述了用于分析和测量当B手稿从A手稿抄写时发生的编撰学挪用的方法。之后,我们将讨论所获得的结果,重点关注单词和n-gram层面上可以发现的编撰学变化。为此,我们使用机器学习来识别最具特色的特征,以区分手稿A和B。最后,我们看一看在抄写者接管典范时的可能历时趋势。我们认为,典范的编撰学接管会影响抄写者的实践,而对不同内容的转换几乎没有影响。