论文标题
从示例到副本：探索Hadewijch手稿的抄写
From exemplar to copy: the scribal appropriation of a Hadewijch manuscript computationally explored
论文作者
论文摘要
这项研究致力于两个最古老的手稿，其中保留了中世纪神秘作者哈德维奇的作品：布鲁塞尔，KBR，2879-2880（MS。A）和Brussels，KBR，287777-2878（MS。B）。根据编辑和上下文论点，假定生产B的抄写员将A作为典范。尽管两个手稿之间的布局和内容的相似之处令人震惊，但本文旨在确定差异。毕竟，无论产生一个紧随示例的副本的意图如何，都显而易见的语言变化都是显而易见的。差异与拼写惯例有关，也与单词缩写的方式有关（以及缩写发生的程度）。本研究调查了生产MSS的抄写员的拼写曲线。 A和B以计算方式。在本研究的第一部分中，我们将更详细地介绍这两个手稿，然后我们将考虑对抄写分析进行的事先研究。当前的研究既建立又扩展了Kestemont（2015）。接下来，我们概述了用于分析和测量MS时发生的抄写拨款程度的方法。 B复制了示例MS。答：此后，我们将讨论获得的结果，重点是在单个单词和n-grams的级别上找到的抄写变化。为此，我们使用机器学习来识别B与B分开的最独特的功能。最后，我们研究了B抄写员对他的示例的拨款中可能的道式趋势。我们认为，示例中的抄写员会影响复制抄写员的实践，而过渡到另一个内容问题则几乎没有影响。
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.
