This research examines the Carthusian monastery of Herne, a major cultural hotspot during the Middle Ages. Between 1350 and 1400, the monks residing in Herne produced an impressive 46 production units, with 40 of them written in the Middle Dutch vernacular. Focusing on the monastery's most productive scribe, known as the Speculum Scribe, this case study employs methods from the field of scribal modelling to achieve two main objectives: first, to evaluate the potential for chronologically ordering the Speculum Scribe's works based on his use of abbreviations, and second, to investigate whether there was a convergence in scribal practices, such as the use of abbreviations, among the scribes living in Herne. Although a complete chronological order of the Speculum Scribe's works could not be determined, we were able to establish his first work. Furthermore, the findings show evidence that cautiously supports the second goal, suggesting that the scribes in Herne indeed converged in their scribal habits by learning from each other.
such a vast output in such a short time by collaborating together. They would divide tasks when producing manuscripts and correct each other’s writings – without verbal communication, as they lived isolated and silent lives. Accordingly, the question arises whether the scribal practices of the monks converged through their collaborations as time went on.
During the latter half of the 14th century, when the Herne charterhouse emerged as a key centre for vernacular literature in the Low Countries, the monastery’s most prolific scribe was active. The Speculum Scribe — named after his most significant copy, the second part of the Spiegel historiael, the Middle Dutch version of tShpeeculum historiale — played a key role in this development. He was a copyist and corrector, producing the main text on 2,490 pages across seven diferent manuscripts and adding corrections in five others. This output far surpasses that of the second most prolific scribe in Herne, the Necrology Scribe, who copied 214 pages. Although many works are attributed to the Speculum Scribe, it is notoriously hard to date and order them relatively to each other, since they were all written in a time span of approximately 25 years, a problem this study aims to contribut7]e. to [
Despite his productivity, the Speculum Scribe’s litera textualis was mediocre and aesthetically much less pleasing compared to that of his peers1)(.FiAgd.ditionally, his ductus could lfuctuate significantly, two characteristics often linked to inexperienced scr7i]b.eHso[wever, such an assessment belies the Speculum Scribe’s true expertise, evident not only in the sheer volume of his work, but also in his resourcefulness of parchment utilisation. He would keep his parchment usage to a minimum by applying numerous abbreviation1s)(.FTigh.ese abbreviations were often borrowed from the Latin tradition, suggesting the Speculum Scribe was an educated monk rather than a lay brot7]h.erIn[ short, the Speculum Scribe was a seasoned scribe with a nuanced understanding of his craft, despite the superficial appearance of his script.
This study researches the abbreviation use of the Speculum Scribe, employing methods from
the field of computational scribal modelling. Scribal modelling, also known as scribal profiling,
is concerned with the identification or profiling of diferent scrib8e].s D[ue to the absence of a
standardised or supra-regional language standard, scribal variation is omnipresent in medieval
manuscripts8[
The corpus used in our study was created by Haverals and Keste2m] oanntd [encompasses 19
Middle Dutch manuscripts associated with Herne in the period 1350-1400, previously outlined
by Kwakkel [
As shown in Table1, only a small fraction of the production units copied by the Speculum Scribe can be dated with certainty. Consequently, Kwakkel approximated the dating for the rest of them and assigned them to the time span ‘1375-1470]0.’A[part from the dated manuscripts, he bases himself on two more observations for this approximation. First, the Speculum Scribe’s closest work partner, the Necrology Scribe, was active from at least 1373 until 1396. Their hands are often found together in manuscripts (either as correctors or both as main scribes), suggesting that the two scribes worked together closely, and thus within the same time frame. Second, proven by the presence of a possessor’s mark, one of the manuscripts corrected by the Speculum Scribe (Brussels, KBR, 2979), was already present in another cloister (Rooklooster) before 1373. Although this implies that the Speculum Scribe could already have been active as a scribe before the fourth quarter of the fourteenth century, Kwakkel still holds the dating 13751400.4 In total, 17 out of the Speculum Scribe’s 29 copied production units, which translates to just two out of seven manuscripts, can be dated precisely; the rest is dated by approximation. 210.5281/zenodo.10005253 3https://www.transkribus.org/ 4The only explicitly dated works of the Speculum Scribe range from 1393 to 1402. Kwakkel therefore assumes that all of his other works are either older or contemp7o]r.aWryhi[le Kwakkel aligns with other researchers in this assumption, it is important to note that there is limited concrete evidence supporting this view, aside from the fact that we know when some books arrived in Rooklooster, and thus could not have been written after that date.
KBR, 2905-09
PU I PU II PU III PU IV PU V PU VI PU VII PU II PU II PU II PU III PU IV PU V PU IV PU II PU III PU IV PU V PU VI PU VII
PU I *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 *1375-1400 1402 1393 1402 1402 1402 1402 1402 1402 1402 1393-1394 1394 1395
Acts of the Apostles; Book of Revelation; Book of Malachi
vita et de passione domini Jesu Christi; Sente Augustijns waerde
Lignum vitae) Spiegel historiael (pt. 1) Spiegel historiael (pt. 1, 3, 4)
Gielis van Molhem en Hendrik; Rinclus; Die Rose (excerpt); Boec vander wraken (excerpt) Der kerken claghe; Van der feesten een proper dinc (excerpt)
Super modo vivendi
Spiegel historiael (pt. 2) Spiegel historiael (pt. 2) Spiegel historiael (pt. 2) Spiegel historiael (pt. 2) Spiegel historiael (pt. 2) Spiegel historiael (pt. 2) Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
Martijn)
kerstenen ghelove)
To model the text computationally, we transformed the graphemic transcriptions into a bag-ofwords representation consisting of TF-IDF weighted character bigrams. Crucially, we restricted the vocabulary to bigrams that included at least one brevigraph or abbreviatory glyph representing two or more characte3r]s. [For instance, the Middle Dutch wordafnodr was ende, which was often abbreviated asen̄. En̄ consists of two characters including a brevigraph, and will thus be included in the bag-of-words a5sHiso.wever, abbreviations also occur in longer words, for instancleidet [leads] could be abbreviatleedidꝫ. In that casedꝫ and ꝫ_ would be included in the bag-of-words. Applying this restriction to the character bigrams has multiple advantages: brevigraphs are distinctive choices made by the scribes themselves, they are relatively content independent and they are spread evenly throughout the entire corpus. Accordingly, brevigraphs serve a similar function in scribal modelling as function words in authorship attribution, as they both allow to investigate a writer’s individual writing style.
Previous research1[
Yet, paleographic analysis leaves no doubt that Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 was written by the Speculum Scribe, so why does it not cluster together with the rest of his works? Kwakkel suggested that the Saint Petersburg manuscript could have served as the exemplar for the Viennese one 7[]. Although he rules out Brussels, KBR, 2979 as an exemplar, this scatterplot suggests otherwise. Accordingly, the Viennese manuscript could be one of the scribe’s first works, in which he still stuck very close to his (in this case) two exemplars. Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 would then be ayouth work of the Speculum Scribe. This hypothesis is further supported by the early dating of Brussels, KBR, 2979 mentioned before: Kwakkel suspects it was copied around 1350, since it was already present in Rooklooster inwi1th37c3o, rrections of the Speculum Scribe7[]. Accordingly, it was most likely written outside of Herne around 1350, but ended up there and was corrected by the Speculum Scribe before 1373. 5n̄_ would also be included, wi_threpresenting a space.
To investigate thyiosuth work hypothesis further, we trainerdanadom forest classifier model on the bag-of-words representation of the segments. This algorithm can detect the most important features when distinguishing between two groups of texts, which are in our case: Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 and the segments of the other manuscripts written by the Speculum Scribe (Fig. 3). This way, we are able to determine which patterns are unique to the Viennese manuscript. In light grey, we show how often the Speculum Scribe applies certain abbreviations in Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857, in comparison to the other works copied by him (in dark grey). The height of the box corresponds to the frequency of the feature.
For the scope of this research, features of particular interest are the ones that are less present
than expected in the Viennese manuscript, as they possibly indicate that the scribe adopted
their use from either his fellow scribes or exemplars. In this rae’,gdaꝫr,adn,dgē in the boxplot
are noteworthy. When investigating the use contae’xatnodfgē, their application seems to be
stable. Although they are less present than expected, they continuously abbreviate respectively
aer andgen. This is diferent fordꝫ, as the Speclum Scribe broadens its application by using it
in a wider range of contexts and to represent multiple letter combinations (cfr. infra). This is
why this case study focuses odnꝫ.
5. Latin letter et (ꝫ)
The characterꝫ (Latin letter et) is a glyph that stems from the Latin writing tradition and
originally represented the coordinating conjunetct[aionnd]. It was also used as an
abbreviation in Latin, with various possible solutions depending on the surroundinegt lbeetintgeras,
common expansion after the lette-br [
In order to answer the first question, the ratidoꝫ ionf comparison to all characters per manuscript was calculated (F4iga.). The plot shows that the scribe udsꝫesmuch less often in Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 compared to his other works, as the boxplot already s7howed. However, this does not tell us anything about the context in which he applied the abbreviation. Accordingly, we calculated the frequencdyꝫ oinf the context odfat compared to all usages of dꝫ, so dat anddet (Fig. 4b).8 Remarkablyd,ꝫ primarily serves to abbrevidaettein the Viennese 6And sometimes also in words containdiantg(e.g. ōdꝫ = omdat [because] in Brussels, KBR, 2849-51). 7Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 13.708 also has a low occurrence of the feature, but this manuscript uses less abbreviations in general. 8We did this using two regular expressionꝫ|sD.ꝫ‘’dto retrieve all instancesꝫoafndd ‘(?<=[^-]\s)dꝫ(?![\S])|Dꝫ(?![\S])’ to retrieve any non-hyphen character (e.g., to excleliu-ddꝫeat a line break) followed by a whitespace character, manuscript, nodtat. This observation becomes even more apparent when calculating this ratio for all his other manuscripts – sincedtaht eratio is much higher in other manuscripts. The scribe actually makes a binary jump in his application of the abbreviation, from almost never in the context odfat, to almost never in the contextdeot.f This observation is most likely compatible with the hypothesis that Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 is an early manuscript in the Speculum Scribe’s oeuvre.
Upon closer inspectiondꝫ, (dat) is not completely absent in the Viennese manuscript.
However, it only appears rarely (five times in total) and consistently in the same place: at the end
of a line, presumably out of necessity when the scribe ran out of space when copying a verse
(Fig. 5a). This aligns with previous research that found abbreviations to be more frequent
towards the end of a li9neT. he abbreviation also occurs three times in the pericope list at
the beginning of the manuscript (F5igb.). According to Kwakkel, that list was added to the
manuscript in a later stadiu7]m.L[ast, it is also found once under the text in a lighter ductus,
next to a small frame (Fi5gc.). Kwakkel states that additions as these were made later on by
the Speculum Scribe during a correction rou7]n. dA[ccordingly, just as the pericope list, this
instance odfꝫ was not present when the manuscript was originally written, but added later on.
The emergency dꝫ’s at the end of a line, however, were there since the beginning.
followed bydꝫ at the end of the string or followed by a whitespace characDtꝫeart,otrh,e end of a string or followed
by a whitespace. This ensures to retrieve all instances indwꝫhfoicrhms a standalone word and in which it is not
the sufÏx to a verb.
9See [
Interestingly, the applicationdꝫoifn the context odfat is consistently found in only three Herne manuscripts not written by the Speculum Scribe: Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.905 (c. 13501375), Brussels, KBR, 1805-08 (c. 1395), and Brussels, KBR, 2979 (c. 1350). Notably, Brussels, KBR, 2979 is one of the manuscripts that clusters with the Vienna manuscript in the scatterplot analysis. This manuscript was present in Rooklooster as early as 1373, featuring corrections by the Speculum Scribe. This indicates that the Speculum Scribe undoubtedly read, and possibly copied from, this manuscript at the start of his copying endeavours. Consequently, it is highly probable that he observed the expanded usdeꝫ oinf this manuscript, which influenced him to adopt and consistently apply this abbreviation in all his subsequent works after completing his own version of the gospels. If that is the case, an evolution becomes clear: the scribe used ꝫ in the traditional way in his earliest manuscript: namely to abebt;reovnilaytein his later works, he increasingly applies it to abbrevaita–tewe hypothesise that it is more likely that he broadened the application of this brevigraph, rather than restricting its scope - which expands on the observation that the meaning of abbreviations evolves ove9r]. tTimhies [pattern not only highlights the transmission of scribal practices, but also underscores the significance of specific manuscripts in shaping the Speculum Scribe’s abbreviation applications. Furthermore, it brings to light that scribal convergence is present in Herne, at least between the Speculum Scribe’s oeuvre and the monastery’s library, as the scribe most likely read the broadened application in one of his exemplars and then applied it that way himself.
The aim of this research was twofold: 1) to establish a chronological order in which the Speculum Scribe produced his manuscripts, based on his usage of abbreviations and 2) to establish whether there was a convergence of scribal habits within the monastery of Herne. We were not able to determine a chronological order based on the scribe’s udsꝫa,sgienocef he broadened his usage context binary, not gradually. However, we were able to detect what was most likely his first work: Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857, indicating that it could be possible to date manuscripts within a scribal oeuvre based on abbreviations. Future research will tell us whether other features went through a similar evolution, and might allow us to reconstruct a more detailed chronological order. Second, we obtained a first indication that there was indeed a convergence in scribal habits within the monastery. The Speculum Scribe learned from a manuscript in his library (copied by a scribe who may or may not have resided in Herne) how to broaden his application odfꝫ. Future research, in which we align the three evangeliaria of Herne, will provide more insight into whether he learned this in manuscript Brussels, KBR, 2979.
This work has been funded by the Flemish Research Agency (FWO) in the context of the project“Silent voices: A Digital Study of the Herne Charterhouse as a Textual Community (ca. 1350-1400)”. This contribution can be found on Zenodo with the following DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13912699.