=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3834/paper15
|storemode=property
|title=Abbreviation Application: A Stylochronometric Study of Abbreviations in the Oeuvre of Herne’s Speculum Scribe
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3834/paper15.pdf
|volume=Vol-3834
|authors=Caroline Vandyck,Mike Kestemont
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/chr/VandyckK24
}}
==Abbreviation Application: A Stylochronometric Study of Abbreviations in the Oeuvre of Herne’s Speculum Scribe==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3834/paper15.pdf
Abbreviation Application: A Stylochronometric
Study of Abbreviations in the Oeuvre of Herne’s
Speculum Scribe⋆
Caroline Vandyck1,∗ , Mike Kestemont1
1
ACDC, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Carthusians, orthography, scribal modelling, medieval literature, Middle Dutch
1. Introduction
The Herne charterhouse in present-day Belgium had a profound impact on medieval
manuscript production [7]. Located approximately 30 kilometres southwest of Brussels, the
thirteen scribes in this Carthusian monastery realised a remarkably large output of manuscripts
during the fourteenth century, in Latin as well as in the Dutch vernacular. Kwakkel identified
a minimum of 46 locally produced production units, of which no less than 40 were written in
Middle Dutch [6].1 Accordingly, Herne was not only renowned as a focal point for manuscript
production through copying, but also as a translatorium, a centre of translation. This is un-
derscored by the residency of the anonymous ‘Bible Translator of 1360’ within the monastery.
What makes this vast output even more remarkable, is that most of these manuscripts were
produced within the relatively short span of 1350 to 1400. The scribes were able to produce
CHR 2024: Computational Humanities Research Conference, December 4–6, 2024, Århus, Denmark
∗
Corresponding author.
£ caroline.vandyck@uantwerpen.be (C. Vandyck); mike.kestemont@uantwerpen.be (M. Kestemont)
ç https://github.com/Caroline-Vandyck (C. Vandyck); https://github.com/mikekestemont (M. Kestemont)
ȉ 0009-0006-9995-1325 (C. Vandyck); 0000-0003-3590-693X (M. Kestemont)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
1
A production unit is a group of quires that formed one material unit at the time of production: these are quires that
were demonstrably written off in one continuous piece, either by one text hand or by several copyists. A codex
may contain several units of production [6].
881
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
Figure 1: This excerpt demonstrates the mediocre script of the Speculum Scribe and the frequency
with which he applied abbreviations (Ghent, UL, 1374, fol. 1v). The manuscript is digitally available on
the website of the Ghent University Library.
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 communica-
tion, 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 the Speculum historiale — played a key role in this
development. He was a copyist and corrector, producing the main text on 2,490 pages across
seven different 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 contribute to [7].
Despite his productivity, the Speculum Scribe’s litera textualis was mediocre and aestheti-
cally much less pleasing compared to that of his peers (Fig. 1). Additionally, his ductus could
fluctuate significantly, two characteristics often linked to inexperienced scribes [7]. However,
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 abbreviations (Fig. 1). These ab-
breviations were often borrowed from the Latin tradition, suggesting the Speculum Scribe was
an educated monk rather than a lay brother [7]. In short, the Speculum Scribe was a sea-
soned 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 different scribes [8]. Due to the absence of a
standardised or supra-regional language standard, scribal variation is omnipresent in medieval
manuscripts [8, 5]. Instead of viewing this scribal variation as an obstacle (e.g. authorship
attribution), scribal modelling embraces this variation as an opportunity to deepen scholarly
knowledge about scribal practices. Parallel to the hypothesis that every author possesses a
unique fingerprint, McIntosh argues that scribes leave their personal mark on a copied text
as well and can be identified through it [8]. Previous research [11], indicates that abbrevia-
tions can be part of those personal marks and provide information about the individual scribe
that applied them. They tend to be key features when distinguishing between scribes [8, 4, 3].
882
The aim of this research is twofold: 1) to establish a chronological order in which the Specu-
lum Scribe produced his manuscripts based on his usage of abbreviations and 2) looking at
those abbreviations, to establish whether there was a convergence in scribal habits within the
monastery of Herne. By investigating the chronological order of the Speculum Scribe’s works,
this research not only sheds light on his individual contributions but also opens the door for
potential extrapolation to other scribes and their practices.
2. Materials
The corpus used in our study was created by Haverals and Kestemont [2] and encompasses 19
Middle Dutch manuscripts associated with Herne in the period 1350-1400, previously outlined
by Kwakkel [7].2 This entails that the manuscripts were at some point present in Herne, and
were often also produced or corrected there. First, digital facsimiles of the manuscripts were col-
lected, which were partially manually transcribed. Using those transcriptions, a Handwritten
Text Recognition (HTR) model was trained using Transkribus.3 This model then transcribed all
remaining material in the corpus with a Character Error Rate (CER) of 2.7%. Given our research
focus on scribal practices, particularly the use of abbreviations, it was of great importance
that the transcriptions remained as close to the original manuscript as possible. Consequently,
graphemic, hyper-diplomatic reproductions of the manuscripts were created [10]. This process
entails closely replicating the original manuscript’s spelling, including brevigraphs, letters, and
other glyphs and standardising each letter form. As is customary in Middle Dutch studies, the
distinction between ‘u’/‘v’ and ‘i’/‘j’ spellings were retained because they in some cases mark
different phonetic realisations. However, allographic variations, such as the long s (ſ) and the
lowercase s or the r rotunda (ꝛ) and the lowercase r, were not retained in the transcriptions.
As shown in Table 1, 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 ‘1375-1400’ [7]. Apart 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 1375-
1400.4 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.
2
10.5281/zenodo.10005253
3
https://www.transkribus.org/
4
The 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 contemporary [7]. While 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.
883
Table 1
Table summarising all production units produced by the Speculum Scribe. From left to right: the
manuscript signatures in which the production units are present, the production units, their dates
(* signifies that they are an approximation), the number of folia in them, and their content.
Signature PU’s by Date Number Content
Spec. of folia
Scr.
Brussels, PU I *1375-1400 16 Pericope list
KBR, 2849-51
PU II *1375-1400 10 Prologue of Hieronym on the letters of
Paul
PU III *1375-1400 49 Letter of Paul to the Romans
PU IV *1375-1400 78 First letter of Paul to the Christians of
Corinth
PU V *1375-1400 185 Various letters of Paul
PU VI *1375-1400 201 Acts of the Apostles; Book of Revelation;
Book of Malachi
PU VII *1375-1400 154 Pericopes of Old Testament
Brussels, PU II *1375-1400 200 Middle Dutch translation of Audi Filia
KBR, 2905-09
Brussels, PU I (37r- *1375-1400 124 Middle Dutch translation of Sermo de
KBR, 3093-95 98v) vita et de passione domini Jesu Christi;
Sente Augustijns waerde
PU II *1375-1400 176 Various Middle Dutch translations (a.o.
Lignum vitae)
Ghent, UL, PU I *1375-1400 6 Spiegel historiael (pt. 1)
1374
PU II *1375-1400 117 Spiegel historiael (pt. 1, 3, 4)
PU III *1375-1400 91 The four Martins
PU IV *1375-1400 41 Gielis van Molhem en Hendrik; Rinclus;
Die Rose (excerpt); Boec vander wraken
(excerpt)
PU V *1375-1400 9 Der kerken claghe; Van der feesten een
proper dinc (excerpt)
Vienna, ÖNB, PU II *1375-1400 15 Pericope list
SN 12.857
PU IV *1375-1400 444 Middle Dutch translation of New Testa-
ment
Vienna, ÖNB, PU I 1402 8 Super modo vivendi
Cod. 13.708
PU II 1393 52 Various excerpts regarding the Western
Schism
PU III 1402 34 Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
PU IV 1402 40 Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
PU V 1402 36 Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
PU VI 1402 57 Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
PU VII 1402 53 Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
PU VIII 1402 68 Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
PU IX 1402 54 Spiegel historiael (pt. 2)
PU X 1393-1394 28 Various Middle Dutch texts (a.o. Derde
Martijn)
PU XI 1394 60 Various Middle Dutch texts (a.o. Vanden
kerstenen ghelove)
Brussels, PU I 1395 82 Middle Dutch translation of Dialogi
KBR, 1805-08
884
3. Preparing the data
To model the text computationally, we transformed the graphemic transcriptions into a bag-of-
words representation consisting of TF-IDF weighted character bigrams. Crucially, we restricted
the vocabulary to bigrams that included at least one brevigraph or abbreviatory glyph repre-
senting two or more characters [3]. For instance, the Middle Dutch word for and was ende,
which was often abbreviated as en̄ . En̄ consists of two characters including a brevigraph, and
will thus be included in the bag-of-words as is.5 However, abbreviations also occur in longer
words, for instance leidet [leads] could be abbreviated leidꝫ. In that case dꝫ 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 rela-
tively content independent and they are spread evenly throughout the entire corpus. Accord-
ingly, 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.
4. Analysis
Previous research [11] brought to light an unexpected behaviour of Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857
when compared to other works attributed to the Speculum Scribe. After segmenting all
manuscripts into equal segments with a 5000-character length and applying dimensionality
reduction through a combination of PCA and UMAP, a scatterplot was created. In this plot,
all works written by the Speculum Scribe cluster together and away from the rest. However,
one manuscript does not: Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 deviates from the main Speculum Scribe’s
oeuvre, clustering with manuscripts copied by different scribes, namely Brussels, KBR, 2979,
and Saint Petersburg, BAN, O 256 (Fig. 2a). Interestingly, all three of these manuscripts
contain Middle Dutch translations of the four gospels. However, since the analysis is based on
character bigrams including a brevigraph, it is improbable that these manuscripts clustered due
to similarities in content alone. That is confirmed by an additional experiment: when leaving
Brussels, KBR, 2979 and Saint Petersburg, BAN, O 256 out of the analysis for the scatterplot,
Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 still moves away from the more typical Speculum Scribe texts (Fig.
2b) [11].
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 Vi-
ennese 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 a youth work of the Speculum Scribe. This hypothesis is further sup-
ported by the early dating of Brussels, KBR, 2979 mentioned before: Kwakkel suspects it was
copied around 1350, since it was already present in Rooklooster in 1373, with corrections of
the Speculum Scribe [7]. Accordingly, it was most likely written outside of Herne around 1350,
but ended up there and was corrected by the Speculum Scribe before 1373.
5
n̄ _ would also be included, with _ representing a space.
885
(a) (b)
Figure 2: Stylometric scatterplots of Middle Dutch manuscript scribes, using character-level bigrams
with brevigraphs. This scatterplot, created using PCA and UMAP dimensionality reduction techniques,
illustrates the stylistic variation among scribes in our corpus. Each dot represents a 5,000-character
segment, coloured uniquely to correspond to a specific scribe (only scribes are retained that can con-
tribute at least 10 segments; ‘𝛼’ is the Speculum Scribe). The spatial proximity of the dots indicates
stylistic similarity. a) Has all Herne manuscripts included and b) left out the other two evangeliarias:
Brussels, KBR, 2979 and Saint Petersburg, BAN, O 256 [11].
To investigate this youth work hypothesis further, we trained a random forest classifier model
on the bag-of-words representation of the segments. This algorithm can detect the most impor-
tant 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 regard, a’, dꝫ, and gē in the boxplot
are noteworthy. When investigating the use context of a’ and gē, their application seems to be
stable. Although they are less present than expected, they continuously abbreviate respectively
aer and gen. This is different for dꝫ, 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 on dꝫ.
5. Latin letter et (ꝫ)
The character ꝫ (Latin letter et) is a glyph that stems from the Latin writing tradition and
originally represented the coordinating conjunction et [and]. It was also used as an abbrevia-
tion in Latin, with various possible solutions depending on the surrounding letters, et being a
common expansion after the letter -b [1]. Consequently, medieval scribes would also employ
it to abbreviate the letter combination et as a part of other words. Therefore, dꝫ could be used
to abbreviate det, for instance at the end of a verb (cfr. supra). Kwakkel however observed that
886
Figure 3: Boxplot showing the distribution of the most important features when distinguishing be-
tween Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 (light) and all other manuscripts by the Speculum Scribe (dark).
the Speculum Scribe used it in another context as well, namely as a vowel lengthener [7]. In
Middle Dutch, an -e would be added to elongate the pronunciation of the preceding vowel. The
-e itself would then not be pronounced anymore, only the elongated version of the vowel it ac-
companied (e.g. laꝫ = laet [let]) [7]. Yet, closer inspection of the Speculum Scribe’s manuscripts
reveals that he applies ꝫ in another remarkable context as well, namely to abbreviate at in the
Middle Dutch word dat (dꝫ = dat [that]).6 In this context, ꝫ no longer replaces the letter combi-
nation et, but at. Accordingly, there are two possible explanations for the low frequency of dꝫ
in Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857: 1) he used the character less frequently in both contexts (det and
dat) or 2) he used the character only in one context (det or dat).
In order to answer the first question, the ratio of dꝫ in comparison to all characters per
manuscript was calculated (Fig. 4a). The plot shows that the scribe uses dꝫ much less often
in Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857 compared to his other works, as the boxplot already showed.7
However, this does not tell us anything about the context in which he applied the abbreviation.
Accordingly, we calculated the frequency of dꝫ in the context of dat compared to all usages of
dꝫ, so dat and det (Fig. 4b).8 Remarkably, dꝫ primarily serves to abbreviate det in the Viennese
6
And sometimes also in words containing dat (e.g. ōdꝫ = omdat [because] in Brussels, KBR, 2849-51).
7
Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 13.708 also has a low occurrence of the feature, but this manuscript uses less abbreviations in
general.
8
We did this using two regular expressions. ‘dꝫ|Dꝫ’ to retrieve all instances of dꝫ and ‘(?<=[^-]\s)dꝫ(?![\S])|Dꝫ(?![\S])’
to retrieve any non-hyphen character (e.g., to exclude lei-dꝫ at a line break) followed by a whitespace character,
887
manuscript, not dat. This observation becomes even more apparent when calculating this ratio
for all his other manuscripts – since the dat ratio 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 of dat, to almost never in the context of det. 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.
(a) (b)
Figure 4: a) Frequency of dꝫ in comparison to all characters per manuscripts and b) frequency of dꝫ in
the context of dat in comparison to all instances of dꝫ (dat and det).
Upon closer inspection, dꝫ (dat) is not completely absent in the Viennese manuscript. How-
ever, 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 line.9 The abbreviation also occurs three times in the pericope list at
the beginning of the manuscript (Fig. 5b). According to Kwakkel, that list was added to the
manuscript in a later stadium [7]. Last, it is also found once under the text in a lighter ductus,
next to a small frame (Fig. 5c). Kwakkel states that additions as these were made later on by
the Speculum Scribe during a correction round [7]. Accordingly, just as the pericope list, this
instance of dꝫ 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 by dꝫ at the end of the string or followed by a whitespace character, or, Dꝫ at the end of a string or followed
by a whitespace. This ensures to retrieve all instances in which dꝫ forms a standalone word and in which it is not
the sufÏx to a verb.
9
See [3] for an overview.
888
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5: Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.857: (a) ‘Dat volc dꝫ’ at the second to last line at the bottom of the page,
where the scribe almost ran out of space (fol. 23r). (b) ‘Daʼōme es dꝫ rike’ in the middle of page of the
pericope list that was later added (fol. 7v). (c) ‘en̄ dꝫ hueden’, a later addition to the page, at the bottom
(fol. 157r). The manuscript is digitally available on the website of the Austrian National Library.
6. Convergence?
Interestingly, the application of dꝫ in the context of dat is consistently found in only three
Herne manuscripts not written by the Speculum Scribe: Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12.905 (c. 1350-
1375), 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 use of dꝫ in 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 abbreviate et; only in his later
works, he increasingly applies it to abbreviate at – we 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 over time [9]. This 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 ap-
plication in one of his exemplars and then applied it that way himself.
889
7. Conclusion
The aim of this research was twofold: 1) to establish a chronological order in which the Specu-
lum 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 usage of dꝫ, since 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 fea-
tures 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 conver-
gence 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 of dꝫ. 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.
Acknowledgments
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/zen-
odo.13912699.
References
[1] A. Cappelli. The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography. Ed. by D.
Heimann and K. Richard. Library Series. Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A: University of Kansas
Libraries, 1982.
[2] W. Haverals and M. Kestemont. “The Middle Dutch Manuscripts Surviving from the
Carthusian Monastery of Herne (14th century): Constructing an Open Dataset of Digital
Transcriptions”. In: CHR 2023: Computational Humanities Conference. Paris, 2023.
[3] A. Honkapohja. “Digital Approaches to Manuscript Abbreviations: Where Are We at the
Beginning of the 2020s?” In: Digital Medievalist 14.11 (2021). doi: 10.16995/dm.88.
[4] M. Kestemont. “A Computational Analysis of the Scribal Profiles on two of the Oldest
Manuscripts of Hadewijch’s “Letters””. In: Scriptorium 69.2 (2015), pp. 159–177. doi: htt
ps://doi.org/10.3406/scrip.2015.4358.
[5] M. Kestemont, W. Daelemans, and G. De Pauw. “Weigh your words–memory-based
lemmatization for Middle Dutch”. In: Literary and Linguistic Computing 25.3 (2010),
pp. 287–301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq011.
[6] E. Kwakkel. “A meadow without flowers. What happened to the Middle Dutch
manuscripts from the Charterhouse Herne?” In: Quærendo 33.1 (2003), pp. 191–211.
890
[7] E. Kwakkel. Die dietsche boeke die ons toebehoeren de kartuizers van herne en de productie
van middelnederlandse handschriften in de regio Brussel (1350-1400). Miscellenea Neer-
landica. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.
[8] A. McIntosh. “Scribal Profiles from Middle English Texts”. In: Neuphilologische Mitteilun-
gen 76.2 (1975), pp. 218–235.
[9] P. Olaf. “Abbreviations”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Latin Paleography. Ed. by C. Frank
and B. Robert. New York,United States of America: Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 9–
24.
[10] P. Robinson and E. Solopova. “Guidelines for Transcription of the Manuscripts of the
Wife of Bath’s Prologue”. In: The Canterbury Takes Project Occasional Papers, I.1 (1993),
pp. 19–52. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11954055.
[11] C. Vandyck, W. Haverals, and M. Kestemont. “Making Characters Counts. A Computa-
tional Approach to Scribal Profiling in 14th-Century Middle Dutch Manuscripts from
the Carthusian Monastery of Herne Monastery”. In: Approaches to Digital Codicology:
interdisciplinarity and intersections. Ed. by A. Campagnolo and E. Pierazzo. Brepols Pub-
lishers, 2024.
891