Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey: Tracing the Secretarial Trail with Computational Stylistics Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey: Tracing the Secretarial Trail with Computational Stylistics By Jeroen De Gussem Although the past few decades of medieval studies have witnessed some renewed interest in the collaborative process by which medieval Latin prose was composed, such interest has nevertheless remained all too scant, and only few solutions have been offered to cope with the difficulties that rise in cases of dubious authorship. Whereas it has been rightly acknowledged that scribes, notaries, and secretaries should be regarded not merely as instrumental in the literary process, but as active participants in the composition process who have left a considerable impact on the image and style of the dictator1 and on the materialization and dissemination of the text,2 this acknowledgement has nevertheless been accompanied by difficulties Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017). © 2017 by the Medieval Academy of America. All rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial reuse of the work with attribution. For commercial use, contact journalpermissions@press.uchicago.edu. DOI: 10.1086/694188, 0038-7134/2017/92S1-0008$10.00. This article is a result of the research project “Collaborative Authorship in Twelfth-Century Latin Lit- erature: A Stylometric Approach to Gender, Synergy and Authority,” funded by the Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF). Its execution rests on a close collaboration between the Henri Pirenne Institute for Medieval Studies at Ghent University, the CLiPS Computational Linguistics Group at the University of Antwerp, and the Centre Traditio Litterarum Occidentalium division for computer-assisted research into Latin language and literature housed in the Corpus Christianorum Library and Knowledge Centre of Brepols Publishers in Turnhout (Belgium). I am much indebted to the wisdom and continuous and patient guidance of Jeroen Deploige, Wim Verbaal, and Mike Kestemont, who—each in their re- spective fields of expertise (medieval cultural history, Latin medieval literature, and computational sty- listics)—have tremendously inspired and challenged me in writing this piece. Their voices inevitably re- sound from this text, so much so that I cannot solely take credit for the whole. I also warmly thank my colleagues from the Latin and History Department in Ghent who have gone through the trouble of read- ing my preliminary drafts. In particular, Dinah Wouters, Micol Long, and Theo Lap have my sincerest gratitude for personally sending me their valuable feedback. In conclusion, my gratitude goes out to Paul De Jongh, Bart Janssens, Jeroen Lauwers, and Luc Jocqué of Brepols for their commitment to this project. 1 A more general introduction to twelfth-century notaries, especially in respect to epistolography, can be found in Giles Constable, “Dictators and Diplomats in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries: Medi- eval Epistolography and the Birth of Modern Bureaucracy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992): 37– 46, at 38, where he stresses that “[notaries] took on a new importance in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when they formed a distinct group of recognizable personalities whose activities extended be- yond the scriptorium.” Lynn Staley Johnson, albeit focusing mainly on late medieval female authors, has drawn attention to how “scribes not only left their marks upon the manuscripts they copied, they also functioned as interpreters, editing and consequently altering the meaning of texts. Writers, however, did not simply employ scribes as copyists; they elaborated upon the figurative language associated with the book as a symbol and incorporated scribes into their texts as tropes,” in “The Trope of the Scribe and the Question of Literary Authority in the Works of Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe,” Speculum 66 (1991): 820. 2 See Bernard Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology, trans. Betsy Wing (Baltimore, 1999); Stephen G. Nichols, “Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture,” Speculum This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.2307%2F1291637&citationId=p_n_2 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S191 in defining the exact extent and sphere of influence of such secretarial mediation. This challenge is especially marked in the oeuvre of Bernard of Clairvaux (1090– 1153). By 1145, the abbot’s acclaim as the icon and figurehead of the Cistercian movement had brought along such a considerable administrative workload that the assistance of a group of secretaries—which, it could be argued, amounted to a kind of chancery3—was indispensable. These secretaries acted as Bernard’s stand- ins and spared him the time and effort it would have cost if he had had to take up the quill himself at every single occasion.4 The reportatio, as it was called, entailed that the contents of Bernard’s letters or sermons be engraved on wax tablets in a tachygraphic fashion. The cues, keywords, and biblical references that Bernard had spokenaloudprovidedaframeworkthatcapturedthegistofhisdiction.5 Afterwards, the scribe reconstructed what he had heard as a text on parchment, which could pass for Bernard of Clairvaux’s in its literary allure. Among these amanuenses, Nicholas of Montiéramey († 1176/78) was a focal figure and a highly skilled imitator of his master’s writing style. The influence of Nicholas’s mediation on several particular texts within Bernard’s corpus, and more generally on his entire oeuvre, has been sub- ject to much debate. This article revisits the authorship of a selection of texts from Bernard’s corpus. A detailed listing of the texts under scrutiny can be consulted in the Appendix of Tables (Tables 3–11). Generally, the corpus comprises Nicholas of Montiéramey’s letters and sermons6 and Bernard of Clairvaux’s letter corpus 3 Some could argue that the word “chancery” is inappropriately used of Bernard’s scriptorium, as it was not primarily a formal or institutional body of administration charged with the composition and dispatch of official documents. 4 The workings of Clairvaux’s scriptorium are extensively investigated in Peter Rassow, “Die Kanzlei St. Bernhards von Clairvaux,” Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens 34 (1913); and Jean Leclercq, “Saint Bernard et ses secrétaires,” in Leclercq, Recueil d’études sur saint Ber- nard et ses écrits (hereafter Recueil d’études), 4 vols. (Rome, 1962–87), 1:3–25. Constable also com- mented on the difficulty of the redaction process: “Aside from a few outlines dictated by Bernard or based on sermons he gave, most of the surviving texts are later compositions drawn up by either himself or his secretaries, and they bear little resemblance to what he actually preached, if they were ever delivered,” in Giles Constable, “The Language of Preaching in the Twelfth Century,” Viator 25 (1994): 131–52, at 134. 5 Stenography, or shorthand, systems had been forgotten by the twelfth century, making place for ta- chygraphy, a rapid form of writing: see Malcolm Beckwith Parkes, “Tachygraphy in the Middle Ages: Writing Techniques Employed for Reportationes of Lectures and Sermons,” in Scribes, Scripts and Read- ers: Studies in the Communication, Presentation and Dissemination of Medieval Texts (London, 1991), 19–33. 6 Nicholas of Montiéramey’s letters can be found under PL 196:1593a–1651d. The sermons have been identified by Jean Leclercq in “Les collections de sermons de Nicolas de Clairvaux,” Recueil d’études, 1:52–54. They are collected among those of Peter Damian in PL 144, more specifically “Sermo in na- tivitate S. Ioannis Baptistae” (627), “Sermo in natali apostolorum Petri et Pauli” (649), “Sermo in natali S. Benedicti de evangelio” (548), “Sermo in festivitate S. Mariae Magdalenae” (660), “Sermo in festi- vitate S. Petri ad vincula” (646), “Sermo in assumptione B. Mariae” (717), “Sermo in nativitate B. Mariae” (736), “Sermo in exaltatione S. crucis” (761), “Sermo in festivitate angelorum” (794), “Sermo in dedicatione ecclesiae” (897), “Sermo in festivate S. Victoris” (732), “Sermo in festivitate omnium sanctorum” (811), “Sermo in festivitate S. Martini” (815), “Sermo in festivitate S. Andreae” (828), “Sermo in festivitate B. Nicholai” (835), “Sermo in festivitate B. Mariae” (557), “Sermo in vigilia nati- vitatis” (839), “Sermo in nativitate Domini” (847), and “Sermo in festivitate B. Stephani” (853). 65 (1990): 1–10; Eric H. Reiter, “The Reader as Author of the User-Produced Manuscript: Reading and Writing Popular Latin Theology in the Late Middle Ages,” Viator 27 (1996): 151–69. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1484%2FJ.VIATOR.2.301211&citationId=p_n_10 S192 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey (Corpus epistolarum), Sermones de diversis (hereafter De diversis), and Sermones super Cantica canticorum.7 As a means of determining the extent of Nicholas’s stylistic presence in the afore- mentioned works, this article advocates computational stylistics (or stylometry), which is a method that detects stable and recurring patterns of writing style in texts that have been reduced to a range of marked style features. These features are consequently quantified to numerical data in order to gain objective and measur- able ground for distinguishing among works of varying authorship. Computational stylistics claims to offer a scientific and objective “distant reading”8 of literature, as opposed to human expert-based methods, which are often liable to intersubjectiv- ity.9 A stylometric approach to the case of Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiérameywillproverewardingontwolevels.Onthefirstlevel,wewilldetermine the authorship of the aforementioned texts, some of which have been subject to long-standing dispute. This will address an elementary concern within Bernardian studies, which Gillian Rosemary Evans has aptly put forward as such: “A turn of phrase can bear only so heavy a load of interpretation as it exactly reflects the au- thor’s thought.”10 On a second level, however, this study should also raise aware- ness of how the (mis)attributions of disputed medieval texts, as they have occurred in earlier studies, are often guided by personal intuitions or theoretical convictions of medieval authorship.11 This implies that, as we begin to challenge the established 7 These works are edited in the Sancti Bernardi opera (hereafter SBO), ed. Jean Leclercq et al., 8 vols. (Rome, 1957–77): the Corpus epistolarum (vols. 7–8), Sermones de diversis (vol. 6), and Sermones su- per Cantica canticorum (vols. 1–2). 8 The term “distant reading” was coined by Franco Moretti, “Conjectures on World Literature,” New Left Review 1 (2000): 54–68, and was further developed in his monograph Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History (Brooklyn, 2005). 9 It was Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace’s influential study on the disputed authorship of the eighteenth-century Federalist Papers in the early 1960s that would launch statistical approaches as tools by which to objectively determine authorship, currently known as nontraditional authorship attribution: see Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace, Applied Bayesian and Classical Inference: The Case of The Federalist Papers (New York, 1964). For four excellent state-of-the-art surveys on the history of nontraditional authorship attribution and the current debate within the field, see Patrick Juola, “Author- ship Attribution,” Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 1 (2008): 233–334; Efstathios Stamatatos, “A Survey of Modern Authorship Attribution Methods,” Journal of the Association for In- formation Science and Technology 60 (2009): 538–56; Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, and Shlomo Argamon, “Computational Methods in Authorship Attribution,” Journal of the Association for Infor- mation Science and Technology 60 (2009): 9–26; and Walter Daelemans, “Explanation in Computa- tional Stylometry,” in Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing 7817, ed. Alexander Gelbukh (Berlin, 2013), 451–62. 10 Gillian Rosemary Evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, Great Medieval Thinkers (New York, 2000), 20. 11 The bibliography of scholarship on medieval authorship is extensive and cannot be listed here in full. The following titles should nevertheless point any reader who is interested in the theory of medieval au- thorship in the right direction. A major work of reference is by Alastair J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1984), whose ap- proach to medieval authorship is largely based on study of the prologues of commentaries and exegetical works especially from the later Middle Ages (the scholastic period). In this later period he describes how the schools defined for themselves a framework of literary theory from the newly translated Aristotelian logic, through which they could approach the biblical texts and patristic auctores more literally, and therefore more literarily, as “a new type of exegesis emerged, in which the focus had shifted from the di- vine auctor to the human auctor of Scripture,” 5. Some other indispensable publications on medieval au- Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1002%2Fasi.20961&citationId=p_n_23 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1002%2Fasi.20961&citationId=p_n_23 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1002%2Fasi.21001&citationId=p_n_22 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1002%2Fasi.21001&citationId=p_n_22 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1561%2F1500000005&citationId=p_n_21 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S193 authorship of some of these texts, we also may offer metahistorical reflections on how earlier, more intuitive scholarly approaches have both enriched and yet prede- termined our current understanding of medieval authorship. The case of Bernard and Nicholas is particularly suitable to demonstrate how computational stylistics provides new answers to old questions, and raises new questions about old problems. Nicholas of Montiéramey The daily routines and workings of Clairvaux’s chancery are rather poorly doc- umented. We rarely know any of the scribes by name, and for those whom we do— a select group of six—only three give us a faint clue of their specific tasks and responsibilities.12 Nicholas began serving Bernard as an emissary around 1138–41, carrying letters concerning Abelard’s heresy to Rome. At this time he was still chap- lain of Hato, bishop of Troyes, and Peter the Venerable’s friend and secretary, but he must already have been collaborating with Bernard from 1140 onwards.13 He thorship that are of particular relevance here are Michel Zink, La subjectivité littéraire au siècle de saint Louis (Paris, 1985); Stephen C. Jaeger, “Charismatic Body, Charismatic Text,” Exemplaria 9 (1997), 117–37; Michel Zimmermann, ed., Auctor et auctoritas: Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale; Actes du colloque de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (14–16 juin 1999) (Paris, 2001); Edith Wenzel, “Der Text als Realie? Auf der Suche nach dem Text und seinem Autor,” in Text als Realie: Internationaler Kongress Krems und der Donau 3. bis 6. Oktober 2000, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischen-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 704 (Vienna, 2003), 81–95; Jeroen Deploige, “Anonymat et paternité littéraire dans l’hagiographie des Pays-Bas Méridionaux (ca. 920–ca. 1320): Autour du discours sur l’‘original’ et la ‘copie’ hagiographique au Moyen Âge,” in Scribere sanctorum gesta: Recueil d’études d’hagiographie médiévale offert à Guy Philippart, ed. Étienne Renard, Michel Trigalet, Xavier Hermand, and Paul Bertrand (Turnhout, 2005), 77–107; Jan M. Ziolkowski, “Cultures of Authority in the Long Twelfth Century,” Journal of English and Ger- manic Philology 108 (2009), 421–48; Stephen Partridge and Erik Kwakkel, Author, Reader, Book: Me- dieval Authorship in Theory and Practice (Toronto, 2012). 12 We know that Bernard’s earliest secretary was William of Rievaulx. He must have been active from 1120 until 1132, before traveling to northern England to establish the monastery of Rievaulx in the di- ocese of York, a daughter house for Clairvaux, to become its first abbot: see Rassow, “Die Kanzlei St. Bernhards von Clairvaux,” 5. William’s intimate bond with Bernard must have established a solid base upon which Clairvaux and Rievaulx were able to cooperate, communicate, and exchange recruits: see Brian Patrick McGuire, “Introduction,” in A Companion to Bernard of Clairvaux, ed. McGuire, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 25 (Leiden, 1992), 8. Three other names that have come down to us are Balduin of Pisa, Gerard of Peronne, and Raynaud of Foigny, but none of these seems to have had much significance: see Evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, 20. A more important personality was Geoffrey of Auxerre, who was a former student of Peter Abelard and allegedly denounced the Parisian schools in favor of the monastery after having witnessed Bernard’s genius and eloquence in preaching: “continuo tres ex illis compuncti sunt et conversi ab inanibus studiis ad verae sapientiae cultum, abrenuntiantes saeculo et Dei famulo adhaerentes,” in Geoffrey of Auxerre, Liber quartus sancti Bernardi abbatis Clarae-vallensis vita (PL 185:327). He entered Clairvaux in 1140 and became the abbot’s secretary in1145, a time when the administrative obligationsinClairvaux reached their peakand anofficialchancery had been established. He would become abbot of Clairvaux himself in 1163 but had to abdicate his lead- ership after two years, presumably as a consequence of an internal dispute over the papal schism between Alexander III and Victor IV: see Ferruccio Gastaldelli, “Introduzione,” in Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, ed. Gastaldelli, Temi e Testi 17 (Rome, 1970), 14–15. 13 There is scholarly debate over when exactly Nicholas initiated his collaboration with Bernard, but recent research tends to agree that it must have been earlier than his accession in 1145–46. See Con- stable, “Dictators and Diplomats,” 43–44: “Nicholas was at Clairvaux probably from the early 1140s Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). S194 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey would officially become a monk at Clairvaux around the end of 1145. His literary qualities, likely to have been acquired through his education in the Benedictine ab- bey of Montiéramey,14 enabled him to enter the scriptorium immediately and offi- cially become Bernard’s closest secretary. He appears to have been responsible for supervising the workings of the chancery,15 and he may have been the monastery’s librarian.16 But their friendship knew an abrupt and painful ending in the final years of Bernard’s life, around 1151–52, when Nicholas must have severely breached his master’s trust. In a letter to Pope Eugene III, we find Bernard disconcerted over the fact that letters had been sent out under his name and seal by “false brethren” with- out his permission.17 Later, Bernard would identify Nicholas as the culprit among these brethren,18 although the exact reasons why the latter deserved this accusation are nowhere explicitly disclosed.19 In any case one can assume from his correspon- dence and his own words20 that Nicholas’s talent as a writer and his “versatility” ingratiated him with the greatest men of his time.21 Equally so, Nicholas appears to have had—perhaps through this flamboyance and self-confidence—a talent for making enemies as well.22 to 1152 and assisted Bernard with his sermons as well as his letters, but he continued to visit Cluny and to serve Peter the Venerable, one of whose letters, we have seen, he presented to Bernard orally”; and Anne-Marie Turcan-Verkerk, “L’introduction de l’ars dictaminis en France: Nicholas de Montiéra- mey, un professionel du dictamen entre 1140 et 1158,” in Le dictamen dans tous ses états: perspectives de recherche sur la théorie et la pratique de l’ars dictaminis (XIe–XVe siècles), ed. Benoît Grévin and Turcan-Verkerk (Turnhout, 2015), 70: “Ami de Pierre le Venerable, [Nicolas] avait déjà servi les intérêts de Bernard en portant au pape, en 1140–1141, des lettres concernant Abelard—à la rédaction desquelles il avait peut-être déjà participé, comme le suggère le manuscrit Phillipps 1732. . . . Trois bil- lets de recommandation envoyés par Bernard à Innocent II entre 1138 et 1143 semblent le concerner [Epp. 434–36], et montrent que s’il servait Hatton, il le faisait en obéissant à Bernard.” 14 “Nicolas fit ses études à l’abbaye bénédictine de Montiéramey, près de Troyes en Champagne. On parle souvent de lui comme d’un Magister”: see John Benton, “Nicolas de Clairvaux,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, 17 vols. (Paris, 1982), 11:256–59. 15 Leclercq, “Lettres de S. Bernard: Histoire où littérature?,” Recueil d’études, 4:148. 16 Giles Constable, “Nicholas of Montiéramey and Peter the Venerable,” in Constable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, 2 vols. (London, 1967), 2:321. 17 “Periclitati sumus in falsis fratribus,” Bernard, Ep. 284, SBO 8:198–99. 18 Ep. 298, likewise addressed to Eugene III (SBO 8:214). 19 Constable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, 2:327. 20 Nicholas, Ep. 56 (PL 196:1652), “Ab ineunte aetate mea placui magnis et summis principibus hujus mundi.” 21 The word is Jean Mabillon’s in PL 183:26: “Vir fuit ingenii facilis, versatilis, facile in aliorum affectus influens.” 22 An example can be found in Nicholas’s dispute with Peter of Celle. The two “were at odds over a substantive matter, a theological point about how to treat the attributes of God, and Abbot Peter took offense that Nicholas, who should have possessed the power to triumph with his own (verbal) arms, had used against him the authority and words of great philosophers:” see John Van Engen, “Letters, Schools, and Written Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” in Dialektik und Rhetorik im früheren und hohen Mittelalter: Rezeption, Überlieferung und gesellschaftliche Wirkung antiker Ge- lehrsamheit vornehmlich im 9. und 12. Jahrhundert, ed. Johannes Fried (Munich, 1997), 27:109; and Julian Haseldine, “Peter of Celle and Nicholas of Clairvaux’s Debate on the Nature of the Body, the Soul, and God,” in The Letters of Peter of Celle, ed. Haseldine (Oxford, 2001), 706–11. The “ver- satile” aspect of Nicholas’s personality, as noted by Mabillon (above, n. 21), therefore also seems to display itself on the level of language. Nicholas was accused of “inverting words and their meaning,” a Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S195 The scandal at Clairvaux and the breach of Bernard’s trust has for a long time upheld the portrayal of Nicholas as a disreputable Judas by Bernard’s side, an anal- ogy for which Bernard himself was responsible.23 Conversely and simultaneously, Bernard’s status as a saint continued to grow during the intense process of canoniza- tion and idealization following his death.24 These respective caricatural depictions, in which Nicholas was deplored as the mistrusted secretary and Bernard praised as the saint who had become victim of textual theft, show through on an academic level as well. Dom Jean Leclercq, one of the most prominent Bernard scholars of the twen- tieth century, was as relentless as Bernard in accusing Nicholas of deceit, shame- lessness, and plagiarism.25 Nicholas’s most striking example of seeming textual theft presents itself in his letter to Henry the Liberal, count of Champagne, to whom he humbly offered his services as a secretary shortly after his expulsion from Clairvaux. Accompanying the letter we find nineteen sermons originally attributed to Peter Dam- ian,26 nine sermons attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux,27 and seventy-four short com- mentaries tothe Psalms thatareascribedtoHugh of St.Victor.28 Inthe letter,Nicholas asserts that these writings are “of my invention, of my style, aside from what I have taken from others in a few places.”29 We know this assertion to be true of the nineteen sermons also found among those of Peter Damian, which have been identified by Leclercq as stemming from Nicholas. Bernard’s and Hugh’s writings, on the other hand, appear to have been copied almost literally, not merely rearranged or para- phrased “in a few places” (paucis in locis), as Nicholas seems to suggest. Most of the nine sermons can be found in Bernard’s De diversis. It is striking that, months characteristic that Peter interpreted as equal to a falsification of language: “verba quoque et sensus verborum praesumis quandoque invertere”: see Peter of Celle, Ep. 66 (PL 202:512). 23 Bernard literally made the analogy with Judas, which he significantly did not make often in his letters: see Brian Patrick McGuire, “Loyalty and Betrayal in Bernard of Clairvaux,” in Loyalty in the Middle Ages: Ideal and Practice of a Cross-Social Value, ed. Jörg Sonntag and Coralie Zermatten (Turnhout, 2015), 317–18. 24 As it was first initiated by his biographer William of St. Thierry († 1148). He wrote the Vita prima Bernardi, a biography with a hagiographical, panegyrical slant. He shares the authorship of the entire Vita with Bernard’s secretary Geoffrey of Auxerre and the Benedictine abbot Arnaud de Bonneval. Geoffrey was a strong advocate for Bernard’s canonization, in which William’s texts played a funda- mental role. 25 Jean Leclercq, “Les collections de sermons de Nicolas de Clairvaux,” Recueil d’études, 1:56–58. Leclercq cannot but express his dislike for Nicholas in phrases such as “cet homme sans caractère, mais lettré, doué de mémoire, habile à manier les fiches, prompt à entrer ‘dans le personnage’ d’un autre, aurait pû être pour S. Bernard un parfait secrétaire, si seulement il avait été honnête,” or “or la suite du recueil prouve qu’il était sans scrupules en ce domaine comme en d’autres,” or “ainsi les témoignages les plus formels de Nicolas lui-même sont trompeurs, car il ment”; or, in “Deux épîtres de Saint Bernard,” Recueil d’études, 2:317, “On sait combien cet esprit peu original aime se citer lui-même, reprendre, en les modifiant à peine, des expressions qu’il a déjà employées en d’autres écrits.” 26 See n. 6. 27 Bernard, Sermones de diversis, 6, 7, 21, 62, 83, 100, and 104 (SBO 6/1). 28 On the sermons, see Leclercq, “Les collections de sermons de Nicolas de Clairvaux,” 57. Hugh’s commentaries or chapters, the Adnotationes elucidatoriae in quosdam Psalmos David—the second book of the Miscellanea—are collected under PL 177:589. 29 “Meo sensu inventos, meo stylo dictatos, nisi quod paucis in locis de sensibus alienis accepi” (my translation), Nicholas of Montiéramey, in the prefatory letter in MS Harley 3073, ed. Leclercq, Recueil d’études, 1:49–50. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). S196 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey after his banishment from Clairvaux, Nicholas seemingly betrays his former abbot again with what appears to be a willful appropriation of Bernard’s texts. Such incriminating evidence contributed to his reputation as a plagiarist, this reputation in its turn provoking prejudicial conclusions in other attribution issues. Henri M. Rochais, for instance, in a codicological approach to the question of de- termining the disputed authorship of three other lengthy sermons in Bernard’s De diversis corpus (De diversis 40, 41, and 42),30 pointed out these sermons’ close sim- ilarities to two of Nicholas’s works and to chapter 100 of Hugh of St. Victor’s sixth book of Miscellanea (the well-known writer somehow seems to be involved again);31 yet stated with confidence that Nicholas stole the texts from Bernard under false pre- tenses. This hypothesis Rochais sees corroborated in “the secretary’s unscrupulous personality.”32 At the same time Rochais casts aside Jean Mabillon’s belief that the literary style of these sermons hardly seems that of Bernard as an all-too-subjective andunscientificargument.33Toourview,Rochais’ownsubjectivemistakewasthat— despite being fully aware of Bernard’s collaboration with his secretaries—he treated codicological unity as identical to stylistic or authorial unity: “Cette tradition manu- scrite ne donne donc aucun motif de doute sur l’authenticité bernardine des trois ser- mons étudiés, et, au contraire, elle constitue une telle probabilité en faveur de cette authenticité, qu’il faudrait des arguments incontestables pour dénier à Bernard leur composition.”34 Leclercq’s and Rochais’ attributions still stand in their editions, widely used to- day, although medievalists have seriously contested their highly subjective and spec- ulative approach towards authorship attribution and their prejudiced view of Nich- olas of Montiéramey’s alleged deceitfulness and falsification, as we will show below. Moreover, the temptation for scholars to draw lines between imitation and plagia- rism in order to categorize writings and collate them in attributed editions, valuable as it is, can also be rather anachronistic or even unbefitting in a medieval context. A fundamental rationale of the New Philology, in the wake of poststructuralist ap- proaches to authorship and texts, is that in a medieval culture there is no place for the idea of an original author, a logic leading to the conclusion that Leclercq’s and Ro- chais’ quest for such an author only takes us further from the truth.35 Medieval lit- 30 Bernard, “Sermo 40: De viis vitae quae sunt confessio et oboedientia”; “Sermo 41: De via oboe- dientiae;” and “Sermo 42: De quinque negotiationibus, et quique regionibus,” SBO 6/1:234–61. 31 The specific text referred to is Hugh of St. Victor, “De septem gradibus confessionis,” PL 177: 856–58: see Henri M. Rochais, “Saint Bernard est-il l’auteur des sermons 40, 41 et 42 De diversis?,” Revue Bénédictine 72 (1962): 324–45, at 326. There is a lack of clarity as to how exactly Hugh of St. Victor’s Miscellanea was constituted—whether the collection was assembled by Hugh himself or whether it is a compilation assembled from his writings by others. 32 “Le caractère de ce secrétaire peu scrupuleux rend assez vraisemblable l’hypothèse d’un nouveau plagiat de Nicolas aux dépens de son ancien abbé,” Rochais, ibid. 33 “Dom J. Leclercq a dit justement ce qu’il faut penser de cette sorte d’argument trop subjectif pour avoir, à lui seul, une valeur réellement probante,” Rochais, ibid., 325. Jean Mabillon’s argument for attributing the sermons to Nicholas can be found in a note to PL 183:647–48: “Hic sermo sequensque in editione Lugdunensi anni 1514, in qua primum prodiere, extra classem genuinorum Bernardi sermonum locati sunt; nec stylum ejus plene assequi videntur.” 34 Rochais, “Saint Bernard est-il l’auteur des sermons 40, 41 et 42?,” 330. 35 Nichols and Cerquiglini, two prominent figures of the New Philological approach, have already been cited above (see n. 2). The heritage of poststructuralists such as Roland Barthes, “The Death Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1484%2FJ.RB.4.00474&citationId=p_n_29 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S197 erature depended strongly on its oral component (dictare had supplanted scribere to designate the act of authorship);36 it “circulated through networks” and formed part of a “shared culture [that was] characterized by a knowledge of the same erudite language as well as a common foundation of texts and memories.”37 Giles Constable touched on the core of the issue by noting that in the Middle Ages “there are infinite shadings between correction, revision, imitation, and falsification and, in works of art, between repair, restoration, reproduction, and copying.”38 In this light, Nicho- las’s appropriation of some of his former master’s works in his letter to Henry the Liberal is rather the continuation of a dialogue,39 not a spiteful act of revenge. Ste- phen Jaeger has similarly argued that Nicholas indulges in the kind of imitatio that would have made little distinction between “honest” and dishonest intentions.40 Like any distinguished writer of his time, Nicholas carefully applied for a new posi- tion by showcasing his complete immersion in a prevalent literary network.41 The juxtaposition of Leclercq’s and Rochais’ historical positivism with the more recent New Philology lays bare the dilemma that has arisen in medieval text stud- ies. Although both practices have contributed immensely to the field, neither of the two stances is entirely satisfactory, leaving most scholars to agree to a compromise in cases of doubtful authorship. The first, rather positivist, approach acknowledges that the act of textual appropriation is suitable and possible. It presupposes that per- sonal authorship is a retrievable aspect of the text, whose idealized state can be re- constructed from a hierarchical stemma. The disadvantage of this approach is that it of the Author,” Aspen Magazine 5–6 (1967); and Michel Foucault, Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie (1969): 73–104; or in Dits et écrits, vol. 1, 1954–1988, ed. Daniel Defert, François Ewald, and Jacques Lagrange (Paris, 2001), 817–49, is apparent in this New Philological approach towards medieval authorship. Also see Virginie Greene, “What Happened to Medievalists after the Death of the Author?,” in The Medieval Author in Medieval French Literature, ed. Greene (New York, 2006): 205–27. 36 Paul Saenger, “Silent Reading: Its Impact on Late Medieval Script and Society,” Viator 13 (1982): 380. 37 Pascale Bourgain, “The Circulation of Texts in Manuscript Culture,” in The Medieval Manuscript Book: Cultural Approaches, ed. Michael Johnston and Michael Van Dussen (Cambridge, UK, 2015), 150. Also see Rebecca Moore Howard, Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Col- laborators (Stamford, CT, 1999), 65: “In the Middle Ages, mimesis was the means of establishing one’s authority, as well as being an expression of humility. The notion of the individual author, auton- omous, original, and proprietary, played only the smallest role in this economy of authorship. With those textual values so much in decline, plagiarism was hardly an issue.” 38 Giles Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages,” in Constable, Culture and Spiritu- ality in Medieval Europe (Aldershot, 1996), 1–41, at 3. 39 Moreover, the assertion that Bernard never heard of Nicholas again after he left Clairvaux is far from certain: see Constable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, 2:330. 40 “Here then is a case in which a ‘skilled student of the ars dictaminis’ with alleged inclinations to forgery imitated a near-contemporary model, and we can assume that there would have been little dif- ference between the ‘honest’ and dishonest imitation of Bernard’s style,” in Stephen Jaeger, “The Pro- logue to the Historia calamitatum and the ‘Authenticity Question,’” Euphorion 74 (1980): 13. 41 After all, Nicholas was applying for a position as Henry’s new secretary, and a familiarity with the greats of the twelfth century would have been one of the prerequisites. Leclercq’s assertion that Henry the Liberal must not have noticed Nicholas’s blatant plagiarism because he was a layperson unfamiliar with clerical texts seems unlikely: “Il était moins facile à un laïc comme Henri le Libéral qu’à un clerc de déceler le plagiat,” in Leclercq, Recueil d’études, 1:57. Henry’s recognition of the extent to which Nicholas’s compositions were indebted to other authorities would have been the whole point and is likely not to have been conceived of as problematic. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). S198 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey reduces authorship debates to anachronistic, binary classification problems, whose conclusions often lack substantial evidence and set into motion more unsubstanti- ated debate. Therefore it both originates in bias and establishes a circulus in pro- bando in which only additional factual evidence can provide closure. The second and more recent approach, on the other hand, comes to terms with the impossibility of closure through its recognition that—in a medieval context—knowing a text’s authorship was subordinate either, on the one hand, to acknowledging its implied authority (for example, the authority of a writer’s predecessors, such as the church fathers or God); or, on the other, to acknowledging the authority of its unique, ma- terialized appearance: “There are as many texts . . . as there are scribal redactions; and there are as many authors of medieval texts as there were scribes composing new works in the act of writing them down in their [manuscripts].”42 By embracing the variance, this approach evades the impasse. Yet one is wary of where this might lead. Lena Wahlgren-Smith, who is preparing a critical edition of Nicholas of Mon- tiéramey’s letters, has quite rightfully expressed her concern regarding a “wholesale adoption” of the New Philological approach, which “assumes that all medieval lit- erature,inalllanguages,allgenres,andallperiods,operatesinthesameway.”43 Such an approach is counterintuitive to those medieval attestations where value is at- tached totitled authority, where thereisanoutspokenpreference forunviolated text, or where personal literary style is cultivated.44 Bernard’s denunciation of Nicholas for sending out texts without his consent serves as a firsthand example. Correspond- ingly, Nicholas’s bold statement that Bernard’s texts are in fact his own—“meo sensu inventos, meo stylo dictatos”45—also suggests that an explicit appropriation of texts was not unknown in the twelfth century. It is important not to underesti- mate the degree to which the Middle Ages was a “charismatic culture” in which texts were regarded in relation to “the body and the physical presence [that were] the me- diators of cultural values.”46 From this perspective, Leclercq and Rochais had justifiable reasons to care about the interdependence of text and physical author (or performer). Constable has referred to a “rising tide of concern” over textual theft in the late twelfth and thirteenth century, possibly instigated by rapidly changing ap- proaches to “literary individuality.”47 In the midst of suchan impasse,historians and 42 Bernadette A. Masters, “The Distribution, Destruction and Dislocation of Authority in Medieval Literature and Its Modern Derivatives,” Romanic Review 82 (1991): 270–285, at 278. 43 Lena Wahlgren-Smith, “Editing a Medieval Text: The Case of Nicholas of Clairvaux,” in Chal- lenging the Boundaries of Medieval History: The Legacy of Timothy Reuter, ed. Patricia Skinner, Stud- ies in the Early Middle Ages 22 (Turnhout, 2009), 173–83. For the upcoming critical edition, see Wahlgren-Smith, The Letter Collections of Nicholas of Clairvaux (Oxford, forthcoming). 44 Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 10–11. 45 Nicholas of Montiéramey, in the prefatory letter in MS Harley 3073, ed. Leclercq, Recueil d’études, 1:49–50. 46 Jaeger, “Charismatic Body, Charismatic Text,” 122. 47 Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism,” 18, 32. He also noted that Nicholas “may have inspired the Cistercian legislation of 1157 defining the punishments for the falsifiers of charters and seals,” 19. However, the idea of literary individuality in the twelfth-century Renaissance that Constable here ad- dresses is a subject of immense debate: see Caroline Walker Bynum, “Did the Twelfth Century Discover the Individual?,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 31 (1980): 1–17; Colin Morris, The Discovery of the Individual, 1050–1200 (New York, 1972); and Aron Iakovlevič Gurevič and Katharine Judelson, The Origins of European Individualism (Oxford, 1995). Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1484%2FM.SEM-EB.3.1925&citationId=p_n_36 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1484%2FM.SEM-EB.3.1925&citationId=p_n_36 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1017%2FS0022046900036186&citationId=p_n_42 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S199 philologists should hope to find more solid ground on which to establish the authorship of dubious texts. Authorship attribution—a seemingly trivial question concerning who wrote which text—forms a vital stepping-stone towards a more sci- entifically responsible understanding of how the medieval author perceived the pro- portional relationship between one’s personal authority over a text and one’s per- sonal contribution to its composition. Computational Stylistics Instead of treating the medieval text as collective and impersonal, the methodol- ogy of computational stylistics traces the linguistic traits of a text that originate from a highly individual stylome, a set of features that betray personal writing style (note here that mapping out individual stylistics should not eliminate the possibility of collective authorship).48 Moreover, its ambitions—whether realistic or not—may extend to extracting information concerning the author’s sex or age49 or to measur- ing a text’s genre or degree of “literariness.”50 Although experiments and debates as to which textual features best capture stylistic difference are still ongoing, many state-of-the-art studies employ function words, which still prove to be the most ro- bust discriminators for writing styles. Function words are usually short and insignif- icant words that pass unnoticed—such as pronouns, auxiliary verbs, articles, con- junctions, and particles—whose main advantages are their frequent occurrence, their less conscious use by authors, and their content- or genre-independent char- acter. Their benefit and success for the study of stylometry in Latin prose have been convincingly demonstrated before,51 although the methodology still raises acute 48 This is the so-called human stylome hypothesis: see Hans van Halteren et al., “New Machine Learning Methods Demonstrate the Existence of a Human Stylome,” Journal of Quantitative Linguis- tics 12 (2005): 65–77. 49 For author-profiling studies, see Shlomo Argamon et al., “Automatically Profiling the Author of an Anonymous Text,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) 52 (2009): 119–23. 50 Karina van Dalen-Oskam, “A Literary Rat Race,” in Digital Humanities 2016: Conference Ab- stracts (Kraków, 2016), 388–90. 51 See Mike Kestemont, Sara Moens, and Jeroen Deploige, “Collaborative Authorship in the Twelfth Century: A Stylometric Study of Hildegard of Bingen and Guibert of Gembloux,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (2013): 199–224; and Jeroen Deploige and Sara Moens, “Visiones Hildegardis a Guiberto Gemblacensi exaratae,” in Hildegardis Bingensis Opera minora, vol. 2, ed. Jeroen Deploige et al., CCCM 226A (Turnhout, 2016), 153–61; or the numerous investigations on the authorship of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, of which the latest is Mike Kestemont and Justin A. Stover, “The Authorship of the ‘Historia Augusta’: Two New Computational Studies,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 59 (2016): 140–57. Also see Penelope J. Gurney and Lyman W. Gurney, “Authorship Attribution of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae,” Literary and Lin- guistic Computing 13 (1998): 119–31; Richard S. Forsyth, David I. Holmes, and Emily K. Tse, “Cicero, Sigonio, and Burrows: Investigating the Authenticity of the Consolatio,” Literary and Linguistic Com- puting 14 (1999): 1–26; Fiona J. Tweedie, David I. Holmes, and Thomas N. Corns, “The Provenance of De doctrina Christiana, attributed to John Milton: A Statistical Investigation,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 13 (1998): 77–87; and Earl Jeffrey Richards, David Joseph Wrisley, and Liliane Dulac, “The Different Styles of Christine de Pizan: An Initial Stylometric Analysis,” Le Moyen Francais 78–79 (2016): 187–206. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F14.3.375&citationId=p_n_55 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F14.3.375&citationId=p_n_55 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1145%2F1461928.1461959&citationId=p_n_48 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1484%2FJ.LMFR.5.111478&citationId=p_n_57 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F13.3.119&citationId=p_n_54 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F13.3.119&citationId=p_n_54 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F13.2.77&citationId=p_n_56 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F13.2.77&citationId=p_n_56 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqt063&citationId=p_n_51 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqt063&citationId=p_n_51 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.2041-5370.2016.12043.x&citationId=p_n_53 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.2041-5370.2016.12043.x&citationId=p_n_53 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1080%2F09296170500055350&citationId=p_n_46 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1080%2F09296170500055350&citationId=p_n_46 S200 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey questions, which keep stylometrists on the lookout for alternatives.52 Before return- ing to our case study of Nicholas of Montiéramey and his alleged falsification, we will expound on the availability of the data, on the preprocessing steps involved, and on the statistical technicalities of computational stylistics. For our subsequent analysis, we relied upon the digitized texts of Bernard of Clair- vaux’s Corpus epistolarum, Sermones de diversis, and Sermones super Cantica can- ticorum as they appear in the state-of-the-art scholarly edition of the Sancti Bernardi Opera by Leclercq et al. included in the online Brepols Library of Latin Texts.53 For Nicholas of Montiéramey’s letters we are provisionally still reliant on the digitally available Patrologia Latina.54 All text data are available in an online GitHub repos- itory for experimental replication, yet in a camouflaged form so that the copyright protection on the original text editions is respected. Only the texts’ function words were retained in their original form, whereas all content-loaded words were filtered out and replaced by dummy words.55 Since Leclercq’s editions and the Patrologia La- tina make use of different orthographical conventions, and since Latin is a synthetic language with a high degree of inflection, Bernard and Nicholas’s texts required some preprocessing for the sake of data alignment and feature culling. The result of the latter is that texts are more easily mined for information: thus, the lexemes are lemmatized (which means that a specific instance of the word is referred to its head- word) and a text’s words (tokens) are classified according to grammatical categories (parts of speech). For this purpose we applied the Pandora lemmatizer tagger on the texts, a piece of software developed to achieve specifically this.56 52 Mike Kestemont, “ Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Eur Anna Feldman, Anna K 53 See n. 7 for details text files of these editio Brepols Publishers. For 54 PL 196:1651a–165 Picard, who was believ published in Lyon in 16 Luanne Meagher, “The tercian History 9, Ciste forthcoming critical ed 55 See https://github.c 56 Pandora was deve and Jeroen De Gussem Learning,” Journal of D ing of Intertextuality in arxiv.org/pdf/1603.015 Speculum 92/S1 (Oc This All use subject to U Token Lemma PoS-tag (simplex) harum hic PRO imo immo ADV Function Words in Workshop on Co opean Chapter of azantseva, and St on the edition of ns have been gene Brepols’s online L 4b. The original ed ed to have had ac 77 and ultimately Letters of Nicolas rcian Studies Serie ition is edited by W om/jedgusse/berna loped by Mike Ke , “Integrated Seque ata Mining and D Ancient Language 97v2.pdf. tober 2017) content downloaded niversity of Chicago Authorship Attrib mputational Ling the Association for an Szpakowicz (Go Bernard of Clairva rously provided fo ibrary of Latin Te ition of Nicholas’s cess to the original reprinted by Jacque of Clairvaux,” in H s 68, ed. Ellen Roz ahlgren-Smith: see rd. stemont and the au nce Tagging for M igital Humanities. s, ed. Marco Büch from 141.134.041. Press Terms and C An advantage of Pandora’s design is that it normalizes orthographical variants to a classicized headword if necessary. Both imo and immo were categorized under ution: From Black Magic to Theory?,” in uistics for Literature (CLfL) at the 14th Computational Linguistics (EACL), ed. thenburg, 2014), 59–66. ux’s texts by Leclercq et al. The digitized r our experiments by our project partner, xts, see http://www.brepolis.net. letters was first published in 1610 by Jean manuscripts. The text would later be re- s-Paul Migne in the Patrologia Latina: see eaven on Earth, Studies in Medieval Cis- anne Elder (Kalamazoo, 1983), 128. The n. 43. thor of this article. See Mike Kestemont edieval Latin Using Deep Representation Special Issue on Computer-Aided Process- ler and Laurence Mellerin (2017), https:// 197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM onditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.brepolis.net https://github.com/jedgusse/bernard https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.01597v2.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.01597v2.pdf http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.3115%2Fv1%2FW14-0908&citationId=p_n_58 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.3115%2Fv1%2FW14-0908&citationId=p_n_58 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S201 immo and identified accordingly as one and the same word.57 The part-of-speech- tag (PoS) displayed in the third column in the above diagram allowed us to restrict the culling of the most frequent words to those word categories that make up the collection of function words: conjunctions (CON), prepositions (AP), pronouns (PRO), and adverbs (ADV). This likewise filtered out some noise caused by ambi- guities or homonyms like secundum, which can be either a preposition or the accu- sative case of the adjective secundus. Afterwards, some lemmata in the list that did not qualify as style markers were culled and filtered out, such as tu, tuus, vos, and vester. Vos and vester betray a vernacular influence in Bernard’s unpublished letters as formal, polite forms similar to the French vous. Bernard was known to adapt his sermons to his audience,58 and in a literary or classicizing text he would maintain tu and tuus when addressing his correspondent. Therefore these pronouns were not regarded as suitable features for stylistic difference but as content-dependent, con- scious authorial choices linked to register.59 Aside from lemmatization, smaller in- terventions were undertaken, such as separating the enclitics -que and -ve from the token in order to be recognized as a feature. Once procedures of this sort were car- ried out in full, we arrived at a list of the 150 most frequent function words (MFFW) of the corpus examined in our experiment.60 Tables 1 and 2 of the most frequent function words correspond to the two experiments (and their two respective cor- pora) described in this article and are listed in the appendix. The corpora under scrutiny were subsequently segmented into parts with a fixed size, in other words, text samples. Sampling yields the advantage of “effectively [as- sessing] the internal stylistic coherence of works,”61 as it also allows for a more fine- grained comparative analysis with segments from external works. The sample sizes, however, can differ depending on the requirements of the experiment. As will be- come apparent in the appendices and the figures, Bernard’s letters were segmented into 3,000-word samples, whereas his sermons were segmented into 1,500-word samples. The decrease of sample size in the second experiment was necessary due to the fact that it treats shorter texts. It should be noted that whereas 3,000-word 57 Other pairs include tanquam and tamquam, quoties and quotiens, nunquid and numquid, quanquam and quamquam, nunquam and numquam, etc. 58 Constable, “The Language of Preaching in the Twelfth Century,” 131–52. 59 See Leclercq, “Notes sur la tradition des épitres de S. Bernard,” Recueil d’études, 3:317. It should be noted that our decision to disregard these features, or in other words to succumb to manual feature selection, implies a degree of supervision and subjectivity. We do not really see this as a problem, firstly since we have supplied evidence that including these features could only distort the results for obvious historical reasons, and secondly since this is in line with our approach that was already strongly deter- mined by how we set limitations to the culling of function words (only prepositions, conjunctions, ad- verbs, and pronouns were taken into consideration). The omission of too-characteristic corpus features considerably improves precision and historical validity. David L. Hoover has demonstrated this for personal pronouns as well: see Hoover, “Testing Burrows’s Delta,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 19 (2004): 453–75. 60 On the culling of the most frequent words, see the pivotal work of John F. Burrows, “‘Delta’: A Measure of Stylistic Difference and a Guide to Likely Authorship,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 17 (2002): 267–87. Its workings have been considerably elucidated (and its formula simplified) by the publication of Shlomo Argamon, “Interpreting Burrows’s Delta: Geometric and Probabilistic Founda- tions,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23 (2008): 131–47. 61 Maciej Eder, Jan Rybicki, and Mike Kestemont, “Stylometry with R: A Package for Computa- tional Text Analysis,” R Journal 16 (2016): 107–21, at 111. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqn003&citationId=p_n_79 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F19.4.453&citationId=p_n_76 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F19.4.453&citationId=p_n_76 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F17.3.267&citationId=p_n_78 S202 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey samples correspond to a state-of-the-art norm, 1,500-word samples run the risk of increased imprecision, a consideration that should nuance any interpretation of the results.62 Once we divided our corpus, each of the text samples needed to be trans- lated to a format that is also readable to computers, namely document vectors. A text sample is represented as an array of tallies for each of the one hundred and fifty function words on the checklist, as follows: 62 There is deba dressed for twelf the Twelfth Cen Small Samples, B and Walter Daele and Linguistic Co 63 The TF-IDF tion words in fav mation Retrieval ture extraction in above) that the h gue that observi might go unnotic the assumption th ies suggest that it ture is present in by the same indiv properties, this m lems,” Kestemon cations 63 (2016 64 The similarit ric that is “a very a feature vector”: Multiple Classifie Speculum 92/S1 All use subjec et in qui ... Sample 1 118 38 71 ... Sample 2 82 47 90 ... Sample n ... .... ... ... te over the adequate th-century Latin in K tury,” 210–11. Also ig Problem,” Literary mans, “The Effect of A mputing 26 (2011): 3 vectorizer is therefore or of rare function w (New York, 2008), 1 authorship-attributio igh-ranked most frequ ng less common func ed in the standard De at low-frequency item might be useful. Arg two documents, this idual. While the meth ight be an attractive t et al., “Authenticati ): 89. y metric applied for th general metric that ca see Pádraig Cunning r Systems 34 (2007): (October 2017) This content downloa t to University of Chic sample length t estemont, Moe see Maciej Ede and Linguistic uthor Set Size a 5–55. a normalizatio ords: see Christ 17–33. The TF n studies, since ent words gene tion words can lta approach. “ s are bad predi uably, this mod increases the lik od might there characteristic i ng the Writing e pairwise dist n be used in a k ham and Sarah 1–17, at 4. ded from 141.13 ago Press Term o capture a st ns, and Deplo r, “Does Size Computing 30 nd Data Size i n procedure opher D. Ma -IDF vectorize it readjusts B rate better di yield interes In many ways ctors of autho el captures th elihood that fore be sensit n certain (e.g. s of Julius Ca ances is the M -NN classifier Jane Delany, “ 4.041.197 on s and Condition ylistic signal. T ige, “Collabor Matter? Auth (2015): 167–8 n Authorship A that penalizes nning et al., In r is not an ob urrows’s Delta stinctions betw ting authorial , this model ca rial style. Neve e intuition that the two docum ive to overfittin , single-domai esar,” Expert inkowski metr for any data t k-Nearest Ne October 14, 201 s (http://www. These raw counts were TF-IDF normalized, a procedure that divides the function word frequencies by the number of text samples that respective function word ap- pears in. As a consequence, less common function words received a higher weight, which prevents them from sinking away (and losing statistical significance) in be- tween very common function words.63 Once the data was preprocessed and regu- lated, two statistical techniques were applied to visualize its dynamics. The first is k Nearest Neighbors (hereafter k-NN); the second is principal compo- nent analysis (hereafter PCA). Their respective results will prove to be similar in a general sense, yet crucially different in the details. We argue that such an additional statistical validation provides for a more accurate, nuanced interpretation and a bet- ter intuition of the data. In Figs. 1 and 3, the k-NN networks, we first calculated the five closest text samples to each text sample by applying k-NN on the frequency vectors.64 Accordingly, for each text the five most similar, or closest, texts were he risk has been ad- ative Authorship in orship Attribution, 2; and Kim Luyckx ttribution,” Literary more frequent func- troduction to Infor- vious choice for fea- presupposition (see een authors. We ar- preferences, which n be contrasted with rtheless, a few stud- if a highly rare fea- ents were authored g on low-frequency n) authorship prob- Systems with Appli- ic, a Euclidean met- hat is represented as ighbour Classifiers,” 7 02:26:14 AM journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqq013&citationId=p_n_83 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqq013&citationId=p_n_83 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S203 calculated, weighted in rank of smallest pairwise distance65 and consequently mapped in space through force-directed graph drawing.66 What a k-NN network ultimately captures is which texts are most akin—or have the closest connection— when it comes to writing style (as defined by the distribution of function words). It should be noted that k-NN nearly always finds relationships, as it is very much a closed game. It is designed to link candidates to one another in terms of distance (ev- ery text sample needs to find its five neighbors) and can presuppose ties that are rather coincidental or nonexistent (for example, in the case of outliers). The network visualization can therefore be biased by a misleading directionality. Secondly, PCA is a technique that allows us to reduce a multivariate or multidi- mensional data set of many features, such as our function word frequencies, to merely two or three principal components, which disregard inconsequential infor- mation, or noise, in the data set and reveal its important dynamics (Figs. 2 and 4). The assumption is that the main principal components, our axes in the plot, point in the direction of the most significant change in our data, so that clustering and out- liers become clearly visible. Each word in our feature vector is assigned a weighting, or loading, which reflects whether or not a word correlates highly with a PC and therefore gains importance as a discriminator in writing style. In a plot, the loadings or function words that overlap with the clustered texts of a particular author are the preferred function words of that author (see Figs. 5–6).67 PCA is built to find the most meaningful variance of observations along the axes of its principal compo- nents. In this sense it is not always interested in finding links between candidates, as k-NN is, but rather in finding links between variables. Disadvantages are that 65 The weights were derived directly from the calculated distances (see n. 64 for specifications on the metric). The intuition is then that the distances should be normalized to a (1,0) range. Note that this is not a (0,1) range, since smaller distances correspond to greater similarities and therefore require greater weighting: distances 5 distances2minðdistancesÞminðdistancesÞ2maxðdistancesÞ. 66 See, for instance, Maciej Eder, “Visualization in Stylometry: Cluster Analysis Using Networks,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32 (2015): 50–64. The algorithm used for the graphs in this article was Force Atlas 2, embedded in GEPHI, an open-source tool for network manipulation and visualiza- tion: see Mathieu Bastian et al., “Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Net- works,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), ed. Eytan Adar et al. (San Jose, CA, 2009): 361–62. It must be noted that Eder’s network iteratively runs over an increasing number of features (100–1000 MFW) to establish the consensus between different text samples (likewise by means of nearest neighbors). I have somewhat adjusted the method for the purpose of this article, since running up to 1000 MFW would surely overfit on the strong content-dependent con- nections that exist between Nicholas and Bernard’s texts. Matthew Lee Jockers likewise applied GEPHI networks to detect stylistic differences in his seminal work Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History (Champaign, 2013). The difference with his approach and the one maintained in this article is that Jockers not only generated his networks through stylistic variables, but combined these with the- matic linkages to discover trends of literary evolution on a far larger and diachronic scale than in this article (one could say that Jockers, as a quantitative formalist, demonstrated the popular formalist con- cept of the “defamiliarization” of literary language). As argued earlier, thematic variables should be dis- regarded in this case study. Nevertheless, I concur with Jockers’s view that networks are a powerful tool to “demonstrate literary imitation, intertextuality, and influence” (156). 67 For an elaborate explanation of PCA and its applicability to stylometry, see José Nilo G. Binongo and M. Wilfrid A. Smith, “The Application of Principal Components Analysis to Stylometry,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 14 (1999): 446–66. The PCA plots were drawn with the Matplotlib package available for Python: see John D. Hunter, “Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment,” Computing in Science and Engineering 9 (2007): 90–95. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1109%2FMCSE.2007.55&citationId=p_n_96 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1109%2FMCSE.2007.55&citationId=p_n_96 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqv061&citationId=p_n_91 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F14.4.445&citationId=p_n_95 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2F14.4.445&citationId=p_n_95 S204 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey PCA can never explain all the variance of the data, since it purposefully disregards many features and dimensions that it finds insignificant. It also has the tendency to produce somewhat nebulous scatter plots when texts are stylistically entangled (as is the case for Bernard and Nicholas). The Letters Bernard’s epistolary corpus is very complex, but a coherent structure has been recognized thanks to Jean Leclercq’s editorial achievements. Leclercq, whose termi- nology will be adopted here, has divided the corpus into a literary (intra corpus) and a nonliterary section (extra corpus).68 Bernard intended the letters in the intra cor- pus to circulate as a literary collection and kept refining them intensely throughout his life, whereas the second group of letters is scattered across time and manuscript traditions.69 Then, within the first section, the literary or intra corpus, we can make another division. Manuscript transmission allows us to distinguish between letters written before Nicholas’s arrival in the scriptorium and letters inserted later.70 The letters that date from before 1145 in an earlier first appearance are found in the brevis manuscripts, whereas those added to Bernard’s literary corpus afterwards can be found in the perfectum manuscripts. The perfectum corpus was assembled after Bernard’s death in 1153, possibly by Geoffrey of Auxerre, and contains, aside from the brevis letters, many new additions (Tables 3 and 4 give a detailed overview of which letters are included in either the brevis or perfectum samples).71 It is impor- 68 Leclercq separated the intra corpus (Epp. 1–310) from the extra corpus (Epp. 311–547) in the SBO. 69 Leclercq, SBO 8:233–38. 70 Leclercq, “Lettres de S. Bernard: Histoire où littérature?,” Recueil d’études, 4:158. 71 The main difference between the brevis and perfectum manuscripts is that the latter contain ver- sions of these letters that were clearly amended and lengthened. In the introduction to the edition of the intra corpus, Leclercq gives a full account of the arrangement of the different transmissions, in which he distinguishes three more or less homogeneous collections, two of which are the brevis and perfectum cycles, whose names have served as inspiration to how we labeled our chronologically ordered data. It should be noted that Leclercq mentions a third intermediary publication that we have decided to ex- clude from our main argument, namely the longior corpus, which was compiled by Geoffrey of Auxerre and was presumably published in 1145. The longior corpus already contains quite a few of the perfectum additions. However, this corpus is hard to date or reconstruct, making it less interesting for us to include in this study: see Leclercq, SBO 7:xv. We decided to make a distinction between the early brevis publi- cation, when Nicholas of Montiéramey was certainly absent from Clairvaux, and the later publication, when both of them, or an even more developed chancery, could have exerted influence on Bernard’s style. More specifically, the letters falling under the heading of brevis—written before 1145 and not to be con- fused with Leclercq’s brevis manuscript collection—can be consulted under the following indices: Epp. 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 24, 25, 42, 65, 67–70, 72, 73, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 87–89, 91, 95, 96, 98, 102, 104, 106, 107, 111, 113, 114, 117–19, 124–27, 129–33, 136, 139, 141, 143, 150, 152, 156, 158, 159, 168, 169, 178, 212, and 254. The letters that fall under the heading of perfectum—not to be confused with the perfectum cycle as it is described by Leclercq, but corresponding to all letters that were written after 1145 and remained unmentioned in the brevis data—are to be found under these indices: Epp. 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–23, 26–41, 43–64, 66, 71, 74–77, 80, 81, 84, 86, 90, 92–94, 97, 99–101, 103, 105, 108– 10, 112, 115, 116, 120–23, 128, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 142, 144–49, 151, 153–55, 157, 160–67, 170–77, 179–211, 213–53, and 255–310. However, these letters were categorized according to their date of publication (brevis and perfectum) and split up into samples. A full inventory of which letters can be found under which sample in the figures is provided in the Appendix of Tables (see Tables 3–7). Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). F ig . 1 . N et w o rk vi su al iz at io n o f B er n ar d o f C la ir va u x ’ ep is to la ry co rp u s co m p ar ed to N ic h o la s o f M o n ti ér am ey ’s le tt er s an d se rm o n s. This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.ed u/ t-and-c). F ig . 2 . P ri n ci p al C o m p o n en ts A n al ys is o f B er n ar d o f C la ir va u x ’ ep is to la ry co rp u s co m p ar ed to N ic h o la s o f M o n ti ér am ey ’s le tt er s an d se rm o n s. This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicag o.e du/t-and-c). Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S207 tant to note that those letters which were already found in the brevis manuscripts and reoccur in the perfectum corpus have sometimes considerably changed in the eight years between the two appearances. After all, Bernard’s aim was to compose a unified piece of literature. He corrected, rearranged, and selected throughout his life. Importantly, Leclercq’s edition of Bernard’s literary letter corpus, which we use in these experiments, is almost entirely based on the perfectum transmission, which enjoyed the most popular circulation.72 We therefore do not work strictly with the brevis corpus in its original pre-1145 form, but with a group of letters that was col- lectively reworked and jointly disseminated. This condition of the texts is a flaw in the experiment that should be kept in mind during the analysis. Moreover, as men- tioned earlier, Bernard’s extra letters have not known a homogeneous transmission but have been handed down to us under divergent circumstances. The corpus there- fore required some reorganization. Since Leclercq’s edition allows us to assign indi- vidual letters to discrete periods, we decided to divide the extra corpus into three time-bound parts to see if Nicholas’s arrival came with a stylistic impact: the first part dates from before 1140, the second between 1140 and 1145, and the third from 1145 onwards.Those extra letters that are of questionable dating andaddressee have been left out of our experiments, for they cannot contribute to a study of Bernard’s stylistic evolution through the influence of his secretaries (Table 5 in the appendix gives a full overview of which extra letters were included or excluded). In Fig. 1 (k-NN) and Fig. 2 (PCA) we have applied the statistical methods de- scribed above to calculate and visualize the stylistic differences between Bernard’s letter corpus and Nicholas’s authentic sermons and letters.73 For each of these tech- niques, we have provided three additional subplots, which highlight how the differ- ent corpora are positioned within the clusters. There appear to be two general, ob- servable dynamics, confirmed both by k-NN and PCA. Firstly, the writing style in Bernard of Clairvaux’s letters is fairly coherent and forms a distinguishable cluster separated from Nicholas’s works. Nevertheless—and this is the second, more hid- den dynamic—our chronological and codicological rearrangements in the corpus have laid bare a gradual, subtle disturbance in Bernard’s stylistic signal from 1140 onwards, corresponding to the approximate time of Nicholas’s arrival in Clairvaux and seemingly moving towards the latter’s cluster.74 Yet, two major remarks are in order. Firstly, although the perfectum additions were indeed inserted into the liter- ary corpus from 1140 onwards, some of them must have been first composed at a time before Nicholas’s arrival. For example, sample in_10 of the perfectum addi- tions, which draws closest to Nicholas’s cluster of all literary samples (only in the PCA, not in the k-NN network), contains letters that revolve around the schism be- tween Antipope Anacletus and Pope Innocentius II, a series of events that occurred between 1130 and 1138.75 Although Nicholas was not yet part of Bernard’s entou- rage during these events and was therefore likely not involved in their first redac- 72 Leclercq, SBO 7:xvi. 73 See n. 6 for a listing of the sermons under consideration. For Nicholas’s letters, see PL 196:1593– 1654. 74 Turcan-Verkerk, “L’introduction de l’ars dictaminis en France,” 70. 75 The sample (in_10) contains Epp. 128, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147 (SBO 7:321–51). Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). S208 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey tion, he was nevertheless present when they were first sent out collectively with the other perfectum letters. However, if any refinement was imposed on these letters af- ter 1140, it seems likely that Bernard, as the author, would have been the one to do so, not Nicholas, although technically the latter’s interference is possible. The second remark ties in to the problem we have just raised. Although both fig- ures show a diachronic stylistic shift, PCA slightly adjusts k-NN’s inference that this shift has a determined direction towards Nicholas. The ex_ samples rather “float” around Nicholas’s vicinity but never fully coincide. This suggests that the distur- bances in Bernard’s stylistic signal should not necessarily be as “monocausal” or “directional” as the k-NN network suggests, a nuance that reciprocates the his- torical skepticism raised in our first remark. Countless other variables aside from Nicholas’s interference could have contributed to the subtle stylistic change in Ber- nard’s letter corpus. One factor could be the lapse of time and Bernard’s personal de- velopment.76 Another is the respective corpus’s divergent transmission history. But perhaps the most crucial reason for PCA’s less outspoken directionality is that Ber- nard did not have just one secretary. Although Nicholas was the scriptorium’s head- man, this experiment undoubtedly simplifies or fragmentizes its diversity of styles and personalities. We might even be surprised that Bernard’s letters—considering the circumstances under which they were conceived—still display this amount of sty- listic coherence (although there might have been a more outspoken divergence if we had been able to oppose the very original brevis corpus to the published versions). This does not alter the fact that the plots’ gravitation towards Nicholas’s Latin style, which was of a very schooled nature,77 might hold some historical ground. As Bernard more and more became a public figure, he increasingly began requiring the 76 There is a considerable amount of literature that argues that such an evolution of personal style through time can be captured computationally by applying so-called stylochronometrical methods. For a concise overview of this subfield in computational stylistics, see Constantina Stamou, “Stylochronom- etry: Stylistic Development, Sequence of Composition, and Relative Dating,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23 (2008): 181–99. 77 Nicholas’s style has often been deemed schooled and unoriginal: see Constable, The Letters of Pe- ter the Venerable, 2:328; and Leclercq, “Les collections de sermons de Nicolas de Clairvaux,” 1:55: “Ses exposés superficiels se développent selon un plan scolaire, en un style artificiel.” Likewise, Dorette Sabersky argued that “the syntactical structure of his sentences is similar to Bernard’s, but often clum- sier, less clear, less elegant, and rhythmically less balanced. His frequent use of word plays is at times rather superficial and, in opposition to Bernard’s use, of little importance to the development of the contents. Repetitions of certain phrases and topics occur every so often. He favors rather unusual words and likes to quote classical authors. His literary exertions are only too obvious. All these aspects evidence Nicholas’ lack of Bernard’s creative spontaneity and mastery of language,” in “The Style of Nicholas of Clairvaux’s Letters,” in Erudition at God’s Service, Studies in Medieval Cistercian History 11, Cistercian Studies Series 98, ed. John R. Sommerfeldt (Kalamazoo, 1987), 196. However, it is all the more peculiar and contradictory to these former statements that—even until very recently—attempts were made to at- tribute texts to Nicholas on the grounds of phrasing tics and certain lexical preferences (e.g., neologisms): see Patricia Stirnemann and Dominique Poirel, “Nicolas de Montiéramey, Jean de Salisbury et deux florilèges d’auteurs antiques,” Revue d’histoire des textes 1 (2006): 173–88. Either such attribution methods should be challenged (perhaps rightly so; their word and phrase concordances form particularly dangerous grounds for attributing authorship in a twelfth-century context that boasts such a high degree of “plagiarism”) or the statement that Nicholas has no style of his own should be withdrawn. I am con- vinced of the latter. Our computational experiments show that Nicholas, despite being an imitator, has a very controlled and rather clean authorial signal. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqm029&citationId=p_n_110 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1093%2Fllc%2Ffqm029&citationId=p_n_110 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S209 support of scribes to take on administrative tasks, be it in Clairvaux or on excep- tional occasions elsewhere.78 These scribes would have received a similar training or education. We can assume that most were under Nicholas’s supervision, which meant that they departed from a common framework or set of rules from which they set out to imitate Bernard. This had become the nature of the epistolary writing art, or ars dictaminis.79 Letters were constructed on the basis of similar formulas, abounded in clever wordplay, and the rhythms of their prose pulsated under com- parable cadences.80 Diplomats, ambassadors, and secretaries would inspire one an- other in a network of correspondence or share these rhetorical devices within their scriptoria.81 These practices might have considerably reshaped the stylistic homoge- neity that is evident in the writings of Bernard from his earlier days, when he relied on a far smaller number of secretaries and had more time at his disposal so that he 78 Bernard would not necessarily have found help only in Clairvaux. It is conceivable that when he was occupied with the turbulent matters of the schism and was traveling through Italy he called for the assistance of papal scribes to whom he could dictate his messages. The papal notaries, educated in the ars dictaminis, would in fact have been schooled in a similar tradition as Nicholas, who had visited Rome and moreover corresponded with at least three popes during his lifetime: see Constable, “Dic- tators and Diplomats,” 43. This could also explain why brevis samples in_12 and in_13, which like- wise have the schism as their subject, somewhat pair with letters that were added to the corpus later and not with the other brevis letters, which cling more closely together. The samples in_12 and 13 con- tain Epp. 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 139, 141, and 143 (SBO 7:309–43). For a concise overview of Bernard’s interference in the papal schism and its importance for his public career, see the subchapter “A Leading Figure in the Papal Schism 1130–38,” in Brian Patrick McGuire, “Bernard’s Life and Works,” in McGuire, A Companion to Bernard of Clairvaux, 40–47. For information on the papal chancery, see Christopher Robert Cheney, The Study of the Medieval Papal Chancery: The Second Edwards Lecture Delivered within the University of Glasgow on 7th December (Glasgow, 1966), 20–21. “Instructions about the framing of papal letters may be found in chancery ordinances and in guide-books for chancery clerks; these help to elucidate the legal principles which underly the phraseology.” The writing style of the papacy’s chancery must have served as an important model to all clerks and diplomats both in ecclesiastical and worldly contexts. 79 See Ronald Witt, “Medieval ‘ars dictaminis’ and the Beginnings of Humanism: A New Construc- tion of the Problem,” Renaissance Quarterly 35 (1982): 1–35. 80 With “comparable cadences” I am here referring to rhetorical devices such as the cursus: see Tore Janson, Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century (Stockholm, 1975). The cursus has also been tested as a feature for authorship attribution: see Linda Spinazzè, “‘Cursus in clausula,’ an Online Analysis Tool of Latin Prose,” Proceedings of the Third AIUCD Annual Confer- ence on Humanities and Their Methods in the Digital Ecosystem, ed. Francesca Tomasi, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco, and Anna Maria Tammaro, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Inter- national Conference Proceedings Series (ICPS), (New York, 2014), 10:1–6. 81 On the subject of the ars dictaminis, see Giles Constable, Letters and Letter-Collections (Turn- hout, 1976), 34–35: “This tendency towards a personalization of style and contents in eleventh- and twelfth-century epistolography was paralleled by a tendency, which was in some respects contra- dictory, towards formalization, which was represented by the emergence of the discipline known as the dictamen or ars dictandi, with teachers (dictatores), text-books (artes or summae dictaminis), and col- lections of model letters (formularies). Although dictamen now emerged for the first time as a discipline with clearly formulated rules, it had roots deep in the past and was connected in ways which are still not fully understood with the epistolographical rules and traditions which went back to Antiquity. . . . In the course of the twelfth century the number both of teachers and of text-books of dictamen spread rapidly, first in Italy and later, in the second half of the century, north of the Alps. Various schools developed with different styles, as at Bologna and Orleans; and although in the earlier twelfth century a certain number of writers, like St. Bernard and Peter the Venerable, who knew about dictamen, did not observe its rules, its influence was all but universal by the end of the century.” Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&system=10.2307%2F2861451&citationId=p_n_120 S210 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey could be present during the various phases of composition. We know of Bernard’s increasing discomfort concerning the fact that he felt obliged to delegate the writing of his letters and sermons to assistants, and his dissatisfaction with some of them when it came to grasping the sensus of his message.82 Perhaps to his own frustration, Bernard was increasingly forced to have faith in the reliability of such scribes as Nicholas to reformulate his initial dictation in a letter that conformed to the style and content Bernard had intended. The extra letters would have received far less re- vision, resulting in the kind of hybrids that float towards middle ground in the figure. The Sermons In this second visualization we put Nicholas’s word to the test. Firstly, assuming that the secretary speaks the “truth”83 in his letter to Henry the Liberal, which Le- clercq cited as the most striking example of his plagiarism, we expect that a small number of sermons that occur in Bernard’s De diversis, namely 6, 7, 21, 62, 83, 100, and 104, could be attributed to him instead. On the side, we test if his claims to Hugh’s commentaries on the Psalms, which were also mentioned in the letter, hold any ground.84 In a second phase, we follow up on Henri Rochais’ conclusions that Bernard—not Nicholas—wrote De diversis 40, 41, and 42.85 In fact, the De diversis collection in its entirety is worth testing here, as it suffers from some con- siderable issues of authenticity, provenance, and dating and might contain other traces of Nicholas’s presence. The corpus comprises an assembly of unpolished and rudimentary sermons found in various, heterogeneous manuscripts, conceivably written down by secretaries and granted little revision by Bernard (unless if they were reused elsewhere).86 Bernard never disseminated the De diversis sermons him- self. They were gathered after his death and passed on for several centuries until Jean Mabillon enumerated and published them in the seventeenth century. Leclercq and Rochais maintained Mabillon’s structure in their edition.87 Secondly, we have in- cluded the Sermones super Cantica canticorum, Bernard’s literary masterpiece, as the cleanest possible specimen of Bernard’s literary style to benchmark against these texts.88 82 “Multitudo negotiorum in culpa est, quia dum scriptores nostri non bene retinent sensum nos- trum, ultra modum acuunt stilum suum, nec videre possum quae scribi praecepi,” Bernard, Ep. 387 (SBO 8:355–56). 83 “The medieval idea of truth . . . was subjective and personal rather than, as today, objective and impersonal”: see Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism,” 23. 84 Bernard, De diversis 6, 7, 21, 62, 83, 100, 104 (SBO 6/1:105–7, 107–11, 168–70, 295, 324, 367, 374–75). Nicholas used the phrase “aliosque sermones” in the prefatory letter in MS Harley 3073, Recueil d’études, 1:50, referring to the aforementioned sermons, a few other texts by Bernard, and, finally, Hugh of St. Victor’s chapters on the Psalms gathered in the second book of his Miscellanea (PL 177:589). 85 Rochais, “Saint Bernard est-il l’auteur des sermons 40, 41 et 42?,” 324–45. 86 Leclercq, SBO 6/1:59–71. 87 Françoise Callerot, “Introduction,” in Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons divers, ed. Jean Leclercq, Henri Rochais, and Charles H. Talbot, 3 vols. (Paris, 2006), 1:21. 88 Bernard must have started composing its beginnings around the end of 1135, but never commen- tated the entire Song of Songs. They are, nevertheless, regarded as his life’s work and greatest literary achievement: see Leclercq, SBO 1:xv–xvi. Leclercq argues Bernard must have passed away before he Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). F ig . 3 . N et w o rk vi su al iz at io n o f B er n ar d o f C la ir va u x ’ Se rm o n es su p er C an ti ca C an ti co ru m an d Se rm o n es d e d iv er si s co m p ar ed to N ic h o la s o f M o n ti ér am ey ’s le tt er s an d se rm o n s an d H u gh o f St V ic to r’ s co m m en ta ri es o n th e P sa lm s. This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchic ag o.ed u/t-and-c). F ig . 4 . P ri n ci p al C o m p o n en ts A n al ys is o f B er n ar d o f C la ir va u x ’ Se rm o n es su p er C an ti ca C an ti co ru m an d Se rm o n es d e d iv er si s co m p ar ed to N ic h o la s o f M o n ti ér am ey ’s le tt er s an d se rm o n s an d H u gh o f St V ic to r’ s co m m en ta ri es o n th e P sa lm s. This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.e du /t-a nd-c). Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S213 Fig. 3 (k-NN) and Fig. 4 (PCA) feature the results of matching up these texts. Firstly, when examining the visualizations, it is striking how the diversity of Ber- nard’s De diversis is indeed captured. PCA, especially, demonstrates a discernible stylistic incoherence, as the samples burst open all over the plot (especially along the vertical axis of the second principal component), at times suggesting the interfer- ence of writers other than Nicholas or Bernard in their composition. Other samples gravitate in between Nicholas and Bernard, and in some cases Nicholas’s influence on the style is undeniable. Before discussing some contingent subjects of interest, let us focus on the primary questions at hand. De diversis 6, 7, 21, 62, 83, 100, and 104, which Nicholas included in the letter to Count Henry the Liberal (they are split up in two red samples labeled with le_ of Leclercq), do not betray an obvious affin- ity to Nicholas’s style (although le_1 is not far off). Neither are they unambiguously Bernard’s. Both samples diverge strongly from Bernard’s cluster and seem too hy- brid in nature to be restrained to either of the authors’ clusters. The case rather demonstrates how difficult it is to defend such concepts as “single authorship” and “textual theft” in a medieval context: the le_ samples are clearly not of a “singular” style (neither Nicholas’s style nor Bernard’s) but defy classification. In fact, if we compare both k-NN and PCA, Nicholas’s influence in sample le_1 seems consider- ably larger than Bernard’s. It has by now become an untenable simplification to ar- gue that Nicholas has stolen these sermons, especially if we review the results of our second case, that of De diversis 40, 41, and 42 (four red samples labeled with ro_ of Rochais): although the sermons emanate from Bernardian thought, k-NN and PCA unambiguously cluster all three sermons together with those written by Nich- olas, not Bernard. There are some less straightforward developments on the side. Hugh of St. Vic- tor’s presence in both attribution problems remains somewhat unclear. Nicholas included Hugh’s commentaries on the Psalms in his collection, yet Figs. 3 and 4 show that he was unlikely to have been the (only) author of this incohesive text (see the purple hu_ samples, of which hu_9 comes closest to Nicholas).89 Vice versa, De diversis 40 (first part of the dubious ro_ samples) is collected in Hugh of St. Vic- tor’s Miscellanea. Would Nicholas have known Hugh well, and would they have collaborated before the latter’s death in 1141? There is no proof of a direct acquain- tance. Nicholas’s musical sequences seem largely based on those of Adam of St. Vic- tor, Hugh’s choirmaster, but these texts enjoyed a popular circulation, so the sim- 89 Manuscript studies have argued that they can only be of Hugh’s hand: see Joseph de Ghellinck, “Hugues de Saint-Victor,” in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 18 vols. (Paris, 1922–72), 7:245. Al- though he admits that the Miscellanea is a confluence of the apocryphal and the authentic, de Ghellinck based his findings on the Indiculum of Hugh’s writings. The commentaries on the Psalms often occur among Hugh’s authentic works in the manuscript transmission. This has been confirmed in the exhaus- tive study of the dissemination of Hugh’s oeuvre in Rudolf Goy, Die Überlieferung der Werke Hugos von St. Viktor: Ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte des Mittelalters, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 14 (Stuttgart, 1976), 58–63. had the chance to finish his work, but it is more likely that Bernard never had the intention of discuss- ing all the Canticles and has delivered us a finished work of literature: see Wim Verbaal, “Les sermons sur le cantique de saint Bernard: Un chef d’oeuvre achevé?,” Collectanea Cisterciensa 61 (1999): 167– 85. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). S214 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey ilarity does not necessarily presuppose a personal tie.90 For Bernard and Hugh, however, the connections are less far-fetched. We know they corresponded.91 Hugh incorporated an entire letter he received from Bernard in his acclaimed masterpiece, the De sacramentis.92 Likewise, Figs. 3 and 4 show that samples di_46 and di_47 of Bernard’s De diversis bear some affinity with Hugh’s commentaries. These samples comprise the very last additions to Bernard’s corpus, De diversis 112–25. They are shorter texts, which have not always been accompanied by the preceding sermons but must have circulated as a separate unit in manuscript transmission. Mabillon has argued that their provenance differs from that of the other De diversis sermons in a footnote,93 thereby perhaps showing some wariness as to the authenticity of the works.94 Although they might be Hugh’s, we find that the textual style of both Bernard’s De diversis and Hugh’s commentaries is too unreliable to provide closure. The case for the triangular writing relationship between these authors is compelling, but there is insufficient historical proof to corroborate speculations of a collabora- tion between Nicholas and Hugh. Conclusion Jean Leclercq, in aspiring to discern the psychological personality of the author behind any given historical text, conceded the difficulty of infiltrating the “screen of rhetoric” so characteristic to twelfth-century literature, referring to its predilec- tions of imitation and formal rigidness.95 The surface of the medieval text can strike one as impenetrable. In a similar vein, Giles Constable has argued for medieval epis- 90 “Since Nicolas is known for his plagiarism and incorporated the work of Hugh of St. Victor in the collection of his own opera dedicated to Count Henry, the suspicion arises that Nicolas modeled his work directly on that of Hugh’s colleague, Adam of St. Victor”: John F. Benton, “Nicolas of Clairvaux and the Twelfth-Century Sequence,” Traditio 18 (1962): 149–179, at 154. 91 Bernard, Ep. 77, “Ad magistrum Hugonem de Sancto Victore,” SBO 7:184–200; also see Hugh Feiss, “Bernardus Scholasticus: The Correspondence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of Saint Victor on Baptism,” in Bernardus Magister: Papers Presented at the Nonacentenary Celebration of the Birth of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, ed. John R. Sommerfeldt, Commentarii Cistercienses 135 (Spencer, MA, 1992), 349–78. 92 “Adding to the complications of De sacramentis as a text is Hugh’s incorporation of passages not only from his own prior works but also from other theologians, patristic and contemporary, sometimes named but often without any attribution at all. In this respect, Hugh nicely represents the overall con- cern of twelfth-century authors to synthesize their sources”: Paul Rorem, Hugh of St. Victor, Great Medieval Thinkers (New York, 2009), 60. 93 The earliest editions of Bernard’s Opera omnia did not yet include these sermons. It was not until its publication by printer Johann Herwagen of Basel in 1566 that De diversis 112–25 found its place among the Sermones de diversis: see Gerhard B. Winkler, trans., Bernhard von Clairvaux: Sämtliche Werke, 10 vols. (Innsbruck, 1990–99), 9:882Lh, 884To. Jean Mabillon relied on Jacobus Pamelius’s edi- tion of these sermons; see note to PL 183:739. 94 Jean Mabillon was aware of the fact that Herwagen’s and Pamelius’s editions were to be ap- proached with great caution when it comes to attribution. Herwagen’s and Pamelius’s collections of Bede’s works are examples of how these editors “ignored and altered rubrics, expurgated passages, disregarded section breaks, and lied outright about the Bedan origins of their material:” Nathan J. Ristuccia, “The Herwagen Preacher and His Homiliary,” Sacris Erudiri 52 (2013): 188. 95 Jean Leclercq, “Modern Psychology and the Interpretation of Medieval Texts,” Speculum 48 (1973): 476–90, at 476. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&crossref=10.1484%2FJ.SE.1.103828&citationId=p_n_147 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?doi=10.1086%2F694188&system=10.2307%2F2854444&citationId=p_n_148 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S215 tolography—and he may well have found the statement applicable to all twelfth- century texts—that “style alone is not a reliable guide to authorship,” and that “even today some of the works of Nicholas of Montieramey, who was clearly an accom- plished mimic, are not easy to distinguish from those of Bernard and other writ- ers.”96 Yet this trait of medieval texts, which is primarily qualitative and open to sub- jective interpretation, is elusive only in a close-reading approach97 and seems not to present a problem when form is quantified in a distant-reading approach. Compu- tational stylistics disables the distracting semantics in which Nicholas’s style is em- bedded, and patterns the turns of phrase that reveal his presence (or that of a chan- cery working under his lead). It can only follow, then, that Nicholas’s reputation of being Bernard’s pale shadow is a construction by readers who have undoubtedly experienced the difficulty of peering through the curtain of imitation, citation, and formalization when it comes to recognizing the author behind the text. It turns out that, if Nicholas’s style is not “distinguished,” in the sense that it can be judged as of a high literary value, it is nonetheless distinguishable. This does not simply mean that the application of computational stylistics results merely in giving an individualized coloration to the question of authorship. A glance at each of the figures in this article demonstrates the interconnectedness (or “infinite shadings,” in Constable’s words)98 laid out as networks between these two authors. Computational stylistics therefore does not simply force us to choose a side in the medieval authorship dilemma, which is infinitely fought out along the axes of the “individual” and the “distributional.” It rather becomes these axes and reenacts the tension field as is. Neither is Nicholas’s and Bernard’s collaboration depicted as a hierarchical “author-scribe” relationship in one-sided text classifications, nor must we seek refuge in a stopgap conception of infinite authority and authorship. This approach embraces both an acknowledge- ment that the practice of cooperative medieval authorship is complex, and a refusal tobelievethatmedievalauthorshipisinterminablydiffuse.Therefore,computational stylistics provides valuable tools with which to validate or contradict contrasting the- ories with objective material, taking the voices from the past at face value and open- ing up avenues to rethink our approach to medieval texts in literary theory, text ed- iting, and historical studies. 96 Constable, Letters and Letter-Collections, 50. 97 Nicholas has often been accused of having a style filled with platitudes or even of having no style of his own at all; see n. 77. 98 Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism,” 3. Speculum 92/S1 (October 2017) This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). F ig . 5 . P ri n ci p al C o m p o n en ts A n al ys is lo ad in gs fo r F ig . 2 . F u n ct io n w o rd s th at sw ar m ar o u n d au th o r’ s cl u st er ar e m o st d is ti n ct iv e fo r th at au th o r. S216 This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.e du /t-and-c). F ig . 6 . P ri n ci p al C o m p o n en ts A n al ys is lo ad in gs fo r F ig . 2 . F u n ct io n w o rd s th at sw ar m ar o u n d au th o r’ s cl u st er ar e m o st d is ti n ct iv e fo r th at au th o r. S217 This content downloaded from 141.134.041.197 on October 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.e du /t-and-c). S218 Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey Appendix of Tables Table 1 Most Frequent Function Words for Figs. 1–2 (The Letters) 1–25 26–50 51–75 76–100 101–125 126–150 et que sine tamquam iuxta donec in sibi nam ante verum cito qui pro ita utique itaque nimirum non enim magis contra pote numquam is vel vero nullus secundum cur hic ex apud igitur multum plane quod autem bene certe quando absque ego ne tantus aliquis alter quatenus sed per inter dum ibi proinde de aut immo semper tunc ceterum ut tamen propter videlicet sane longe ad iam quippe quidam uterque pariter ille quo quoque quisquis nemo facile si quidem idem siquidem omnino at ab sic ac sub sive inde cum iste solum satis profecto simul quis alius denique usque nonne ubique suus nisi talis quantum prius tandem ipse super quoniam numquid porro ideo quam etiam adhuc neque ample coram meus tam atque an alioqui huiusmodi quia ergo quantus post vere iterum nec ubi quomodo unquam utinam rursus nos sicut etsi quasi libenter quisque noster nunc unde minus interim parve Speculum 92 All use sub /S1 (October 2 This content d ject to University 017) ownloaded from 141 of Chicago Press Te .134.041.197 on Oc rms and Conditions tober 14, 2017 02:26 (http://www.journals Table 2 Most Frequent Function Words for Figs. 3–4 (The Sermons) 1–25 26–50 51–75 76–100 101–125 126–150 et nos nam uterque iuxta seipse in per quoniam aliquis quisquis item qui ex inter tunc videlicet quicumque non autem denique solum apud an hic noster magis sane profecto donec is que nunc quando scilicet certe sed vel unde igitur prius vere ad ergo quidam ante nemo quisque ille quidem sine talis parve absque quod tamen propter post porro interim ut iste quasi bene plane unquam de pro tam nullus ibi numquam ego iam atque sub contra quantum cum alius quomodo omnino immo pote suus ne quoque usque nonne prorsus :14 AM .uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Table 2 (continued) 1–25 26–50 51–75 76–100 101–125 126–150 ab etiam tamquam semper at semetipse si aut ac quippe nimirum pariter ipse sic tantus sive nihilominus amen quis sicut idem alter primum proinde quia quo neque minus propterea satis sibi nisi utique etsi verum huiusmodi meus vero adhuc inde nempe numquid enim super dum siquidem una hinc nec ita quantus itaque multum aliquando quam ubi secundum ideo longe prae Table 2 (continued) All use subj This content d ect to University ownloaded from 141 of Chicago Press Ter .134.041.197 on Oc ms and Conditions tober 14, 2017 02:26:1 (http://www.journals.u Table 3 Description of Sample Contents (3,000 words) for Bernard’s intra Corpus (brevis Publication) in Figs. 1–2 Sample (3,000 words) Contents Sample (3,000 words) contents sample_n SBO index and paragraph sample_n SBO index and paragraph in_1 epp. 1.1–13 in_9 epp. 89.3ff., 91, 95, 96, 98, 102, 104, 106,107.1–3 in_2 epp. 1.13ff., 2.1–12 in_10 epp. 107.3ff., 111, 113.1–2 in_3 epp. 2.12ff., 8, 11.1–5 in_11 epp. 113.2ff., 114, 117, 118, 119, 124, 125, 126.2 in_4 epp. 11.5ff., 12, 24, 25, 42, 65, 67.1–1 in_12 epp. 126.2ff., 127.1–2 in_5 epp. 67.1ff., 68, 69, 70, 72.1–3 in_13 epp. 127.2ff., 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 139, 141, 143.1–3 in_6 epp. 72.3ff., 73, 78.1–11 in_14 epp. 143.3ff., 150, 152, 156, 158, 159, 168, 169, 178.1–5 in_7 epp. 78.11ff., 79, 82, 83, 85, 87.1–2 in_8 epp. 87.2ff., 88, 89.1–3 4 AM chicago.edu/t-and-c). T a b le 4 D es cr ip ti o n o f Sa m p le C o n te n ts (3 ,0 0 0 w o rd s) fo r B er n ar d ’s in tr a C o rp u s (p er fe ct u m P u b li ca ti o n ) in F ig s. 1 – 2 Sa m p le (3 ,0 0 0 w o rd s) C o n te n ts Sa m p le (3 ,0 0 0 w o rd s) C o n te n ts sa m p le _n SB O in d ex an d p ar ag ra p h sa m p le _n SB O in d ex an d p ar ag ra p h in _1 ep p . 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 .1 – 9 in _1 4 ep p . 1 8 8 .1 ff ., 1 8 9 , 1 9 0 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 , 1 9 5 , 1 9 6 .1 in _2 ep p . 7 .9 ff ., 9 , 1 0 in _1 5 ep p . 1 9 6 .1 ff ., 1 9 7 , 1 9 8 , 9 9 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 5 , 2 0 6 , 2 0 7 in _3 ep p . 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 3 .1 – 4 in _1 6 ep p . 2 0 8 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 , 2 1 4 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 1 .1 in _4 ep p .2 3 .4 ff ., 2 6 ,2 8 ,2 9 ,3 0 ,3 1 ,3 2 ,3 3 ,3 4 ,3 5 ,3 6 ,3 7 .1 in _1 7 ep p . 2 2 1 .1 ff ., 2 2 2 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 4 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 6 , 2 2 7 in _5 ep p . 3 7 .1 ff ., 3 8 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 in _1 8 ep p . 2 2 8 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 3 , 2 3 4 , 2 3 5 , 2 3 6 .1 in _6 ep p . 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 , 5 7 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 0 , 6 1 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 6 4 , 6 6 in _1 9 ep p . 2 3 6 .1 ff ., 2 3 7 , 2 3 8 , 2 3 9 , 2 4 0 .2 in _7 ep p . 7 1 , 7 4 , 7 5 , 7 6 , 7 7 , 8 0 , 8 1 , 8 4 , 8 6 , 9 0 , 9 2 , 9 3 , 9 4 , 9 7 .1 in _2 0 ep p . 2 4 0 .2 ff ., 2 4 1 , 2 4 2 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 4 .3 in _8 ep p . 9 7 .1 ff ., 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 8 .1 in _2 1 ep p . 2 4 4 .3 ff ., 2 4 5 , 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 , 2 4 8 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 , 2 5 3 .1 in _9 ep p . 1 0 8 .1 ff ., 1 0 9 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 5 , 1 1 6 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 8 in _2 2 ep p . 2 5 3 .1 ff ., 2 5 5 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 , 2 5 8 , 2 5 9 in _1 0 ep p . 1 3 4 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 7 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 6 , 1 4 7 .1 – 2 in _2 3 ep p . 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 3 , 2 6 4 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 7 , 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 , 2 7 4 , 2 7 5 in _1 1 ep p . 1 4 7 .2 ff ., 1 4 8 , 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 7 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 4 , 1 6 5 , 1 6 6 .1 in _2 4 ep p . 2 7 6 , 2 7 7 , 2 7 8 , 2 7 9 , 2 8 0 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 3 , 2 8 4 , 2 8 5 , 2 8 6 in _1 2 ep p . 1 6 6 .1 ff ., 1 6 7 , 1 7 0 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 4 , 1 7 5 in _2 5 ep p . 2 8 6 , 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 , 2 8 9 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 4 , 2 9 5 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 0 , 3 0 1 .1 – 2 in _1 3 ep p .1 7 6 ,1 7 7 ,1 7 9 ,1 8 0 ,1 8 1 ,1 8 2 ,1 8 3 ,1 8 4 ,1 8 5 ,1 8 6 , 1 8 7 , 1 8 8 .1 All use s ubj Th ect to is con Univ ten ers t d ity ow of nlo Chi ade cag d f o P rom res S 1 s T 22 41. erm 0 134 s .04 and 1.1 Co 97 nd on itio Oc ns tob (htt er p:/ 14, /ww 20 w 17 .jou 02: rna 26: ls.u 14 A chic M ago.edu/t-and-c). Table 5 Description of sample contents (3000 words) for Bernard’s extra corpus (pre-1140) in figs. 1–2 Sample (3,000 words) Contents Sample (3,000 words) Contents sample_n SBO index and paragraph sample_n SBO index and paragraph ex_1 epp. 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 322.1 ex_3 epp. 397.4ff., 398, 399, 400, 406, 407, 410, 411, 413, 431, 432, 441, 449 ex_2 epp. 322.1ff., 324, 359, 391, 392, 394, 396, 397.1–4 All use subje S221 This content downloaded from 141.134 ct to University of Chicago Press Terms .041.197 on Oct and Conditions ( Table 6 Description of Sample Contents (3,000 words) for Bernard’s extra Corpus (1140–45) in Figs. 1–2 Sample (3,000 words) Contents Sample (3,000 words) Contents sample_n SBO index and paragraph sample_n SBO index and paragraph ex_1 epp. 320, 321, 323, 327, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338.1 ex_3 epp. 356, 357, 358, 360, 362, 385, 393, 416 ex_2 epp. 338.1ff., 339, 340, 341, 342, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, 355 ex_4 epp. 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 447, 505, 520, 523, 525 o h Table 7 Description of Sample Contents (3,000 Words) for Bernard’s extra Corpus (Post-1145) in Figs. 1–2 Sample (3,000 words) Contents Sample (3,000 words) Contents sample_n SBO index and paragraph sample_n SBO index and paragraph ex_1 epp. 328, 329, 345, 361, 363, 364, 365.1–2 ex_3 epp. 377.2ff., 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 387, 389, 390, 401, 402, 403.1–2 ex_2 epp. 365.2ff., 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 374, 375, 376, 377.1–2 ex_4 epp. 403.2ff., 409, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 451, 455, 457, 458, 508, 509, 515, 521 ber 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM ttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Table 8 Description of Sample Contents (3,000 words) for Nicholas’s Sermons and Letters in Figs. 1–2 Sample (3,000 words) Contents Sample (1,500 words) Contents sample_n PL (vol:col.) sample_n PL (vol:col.) ep_1 ep. 1 (196:1593a–1594b) ep. 32 (196:1623a–1623c) ep. 2 (196:1594b–1596a) ep. 33 (196:1623c–1625c) ep. 3 (196:1596b–1597b) ep. 34 (196:1625d–1626c) ep. 4 (196:1597b–1598c) ep_5 ep. 35 (196:1626d–1631a) ep. 5 (196:1598d–1600a) ep. 36 (196:1631b–1632c) ep. 6 (196:1600b–1601b) ep. 38 (196:1632c–1635b) ep. 7 (196:1601c–1601d) ep_6 ep. 38 (196:1635b–1636c) ep_2 ep. 7 (196:1601d–1603a) ep. 40 (196:1636d–1639d) ep. 8 (196:1603b–1605a) ep. 41 (196:1640a–1640b) ep. 9 (196:1605b–1605d) ep. 42 (196:1640c–1641c) ep. 10 (196:1606a–1607d) ep. 43 (196:1641c–1643b) ep. 11 (196:1608a–1608c) ep_7 ep. 43 (196:1643b–1644a) ep. 12 (196:1608c–1609a) ep. 44 (196:1644a–1645a) ep. 15 (196:1609b–1610a) ep. 45 (196:1645b–1646d) ep_3 ep. 15 (196:1610a–1610c) ep. 46 (196:1647a–1648c) ep. 16 (196:1610d–1613c) ep. 47 (196:1648d–1649a) ep. 17 (196:1613d–1616a) ep. 50 (196:1649c–1650c) ep. 18 (196:1616b–1617c) ep. 51 (196:1651a–1651d) ep. 19 (196:1617d–1618a) ep_4 ep. 23 (196:1618c–1619a) sm_8 sm. 23 (144:629c–637a) ep. 27 (196:1619c–1620a) sm. 27 (144:649a–649b) ep. 29 (196:1620b–1621c) sm_9 sm. 27 (144:649c–652c) ep. 31 (196:1621d–1622d) 9.42. hom. (144:548c–553a) sm_1 sm. 69 (144:897c–902b) sm_10 9.42. hom. (144:553b) sm. 43 (144:732b–735b) sm. 29 (144:660b–666a) sm_2 sm. 43 (144:735c–736b) sm. 26 (144:646b–647d) sm. 55 (144:811c–815c) sm_11 sm. 26 (144:648a–649a) sm. 56 (144:815d–818b) sm. 40 (144:717a–722c) sm_3 sm. 56 (144:818c–822d) sm. 44 (144:736b–737b) sm. 58 (144:828d–832a) sm_12 sm. 44 (144:737c–740d) sm_4 sm. 58 (144:832b–834c) sm. 47 (144:761c–765c) sm. 59 (144:834d–838d) sm. 11 (144:557a–558a) sm_5 sm. 11 (144:558b–563a) sm. 60 (144:839b–841d) sm_6 sm. 60 (144:842a–846a) sm. anonym. (144:848b–851d) sm_7 sm. anonym. (144:852a–853b) sm. 62 (144:853b–857c) sm. 23 (144:627b–629b) All use sub S222 This content downloaded from 141.1 ject to University of Chicago Press Term 34.041.197 on O s and Conditions ctober 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Table 9 Description of Sample Contents (1,500 words) for Bernard’s Sermones de diversis in Figs. 3–4 Sample (1,500 words) Contents Sample (1,500 words) Contents sample_n SBO index and paragraph sample_n SBO index and paragraph di_1 sm. 1.1–7 di_25 sm. 33.4ff., 34.1–3 di_2 sm. 1.7ff., 2.1–6 di_26 sm. 34.3ff., 45.1–5 di_3 sm. 2.6ff., 3.1–4 di_27 sm. 45.5ff., 47, 48, 49, 50.1–3 di_4 sm. 3.4ff., 4.1–2 di_28 sm. 50.3ff., 51, 52, 53, 54 di_5 sm. 4.2ff., 5.1–4 di_29 sm. 55, 56, 57.1 di_6 sm. 5.4ff., 8.1 di_30 sm. 57.1ff., 58, 59, 60, 61.1 di_7 sm. 8.1–8 di_31 sm. 61.1ff., 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 di_8 sm. 8.8ff., 10.1–2 di_32 sm. 69, 70, 71, 72.1–3 di_9 sm. 10.2ff., 11, 12.1–3 di_33 sm. 72.3ff., 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 di_10 sm. 12.3ff., 13, 14.1–4 di_34 sm. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85 di_11 sm. 14.4ff., 15.1–4 di_35 sm. 86, 87, 88.1 di_12 sm. 15.4ff., 16.1–6 di_36 sm. 88.1ff., 89, 90.1–5 di_13 sm. 16.6ff., 17.1–6 di_37 sm. 90.5ff., 91.1–7 di_14 sm. 17.6ff., 18, 19.1 di_38 sm. 91.7ff., 92, 93, 94.1 di_15 sm. 19.1ff., 20.1–3 di_39 sm. 94.1ff., 95, 96.1–3 di_16 sm. 20.3ff., 22.1–6 di_40 sm. 96.3ff., 97, 98 di_17 sm. 22.6ff., 23.1–4 di_41 sm. 99, 101, 102, 103.1–3 di_18 sm. 23.4ff., 24.1–4 di_42 sm. 103.3ff., 105, 106, 107.1–2 di_19 sm. 24.4ff., 25.1–8 di_43 sm. 107.2ff., 108, 109, 110, 111.1–4 di_20 sm. 25.8ff., 26, 27.1–2 di_44 sm. 111.4ff., 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118 di_21 sm. 27.2ff., 28.1–2 di_45 sm. 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124.1–2 di_22 sm. 28.2ff., 29.1–2 di_46 sm. 124.2ff., 125.1–3 di_23 sm. 29.2ff., 30, 31.1–3 di_24 sm. 31.3ff., 32, 33.1–4 All use subject This content downloaded from 14 to University of Chicago Press T S223 1.134.041.197 on erms and Conditio Table 10 Description of Sample Contents (1,500 words) for Bernard’s Sermones super Cantica canticorum in Figs. 3–4 Sample (1,500 words) Contents Sample (1,500 words) Contents sample_n SBO index and paragraph sample_n SBO index and paragraph sc_1 sm. 1.1–1.11 sc_56 sm. 42.6–43.2 sc_2 sm. 1.11–2.8 sc_57 sm. 43.2–44.5 sc_3 sm. 2.8–4.1 sc_58 sm. 44.5–45.6 sc_4 sm. 4.1–5.6 sc_59 sm. 45.6–46.4 sc_5 sm. 5.6–6.6 sc_60 sm. 46.4–47.3 sc_6 sm. 6.6–7.7 sc_61 sm. 47.3–48.3 sc_7 sm. 7.7–8.6 sc_62 sm. 48.3–49.1 sc_8 sm. 8.6–9.4 sc_63 sm. 49.1–50.1 sc_9 sm. 9.4–10.4 sc_64 sm. 50.1–50.8 Octob ns (ht er 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM tp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Table 10 (continued) Sample (1,500 words) Contents Sample (1,500 words) Contents sample_n SBO index and paragraph sample_n SBO index and paragraph sc_10 sm. 10.4–11.2 sc_65 sm. 50.8–51.8 sc_11 sm. 11.2–12.1 sc_66 sm. 51.8–52.6 sc_12 sm. 12.1–12.9 sc_67 sm. 52.6–53.6 sc_13 sm. 12.9–13.4 sc_68 sm. 53.6–54.4 sc_14 sm. 13.4–14.1 sc_69 sm. 54.4–54.10 sc_15 sm. 14.1–14.8 sc_70 sm. 54.10–56.1 sc_16 sm. 14.8–15.6 sc_71 sm. 56.1–57.2 sc_17 sm. 15.6–16.4 sc_72 sm. 57.2–57.9 sc_18 sm. 16.4–16.14 sc_73 sm. 57.9–58.6 sc_19 sm. 16.14–17.7 sc_74 sm. 58.6–59.1 sc_20 sm. 17.7–18.6 sc_75 sm. 59.1–59.9 sc_21 sm. 18.6–19.7 sc_76 sm. 59.9–60.8 sc_22 sm. 19.7–20.5 sc_77 sm. 60.8–61.5 sc_23 sm. 20.5–21.2 sc_78 sm. 61.5–62.3 sc_24 sm. 21.2–21.10 sc_79 sm. 62.3–63.2 sc_25 sm. 21.10–22.6 sc_80 sm. 63.2–64.3 sc_26 sm. 22.6–23.1 sc_81 sm. 64.3–65.1 sc_27 sm. 23.1–23.8 sc_82 sm. 65.1–65.8 sc_28 sm. 23.8–23.15 sc_83 sm. 65.8–66.7 sc_29 sm. 23.15–24.5 sc_84 sm. 66.7–66.14 sc_30 sm. 24.5–24.8 sc_85 sm. 66.14–67.7 sc_31 sm. 24.8–25.5 sc_86 sm. 67.7–68.3 sc_32 sm. 25.5–25.9 sc_87 sm. 68.3–69.2 sc_33 sm. 25.9–26.5 sc_88 sm. 69.2–70.1 sc_34 sm. 26.5–26.10 sc_89 sm. 70.1–70.8 sc_35 sm. 26.10–27.2 sc_90 sm. 70.8–71.6 sc_36 sm. 26.10–27.9 sc_91 sm. 71.6–71.14 sc_37 sm. 27.9–28.3 sc_92 sm. 71.14–72.5 sc_38 sm. 28.3–28.10 sc_93 sm. 72.5–73.2 sc_39 sm. 28.10–29.3 sc_94 sm. 73.2–73.9 sc_40 sm. 29.3–30.1 sc_95 sm. 73.9–74.7 sc_41 sm. 30.1–30.8 sc_96 sm. 74.7–75.3 sc_42 sm. 30.8–31.2 sc_97 sm. 75.3–75.11 sc_43 sm. 31.2–31.9 sc_98 sm. 75.11–76.8 sc_44 sm. 31.9–32.6 sc_99 sm. 76.8–77.4 sc_45 sm. 32.6–33.3 sc_100 sm. 77.4–78.5 sc_46 sm. 33.3–33.10 sc_101 sm. 78.5–79.4 sc_47 sm. 33.10–34.1 sc_102 sm. 79.4–80.4 sc_48 sm. 34.1–35.3 sc_103 sm. 80.4–81.3 sc_49 sm. 35.3–36.2 sc_104 sm. 81.3–81.9 sc_50 sm. 36.2–37.2 sc_105 sm. 81.9–82.4 sc_51 sm. 37.2–38.2 sc_106 sm. 82.4–83.4 sc_52 sm. 38.2–39.4 sc_107 sm. 83.4–84.4 sc_53 sm. 39.4–40.3 sc_108 sm. 84.4–85.4 sc_54 sm. 40.3–41.4 sc_109 sm. 85.4–85.11 sc_55 sm. 41.4–42.6 Table 10 (continued) All use subjec This content downloaded from 141.1 t to University of Chicago Press Term 34.041.197 on Oct s and Conditions ( ober 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Bernard of Clairvaux and Nicholas of Montiéramey S225 Table 11 Description of Sample Contents (1,500 words) for Nicholas’s Sermons and Letters in Figs. 3–4 Sample (1,500 words) Contents Sample (1,500 words) Contents sample_n PL (vol:col.) sample_n PL (vol:col.) ep_1 ep. 1 (196:1593a–1594b) ep_8 ep. 31 (196:1622c–1622d) ep. 2 (196:1594b–1596a) ep. 32 (196:1623a–1623c) ep. 3 (196:1596b–1597b) ep. 33 (196:1623c–1625c) ep_2 ep. 4 (196:1597b–1598c) ep. 34 (196:1625d–1626c) ep. 5 (196:1598d–1600a) ep_9 ep. 35 (196:1626d–1631a) ep. 6 (196:1600b–1601b) ep. 36 (196:1631b–1631c) ep. 7 (196:1601c–1601d) ep_10 ep. 36 (196:1631c–1632c) ep_3 ep. 7 (196:1601d–1603a) ep. 38 (196:1632c–1635b) ep. 8 (196:1603b–1605a) ep_11 ep. 38 (196:1635b–1636c) ep. 9 (196:1605b–1605d) ep. 40 (196:1636d–1639a) ep_4 ep. 10 (196:1606a–1607d) ep_12 ep. 40 (196:1639b–1639d) ep. 11 (196:1608a–1608c) ep. 41 (196:1640a–1640b) ep. 12 (196:1608c–1609a) ep. 42 (196:1640c–1641c) ep. 15 (196:1609b–1610a) ep. 43 (196:1641c–1643b) ep_5 ep. 15 (196:1610a–1610c) ep_13 ep. 43 (196:1643b–1644a) ep. 16 (196:1610d–1613c) ep. 44 (196:1644a–1645a) ep. 17 (196:1613d–1614a) ep. 45 (196:1645b–1646d) ep_6 ep. 17 (196:1614a–1616a) ep. 46 (196:1647a–1647c) ep. 18 (196:1616b–1617c) ep_14 ep. 46 (196:1647d–1648c) ep. 19 (196:1617d–1618a) ep. 47 (196:1648d–1649a) ep_7 ep. 23 (196:1618c–1619a) ep. 50 (196:1649c–1650c) ep. 27 (196:1619c–1620a) ep. 51 (196:1651a–1651d) ep. 29 (196:1620b–1621c) ep. 31 (196:1621d–1622c) sm_1 sm. 69 (144:897c–901c) sm_14 sm. 62 (144:856a–857c) sm_2 sm. 69 (144:901d–902b) sm. 23 (144:627b–629b) sm. 43 (144:732b–735b) sm_15 sm. 23 (144:629c–633b) sm_3 sm. 43 (144:735c–736b) sm_16 sm. 23 (144:633c–637a) sm. 55 (144:811c–814c) sm. 27 (144:649a–649b) sm_4 sm. 55 (144:814d–815c) sm_17 sm. 27 (144:649c–652c) sm. 56 (144:815d–818b) 9.42. hom. (144: 548c–549b) sm_5 sm. 56 (144:818c–822b) sm_18 9.42. hom. (144:549c–553a) sm_6 sm. 56 (144:822b–822d) sm_19 9.42. hom. (144:553b) sm. 58 (144:828d–832a) sm. 29 (144:660b–663d) sm_7 sm. 58 (144:832b–834c) sm_20 sm. 29 (144:664a–666a) sm. 59 (144:834d–836b) sm. 26 (144:646b–647d) sm_8 sm. 59 (144:836c–838d) sm_21 sm. 26 (144:648a–649a) sm_9 sm. 11 (144:557a–558a) sm. 40 (144:717a–719d) sm_10 sm. 11 (144:558b–561d) sm_22 sm. 40 (144:720a–722c) sm. 11 (144:562a–563a) sm. 44 (144:736b–737b) sm. 60 (144:839b–841d) sm_23 sm. 44 (144:737c–740d) sm_11 sm. 60 (144:842a–845d) sm. 47 (144:761c–761d) sm_12 sm. 60 (144:846a) sm_24 sm. 47 (144:762a–765c) sm. anonym. (144:848b–851d) sm_25 sm. 47 (144:766a–766b) sm. anonym. (144:852a–853b) sm. 52 (144:794b–797b) sm_13 sm. 62 (144:853b–855d) All use subjec This content downloaded from 141.13 t to University of Chicago Press Term Sp 4.041.197 on Oc s and Conditions Jeroen De Gussem, Ghent University (jedgusse.degussem@ugent.be) eculum 92/S1 (October 2017) tober 14, 2017 02:26:14 AM (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).