This document summarizes a study analyzing the authorship of the visions of Elisabeth of Schönau. It finds that there are stylistic differences between the first book of visions, written by Elisabeth's fellow nuns, and the second and third books, edited by her brother Ekbert. Traditional literary analysis and stylometric analysis both found Ekbert had a stronger presence and asked more questions in the latter books. The study concludes these methods can complement each other in analyzing authorship of medieval texts.

1. AUTHORSHIP IN THE VISIONS
OF ELISABETH OF SCHÖNAU
Searching for the role of Ekbert of Schönau in the visions of his sister
Renske van Nie
Mike Kestemont
June 13th, 2014
renske.vannie@uantwerpen.be

2. OVERVIEW
 Introduction of the case study
 Analysis of the visions: traditional
literary methodology
 Analysis of the visions: stylometry
 Conclusions
2

3. INTRODUCTION TO ELISABETH OF SCHÖNAU
 Benedictine nun in Germany in the twelfth century
 Contemporary of the now famous Hildegard of Bingen
 Experiencing visions, written down by fellow nuns and brother Ekbert
 Fellow nuns: responsible for most of the first book
 Ekbert of Schönau: editor of all visionary books, responsible for
second and third book of visions
 Ekbert’s prologue: sincere intentions, no editing
3

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Can we trace the dissimilarities in content
between the first and the second/third of
the visionary books by using stylometry?
 Are there visible stylistic differences
between the first and the second/third of
the visionary books?
 Hypothesis:There is!
4

5. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: CLOSE READING
5
Liber visionum primus
• No theological reflections on the
visions and experiences
• Focus on Elisabeth’s physical
condition
• Liturgical references
• Mentioning of Elisabeth’s fellow
nuns
• After experiencing a vision,
Elisabeth preaches,mostly in
bible quotations
• Numerous bible quotations or
references
Liber visionum secundus/tertius
• Ekbert has questions – and
Elisabeth answers them by
asking angels and holy men she
sees in her visions
• Strongly increased number of
dialogues
• No special attention for the
liturgy
• Increased presence of Ekbert
and abbot Hildelin in Elisabeth’s
visions and experiences
• Numerous bible quotations or
references

6. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: STYLOMETRY - CONTENT
6
Words preferred by
primary author:
rotus
lux
amabilis
videra
os
converto
subito
statim
extasis
rex
diabolus
Words avoided by
primary author:
respondeo
locutus
angelus
aio
tam
video
scire
interrogo
ostendeo
responsum

7. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: STYLOMETRY - CONTENT
7

8. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: STYLOMETRY - CONTENT
8

9. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: STYLOMETRY - STYLE
9
Are there visible stylistic
differences between the first and
the second/third of the visionary
books?

10. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: STYLOMETRY - STYLE
10

11. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: STYLOMETRY - STYLE
11

12. ANALYSIS OFTHEVISIONS: STYLOMETRY - STYLE
12

13. CONCLUSIONS
 Traditional literary analysis (close reading)
and statistical measurements regarding
the content of the tekst can very well be
applied to complement each other.
 Various statistical tests for measuring style
ask for different preparations of the corpus
13

14. THANKYOU FORYOUR ATTENTION
QUESTIONS & REMARKS
14

15. REFERENCES
Anne Clark (1992). Elisabeth of Schönau. ATwelfth-CenturyVisionary (Philadelphia, Universitity of Pennsylvania)
Anne L. Clark (ed. & transl.) (2000). Saint Elisabeth of Schonau.The complete works (Paulist Press).
Dinzelbacher, P. (ed. & transl.) (2006). Elisabeth von Schönau, Werke (Paderborn, Schöningh).
Eder, M., Kestemont, M. and Rybicki, J. (2013). Stylometry with R: A Suite ofTools. In Digital Humanities 2013. Conference
Abstracts. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, pp. 487–89.
F.W.E. Roth (Ed.) (1884). DieVisionen der hl. Elisabeth und die Schriften der Aebte Ekbert und Emecho von
Schönau nach den Original-Handschriften (through
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24871595M/Die_Visionen_der_hl._Elisabeth_und_die_Schriften_der_Aebte_Ekber
t_und_Emecho_von_Sch%C3%B6nau)
15