Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Large-scale quantitative profiling of the Old English verse tradition

Nature Human Behaviour volume 3, pages 560–567 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Matters Arising to this article was published on 11 November 2021

Abstract

The corpus of Old English verse is an indispensable source for scholars of the Indo-European tradition, early Germanic culture and English literary history. Although it has been the focus of sustained literary scholarship for over two centuries, Old English poetry has not been subjected to corpus-wide computational profiling, in part because of the sparseness and extreme fragmentation of the surviving material. Here we report a detailed quantitative analysis of the whole corpus that considers a broad range of features reflective of sound, metre and diction. This integrated examination of fine-grained features enabled us to identify salient stylistic patterns, despite the inherent limitations of the corpus. In particular, we provide quantitative evidence consistent with the unitary authorship of Beowulf and the Cynewulfian authorship of Andreas, shedding light on two longstanding questions in Old English philology. Our results demonstrate the usefulness of high-dimensional stylometric profiling for fragmentary literary traditions and lay the foundation for future studies of the cultural evolution of English literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Corpus-wide phonetic profiling of literature.
Fig. 2: Stylistic homogeneity of Beowulf.
Fig. 3: Use of nominal compounds is similar between Cynewulf and Andreas.
Fig. 4: Andreas clusters with the signed Cynewulfian poems.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All datasets are freely and publicly available at https://github.com/qcrit.

Code availability

All custom code is freely and publicly available at https://github.com/qcrit.

References

  1. Fulk, R. & Cain, C. A History of Old English Literature 2nd edn (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).

  2. Tolkien, J. Beowulf: the monsters and the critics. Proc. Br. Acad. 22, 245–295 (1936).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clark, D. & Perkins, N. Anglo-Saxon Culture and the Modern Imagination (D. S. Brewer, 2010).

  4. Biber, D. & Conrad, S. Register, Genre, and Style (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

  5. Amos, A. C. Linguistic Means of Determining the Dates of Old English Literary Texts (Medieval Academy of America, 1980).

  6. Jockers, M. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History (Univ. Illinois Press, 2013).

  7. Long, H. & So, R. Literary pattern recognition: modernism between close reading and machine learning. Crit. Inq. 42, 235–267 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chaudhuri, P. & Dexter, J. P. Bioinformatics and classical literary study. Journal of Data Mining & Digital Humanities Special Issue on Computer-Aided Processing of Intertextuality in Ancient Languages https://jdmdh.episciences.org/paper/view?id=3807 (2017).

  9. Dexter, J. et al. Quantitative criticism of literary relationships. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E3195–E3204 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Barquist, C. Phonological patterning in Beowulf. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 2, 19–23 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barquist, C. & Shie, D. Computer analysis of alliteration in Beowulf using distinctive feature theory. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 6, 274–280 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drout, M. D., Kahn, M. J., LeBlanc, M. D. & Nelson, C. Of dendrogrammatology: lexomic methods for analyzing relationships among Old English poems. J. Eng. Ger. Philol. 110, 301–336 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. García, A. M. & Martín, J. C. Function words in authorship attribution studies. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 22, 49–66 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gill, P., Swartz, T. & Treschow, M. A stylometric analysis of King Alfred’s literary works. J. Appl. Stat. 34, 1251–1258 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Drout, M., Kisor, Y., Smith, L., Dennett, A. & Piirainen, N. Beowulf Unlocked: New Evidence from Lexomic Analysis (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).

  16. Shippey, T. in A Beowulf Handbook (eds Bjork, R. & Niles, J.) 159–168 (Univ. Nebraska Press, 1998).

  17. Neidorf, L. The Transmission of Beowulf (Cornell Univ. Press, 2017).

  18. Bjork, R. Cynewulf: Basic Readings (Garland Publishing, 1996).

  19. Orchard, A. in Anglo-Saxon Styles (eds Karkov, C. & Brown, G.) 271–305 (State Univ. New York Press, 2003).

  20. Puskar, J. Questioning Cynewulf’s claim of authorship. Eng. Stud. 92, 1–19 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mesoudi, A. Pursuing Darwin’s curious parallel: prospects for a science of cultural evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7853–7860 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Grieve, J. Quantitative authorship attribution: an evaluation of techniques. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 22, 251–269 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Forstall, C., Jacobson, S. & Scheirer, W. Evidence of intertextuality: investigating Paul the Deacon’s Angustae Vitae. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 26, 285–296 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Koppel, M., Schler, J. & Argamon, S. Computational methods in authorship attribution. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 9–26 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sapkota, U., Bethard, S., Montes, M. & Solorio, T. Not all character n-grams are created equal: a study in authorship attribution. In Proc. 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 93–102 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015).

  26. Neidorf, L. The dating of Widsith and the study of Germanic antiquity. Neophilologus 97, 165–183 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Klaeber, F. The Christian Elements in Beowulf (Medieval Institute Publications, 1996).

  28. Brodeur, A. The Art of Beowulf (Univ. California Press, 1959).

  29. Irving, E. A Reading of Beowulf (Yale Univ. Press, 1968).

  30. Schücking, L. L. Beowulfs Rückkehr: Eine Kritische Studie (M. Niemeyer, Halle, 1906).

  31. Magoun, F. P. in Early English and Norse Studies Presented to Hugh Smith in Honour of his Sixtieth Birthday (eds Brown, A. & Foote, P.) 127–140 (Methuen, 1963).

  32. Kiernan, K. S. Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript (Rutgers Univ. Press, 1981).

  33. Liuzza, R. M. in Beowulf: Basic Readings (ed. Baker, P.) 281–302 (Garland Publishing, 1995).

  34. Fitch, J. Sense-pauses and relative dating in Seneca, Sophocles and Shakespeare. Am. J. Philol. 102, 289–307 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuhn, H. Zur Wortstellung und -betonung im Altgermanischen. Beitr. Gesch. Dtsch. Sprache Lit. 57, 1–109 (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Momma, H. The composition of Old English poetry. Lang. Lit. 7, 175–178 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nagy, G. Homer’s Text and Language (Univ. Illinois Press, 2004).

  38. West, M. L. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  39. Sievers, E. Altgermanishe Metrik (M. Niemeyer, Halle, 1893).

  40. Gardner, T. The Old English kenning: a characteristic feature of Germanic poetical diction? Mod. Philol. 67, 109–117 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bosworth, J. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Clarendon Press, 1989).

  42. Cook, A. S. The Christ of Cynewulf: A Poem in Three Parts: the Advent, the Ascension and the Last Judgment (Ginn and Company, 1900).

  43. Diamond, R. E. The diction of signed poems in Cynewulf. Philolog. Q. 38, 228–241 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schaar, C. Critical Studies in the Cynewulf Group (Haskell House, 1967).

  45. Fulk, R. in Cynewulf: Basic Readings (ed. Bjork, R. E.) 3–22 (Garland Publishing, 1996).

  46. Bjork, R. E. The Old English Poems of Cynewulf (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  47. Stodnick, J. A. Cynewulf as author: medieval reality or modern myth? Bull. J. Rylands Univ. Libr. 79, 25–39 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Carr, C. T. Nominal Compounds in Germanic (St. Andrews Univ., 1939).

  49. Terasawa, J. Nominal Compounds in Old English: A Metrical Approach (Rosenkilde & Bagger, 1994).

  50. Jockers, M. L. & Underwood, T. in A New Companion to Digital Humanities 2nd edn (eds Schreibman, S., Siemens, R. & Unsworth, J.) 291–306 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2016).

  51. Greenberg, J. H. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. Int. J. Am. Ling. 26, 178–194 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Donoghue, H. Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: A Short Introduction (Wiley-Blackwell, 2004).

  53. Bhrolchain, M. N. An Introduction to Early Irish Literature (Four Courts Press, 2017).

  54. Zink, M. Medieval French Literature: An Introduction (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1995).

  55. Dimock, W. C. Low epic. Crit. Inq. 39, 614–631 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Russom, G. Old English Meter and Linguistic Theory (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank M. Nowak, S. Sinai and J. Gerold for helpful conversations, as well as S. Pintzuk and G. Russom for assistance in obtaining texts, dictionaries and scansions in formats amenable to computational analysis. This work was conducted under the auspices of the Quantitative Criticism Lab (www.qcrit.org), an interdisciplinary project co-directed by P.C. and J.P.D. and supported by a Neukom Institute for Computational Science CompX Grant and a National Endowment for the Humanities Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant (HD-248410-16). P.C. was supported by a New Directions Fellowship from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and J.P.D. was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE1144152) and a Neukom Fellowship. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics is supported in part by a gift from B. Wu and E. Larson. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Leonard Neidorf, Madison S. Krieger.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

    Leonard Neidorf

  2. Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Madison S. Krieger

  3. Research Science Institute, Center for Excellence in Education, McLean, VA, USA

    Michelle Yakubek

  4. Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science, Denton, TX, USA

    Michelle Yakubek

  5. Department of Classics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Pramit Chaudhuri

  6. Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Joseph P. Dexter

Authors
  1. Leonard Neidorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madison S. Krieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle Yakubek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pramit Chaudhuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joseph P. Dexter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.N., M.S.K., P.C. and J.P.D. designed the study. M.S.K., M.Y. and J.P.D. performed the study. All authors analysed the results. L.N., M.S.K., P.C. and J.P.D. wrote the manuscript, which was read and approved by all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Madison S. Krieger or Joseph P. Dexter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–5 and Supplementary Table 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neidorf, L., Krieger, M.S., Yakubek, M. et al. Large-scale quantitative profiling of the Old English verse tradition. Nat Hum Behav 3, 560–567 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0570-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0570-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing