The Ordines Romani and the Carolingian Choreography of a Liturgical Route to Rome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines a number of Carolingian liturgical manuscripts (Wolfenbuttel Herzog August Bibliothek Wissenbourg 91, Cologne Dombibliothek MS 138, Vienna Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod.ser.n. 2762 and Paris Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal 227) each containing texts now known as the ordines romani. These texts are "stage directions" for the liturgy, distinguished by their reference to the practices of the church of Rome. While the ordines romani certainly give precious information about Roman liturgical practice, the Frankish contribution to shaping and displaying these texts inline with their own priorities and usages must be acknowledged too. For example, these manuscripts all combine ordines romani with texts about Roman history and topography. For these readers, the desired imitation of Roman liturgical practice was not about copying any particular text or practice by rote, but a deeper form of participation that involved the construction of an image of Rome across a whole manuscript. The given image of Rome responded to the institutional or personal needs animating the manuscript. These manuscripts compel us to imagine diverse practices of reading within and without liturgical performance. On cover:Monks singing the Office and decorated initial A[sperges me.]. Gradual Olivetan Master (Use of the Olivetan Benedictines), illuminated manuscript on parchment ca. 1430-1439. Italy, Monastero di Santa Maria di Baggio near Milan, Ca 1400-1775.Beinecke Ms1184: The olivetan Gradual. Gradual. General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".