While we should not overestimate the successo of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting verso case study sopra stylometry to be abandoned altogether
is not more variable than a corpo constructed esatto mimic the authorial structure as outlined per the manuscript tradition […] [T]he variability of usage of function words may be used as a measure of multiple authorship, and that based on the use of these function words, the SHA appears preciso be of multiple authorship.8 8 Addirittura. K. Tse, F. J. Tweedie, and B. J. and L. W. Gurney, and per cautionary note by J. Rudman (see n. 10, below).
Most historians (though by mai means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of single authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion sopra the Historia ) 4–6. Sopra the twentieth century, the most prominent voice calling the Dessau thesis into question was that of Verso. Momigliano; see for example his ‘An unsolved problem of historical forgery: the Scriptores Historiae Augustae’ Journal of the Warburg seekingarrangement and Courtauld Institutes 17 (1954) 22–46. D. den Hengst is one scholar who felt the need esatto revisit the question of celibe authorship subsequent onesto the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of single authorship was giammai longer tenable; see ‘The conciliabule of authorship,’ sopra the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published sopra G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld per multi-authorial view of the text, per his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of a late antique corpo of biographies [Historia Augusta]’. This disjunct between the evidence from historiography and traditional philology on the one hand, and computational analysis on the other, has seemingly led puro verso devaluation of computational methods in classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant onesto rete di emittenti on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Reynolds, G
Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art mediante computational HA studies sopra the same issue of LLC durante 1998 and few studies have dared onesto take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies sopra the Historia Augusta: some caveats’, LLC 13 (1998) 151–57. Rudman’s critique is – sometimes unreasonably – harsh on previous scholarship, and addresses issues which are considered nowadays much less problematic than he believed them sicuro be durante 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy per word counting or minor reading errors durante the transmitted manuscripts, puro name but two examples, are no longer considered major impediments in automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your insieme: systematic errors in authorship attribution’, LLC 28 (2013) 603–614. Scholars generally have also obtained verso much better understanding of the effect of genre signals or the use of preparazione corpora.13 13 P. Juola, ‘The Rowling case: A proposed canone analytic protocol for authorship questions’, DSH 30 (2015) 100–113. Most importantly, however, the widely available computational tools available today are exponentially more powerful than what was available a decina spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen verso tremendous growth and development.14 14 Di nuovo. Stamatatos, ‘Per survey of modern authorship attribution methods’, JASIST 60 (2009) 538–556. One interesting development is that previous studies sometimes adopted per fairly static conception of the phenomenon of authorship, in the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. Per wealth of studies in more recent stylometry have problematized this concept, also from per theoretical perspective, shedding light on more complex forms of collaborative authorship and translatorship, or even cases where layers of ‘editorial’ authorship should be discerned.15 15 See di nuovo.g. N.B. B. Schaalje & J. L. Hilton, ‘Who wrote Bacon? Assessing the respective roles of Francis Bacon and his secretaries mediante the production of his English works’ DSH 27 (2012) 409–425 or M. Kestemont, S. Moens & J. Deploige, ‘Collaborative authorship in the twelfth century: Per stylometric study of Hildegard of Bingen and Guibert of Gembloux’ DSH 30 (2015) 199–224. As such, more subtle forms of authorship, including the phenomenon of auctores manuales, have entered the stylometric debate.