While we should not overestimate the affermazione of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting verso case study con stylometry preciso be abandoned altogether
is not more variable than per campione constructed esatto mimic the authorial structure as outlined durante the manuscript tradition […] [T]he variability of usage of function words may be used as verso measure of multiple authorship, and that based on the use of these function words, the SHA appears preciso be of multiple authorship.8 8 Ed. 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 giammai means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion sopra the Historia ) 4–6. Con 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 and Courtauld Institutes 17 (1954) 22–46. D. den Hengst is one scholar who felt the need puro revisit the question of scapolo authorship subsequent onesto the 1998 papers, suggesting that per naive sense of single authorship was mai longer tenable; see ‘The tete-a-tete of authorship,’ durante the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published mediante G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld per multi-authorial view of the text, con his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘A study of a late antique corpus 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 per devaluation of computational methods con classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant preciso rete informatica on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Reynolds, G
Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art in computational HA studies in the same issue of LLC per 1998 and few studies have dared esatto take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies con 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 esatto be mediante 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy durante word counting or minor reading errors per the transmitted manuscripts, onesto name but two examples, are giammai longer considered major impediments durante automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your corpo: systematic errors per authorship attribution’, LLC 28 (2013) 603–614. Scholars generally have also obtained a much better understanding of the effect of genre signals or the use of retroterra corpora.13 13 P. Juola, ‘The Rowling case: Verso 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 decade ago, and stylometric analysis has seen per 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 a fairly static conception of the phenomenon of authorship, con the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. Verso wealth of studies sopra more recent stylometry have problematized this concept, also from a 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 ancora.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 http://www.datingranking.net/it/antichat-review/ or M. Kestemont, S. Moens & J. Deploige, ‘Collaborative authorship mediante 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.