D. Frischer, ‘Unravelling the purple thread: function word variability and the Scriptores Historiae addirittura issue contains three articles by P

While we should not overestimate the impresa of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting per case study in stylometry esatto be abandoned altogether

is not more variable than a raccolta constructed onesto mimic the authorial structure as outlined in the manuscript tradition […] [T]he variability of usage of function words may be used as per measure of multiple authorship, and that based on the use of these function words, the SHA appears esatto 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 no means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion per the Historia ) 4–6. Durante the twentieth century, the most prominent voice calling the Dessau thesis into question was that of A. 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 to revisit the question of celibe authorship subsequent sicuro the 1998 papers, suggesting that per naive sense of scapolo authorship was no longer tenable; see ‘The colloque of authorship,’ mediante 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 a multi-authorial view of the text, in his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of verso late antique campione 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 onesto a devaluation of computational methods sopra classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant esatto rete di emittenti on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art in computational HA studies mediante the same issue of LLC sopra 1998 and few studies have dared to 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 onesto be durante 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy mediante word counting or minor reading errors per the transmitted manuscripts, onesto name but two examples, are niente affatto longer considered major impediments per automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your campione: systematic errors in 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 background corpora.13 13 P. Juola, ‘The Rowling case: Verso proposed norma 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 per decina spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen verso tremendous growth and development.14 14 Di nuovo. Stamatatos, ‘Verso 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. A wealth of studies mediante 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 ancora.g. N.B https://datingranking.net/it/lumen-review/. B. Schaalje & J. L. Hilton, ‘Who wrote Bacon? Assessing the respective roles of Francis Bacon and his secretaries sopra the production of his English works’ DSH 27 (2012) 409–425 or M. Kestemont, S. Moens & J. Deploige, ‘Collaborative authorship sopra 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.