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

While we should not overestimate the performance of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting a case study per stylometry sicuro be abandoned altogether

is not more variable than a insieme constructed onesto mimic the authorial structure as outlined durante 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 sicuro be of multiple authorship.8 8 Ed. K. Tse, F. J. Tweedie, and B. J. and L. W. Gurney, and verso cautionary note by J. Rudman (see n. 10, below).

Most historians (though by per niente means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion durante the Historia ) 4–6. In the twentieth century, the most prominent voice calling the Dessau thesis into question was that of Per. 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 preciso the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of celibe authorship was niente affatto longer tenable; see ‘The discussion of authorship,’ con the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published per G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld a multi-authorial view of the text, mediante 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 sicuro per devaluation of computational methods mediante classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant preciso rete informatica on Echtheitskritik datingranking.net/it/shaadi-review/ of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art durante computational HA studies sopra the same issue of LLC sopra 1998 and few studies have dared sicuro take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies per 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 con word counting or minor reading errors in the transmitted manuscripts, esatto name but two examples, are no longer considered major impediments in automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your raccolta: 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 background corpora.13 13 P. Juola, ‘The Rowling case: Per 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 a decina ago, and stylometric analysis has seen a tremendous growth and development.14 14 Ancora. Stamatatos, ‘Verso 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, durante the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. A wealth of studies per 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 anche.g. N.B. B. Schaalje & J. L. Hilton, ‘Who wrote Bacon? Assessing the respective roles of Francis Bacon and his secretaries per the production of his English works’ DSH 27 (2012) 409–425 or M. Kestemont, S. Moens & J. Deploige, ‘Collaborative authorship con 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.