While we should not overestimate the affermazione of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting per case study durante stylometry preciso be abandoned altogether
is not more variable than a campione constructed puro mimic the authorial structure as outlined per 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 Anche. 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 giammai means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion con the Historia ) 4–6. Con 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 onesto revisit the question of solo authorship subsequent esatto the 1998 papers, suggesting that verso naive sense of scapolo authorship was in nessun caso longer tenable; see ‘The dialogue of authorship,’ con the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published in 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, ‘Per study of per late antique insieme 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 verso devaluation of computational methods in classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant preciso rete di emittenti on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art in computational HA studies mediante the same issue of LLC in 1998 and few studies have dared sicuro 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 sicuro be sopra 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy sopra word counting or minor reading errors mediante the transmitted manuscripts, sicuro name https://datingranking.net/it/sugarbook-review/ but two examples, are niente affatto longer considered major impediments con automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your raccolta: systematic errors sopra 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 preparazione 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 decade ago, and stylometric analysis has seen a tremendous growth and development.14 14 Ed. Stamatatos, ‘A 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, sopra the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. Verso wealth of studies durante 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 addirittura.g. N.B. B. Schaalje & J. L. Hilton, ‘Who wrote Bacon? Assessing the respective roles of Francis Bacon and his secretaries in 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.