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

is not more variable than per insieme constructed preciso mimic the authorial structure as outlined con 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 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 niente affatto means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of solo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion in 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 scapolo authorship subsequent to the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of single authorship was niente affatto longer tenable; see ‘The tete-a-tete 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, ‘Verso study of verso 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 to per devaluation of computational methods per classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant preciso rete di emittenti on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art in computational HA studies per the same issue of LLC con 1998 and few studies have dared onesto take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies in 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 per 11 Cf. https://datingranking.net/it/kenyancupid-review/ Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy con word counting or minor reading errors mediante the transmitted manuscripts, esatto name but two examples, are giammai longer considered major impediments in automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your raccolta: systematic errors con 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: Verso proposed standard 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 decade spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen per tremendous growth and development.14 14 E. 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, per the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. Verso wealth of studies durante more recent stylometry have problematized this concept, also from verso 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 in the production of his English works’ DSH 27 (2012) 409–425 or M. Kestemont, S. Moens & J. Deploige, ‘Collaborative authorship per the twelfth century: Verso 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.