D. Frischer, ‘Unravelling the purple thread: function word variability and the Scriptores Historiae ed issue contains three articles by P
While we should not overestimate the impresa of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting verso case study per stylometry preciso be abandoned altogether
is not more variable than per corpus constructed preciso mimic the authorial structure as outlined sopra 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 per cautionary note by J. Rudman (see n. 10, below).
Most historians (though by in nessun caso means all) accept some version of mature dating sito mobile the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion in the Historia ) 4–6. Con 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 puro revisit the question of solo authorship subsequent onesto the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of celibe authorship was in nessun caso longer tenable; see ‘The discussion of authorship,’ sopra the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published con 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, ‘A study of verso 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 puro a devaluation of computational methods sopra 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 per the same issue of LLC per 1998 and few studies have dared to take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies mediante 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 preciso be in 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 con 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 per 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 verso decade ago, and stylometric analysis has seen per tremendous growth and development.14 14 Anche. Stamatatos, ‘Verso survey of modern authorship attribution methods’, JASIST 60 (2009) 538–556. One interesting development is that previous studies sometimes adopted verso fairly static conception of the phenomenon of authorship, sopra the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. A wealth of studies con 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. B. Schaalje & J. L. Hilton, ‘Who wrote Bacon? Assessing the respective roles of Francis Bacon and his secretaries con 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.