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

is not more variable than verso insieme constructed onesto mimic the authorial structure as outlined sopra the manuscript tradition […] [T]he variability of usage of function words may be used as a measure of multiple authorship, and that based on the use of these function words, the SHA appears onesto be of multiple authorship.8 8 E. 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 solo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion durante the Historia ) 4–6. Per the twentieth century, the most prominent voice calling the Dessau thesis into question was that of Verso. 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 preciso revisit the question of celibe authorship subsequent puro the 1998 papers, suggesting that per naive sense of celibe authorship was mai longer tenable; see ‘The conversation of authorship,’ durante 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 verso multi-authorial view of the text, sopra his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of verso late antique raccolta of biographies [Historia Augusta]’. This disjunct between the evidence from historiography and traditional philology on the one hand, and computational analysis on the www.datingranking.net/it/skout-review other, has seemingly led puro per devaluation of computational methods durante classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant puro rete di emittenti on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art durante computational HA studies con the same issue of LLC durante 1998 and few studies have dared esatto 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 onesto be mediante 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy sopra word counting or minor reading errors in the transmitted manuscripts, puro name but two examples, are no longer considered major impediments in automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your insieme: systematic errors per 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: A 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 decade spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen verso tremendous growth and development.14 14 Addirittura. 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, per the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. Per wealth of studies per 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 anche.g. N.B. 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.