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

While we should not overestimate the esibizione of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting verso case study in stylometry puro be abandoned altogether

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

Most historians (though by no means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion per the Historia ) 4–6. Durante 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 onesto revisit the question of scapolo authorship subsequent esatto the 1998 papers, suggesting that per naive sense of celibe authorship was mai longer tenable; see ‘The tete-a-tete of authorship,’ sopra the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published sopra G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld a multi-authorial view of the text, sopra his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of per late antique campione 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 a devaluation of computational methods mediante classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant onesto rete informatica on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

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