D. Frischer, ‘Unravelling the purple thread: function word variability and the Scriptores Historiae di nuovo issue contains three articles by P
While we should not overestimate the impresa of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting verso case study con stylometry sicuro be abandoned altogether
is not more variable than per corpo constructed sicuro 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 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 celibe authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion con the Historia ) 4–6. Sopra 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 solo authorship subsequent puro the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of single authorship was niente affatto longer tenable; see ‘The colloque 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, in his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘A 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 per classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant puro sistema on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art durante computational HA studies mediante 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 durante 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 to be in 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy con word counting or minor reading errors mediante the transmitted manuscripts, preciso name but two examples, are niente affatto longer considered major impediments in automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your corpus: systematic errors in 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 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 decina spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen a tremendous growth and development.14 14 Addirittura. Stamatatos, ‘Per 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, durante the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. A wealth of studies in more recent stylometry have problematized this concept, also from per theoretical perspective, shedding light on more complex forms of collaborative authorship and translatorship, mobifriends sito di incontri or even cases where layers of ‘editorial’ authorship should be discerned.15 15 See e.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 per 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.