While we should not overestimate the performance of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting a case study sopra stylometry sicuro be abandoned altogether
is not more variable than verso raccolta constructed puro mimic the authorial structure as outlined sopra 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 preciso be of multiple authorship.8 8 Di nuovo. 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 per niente means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of single authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion con the Historia ) 4–6. Durante 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 onesto revisit the question of celibe authorship subsequent sicuro the 1998 papers, suggesting that verso naive sense of celibe authorship was no longer tenable; see ‘The conversation of authorship,’ sopra 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 a multi-authorial view of the text, per his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Per study of a 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 sicuro verso devaluation of computational methods mediante classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant onesto rete di emittenti on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Reynolds, G
Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art mediante computational HA studies con the same issue of LLC con 1998 and few studies have dared to take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies per 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 per 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, puro name but two examples, are niente affatto longer considered major impediments per automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your insieme: systematic errors con 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 background corpora.13 13 P. Juola, ‘The Rowling case: A proposed canone analytic protocol for authorship questions’, DSH 30 (2015) 100–113. Most importantly, however, the widely available computational tools available pussysaga today are exponentially more powerful than what was available a decade spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen verso tremendous growth and development.14 14 Di nuovo. 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, per the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. A 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 e.g. N.B. B. Schaalje & J. L. Hilton, ‘Who wrote Bacon? Assessing the respective roles of Francis Bacon and his secretaries per the production of his English works’ DSH 27 (2012) 409–425 or M. Kestemont, S. Moens & J. Deploige, ‘Collaborative authorship sopra 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.
