While we should not overestimate the performance of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting per case study sopra stylometry to be abandoned altogether
is not more variable than a campione constructed puro mimic the authorial structure as outlined con 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 Ed. 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 mai means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory supporto tendermeets of celibe authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion mediante the Historia ) 4–6. Durante 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 puro revisit the question of scapolo authorship subsequent to the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of solo authorship was niente affatto longer tenable; see ‘The tete-a-tete of authorship,’ sopra the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published durante G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld a multi-authorial view of the text, mediante his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of verso late antique corpus 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 onesto a devaluation of computational methods durante classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant esatto rete informatica on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Reynolds, G
Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art mediante computational HA studies sopra the same issue of LLC mediante 1998 and few studies have dared puro take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies sopra 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 sopra 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy sopra word counting or minor reading errors mediante the transmitted manuscripts, sicuro name but two examples, are no longer considered major impediments per automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your raccolta: systematic errors in 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 retroterra corpora.13 13 P. Juola, ‘The Rowling case: Per 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 verso decina spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen a tremendous growth and development.14 14 Di nuovo. Stamatatos, ‘A 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. Verso 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, 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 mediante 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.
