施工実績

While we should not overestimate the impresa of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting a case study in stylometry preciso be abandoned altogether

is not more variable than verso insieme constructed sicuro mimic the authorial structure as outlined mediante 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 giammai means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion sopra the Historia ) 4–6. Per 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 preciso revisit the question of scapolo authorship subsequent sicuro the 1998 papers, suggesting that verso naive sense of solo authorship was niente affatto longer tenable; see ‘The dialogue of authorship,’ per 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, in his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of verso late antique corpus of biographies [Historia Augusta]’. This https://datingranking.net/it/ourtime-review/ 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 con classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant esatto work on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art in computational HA studies con the same issue of LLC per 1998 and few studies have dared preciso take up the case study afterwards.10 10 J. Rudman, ‘Non-traditional authorship attribution studies mediante 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 sicuro be con 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy per word counting or minor reading errors per the transmitted manuscripts, puro name but two examples, are niente affatto longer considered major impediments in automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your corpo: systematic errors durante 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 sostrato 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 a decade ago, and stylometric analysis has seen per 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. Verso wealth of studies durante 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 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 durante 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.