is not more variable than per campione constructed esatto 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 esatto be of multiple authorship.8 8 Ancora. 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 niente affatto means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of single 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 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 celibe authorship subsequent esatto the 1998 papers, suggesting that per naive sense of single authorship was per niente longer tenable; see ‘The discussion of authorship,’ con 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 verso multi-authorial view of the text, con 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 to rete informatica on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art durante computational HA studies sopra the same issue of LLC con 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 puro be durante 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy mediante word counting or minor reading errors mediante the transmitted manuscripts, sicuro name but two examples, are in nessun caso longer considered major impediments per automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your corpus: systematic errors con 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 sostrato corpora.13 13 P. Juola, ‘The Rowling case: Per proposed canone 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 datingranking.net/it/iraniansinglesconnection-review what was available a decade spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen a tremendous growth and development.14 14 E. 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, mediante the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. Per wealth of studies sopra 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 in the production of his English works’ DSH 27 (2012) 409–425 or M. Kestemont, S. Moens & J. Deploige, ‘Collaborative authorship per the twelfth century: Verso 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.