is not more variable than per corpo constructed puro mimic the authorial structure as outlined in the manuscript tradition […] [T]he variability of usage of function words may be used as a 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 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 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 esatto revisit the question of scapolo authorship subsequent esatto the 1998 papers, suggesting that verso naive sense of single authorship was giammai longer tenable; see ‘The conversation of authorship,’ in the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published mediante G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld per multi-authorial view of the text, con his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of verso 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 esatto per devaluation of computational methods durante classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant to rete di emittenti on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.
Additionally, Joning critique https://datingranking.net/it/the-league-review/ of the state of the art in computational HA studies durante the same issue of LLC durante 1998 and few studies have dared sicuro 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 puro be in 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy in word counting or minor reading errors per the transmitted manuscripts, onesto name but two examples, are giammai longer considered major impediments per automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your corpo: systematic errors sopra 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 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 verso decina spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen verso tremendous growth and development.14 14 Ed. Stamatatos, ‘Verso 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. Per wealth of studies per 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 sopra 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.