Меню Затваряне

D. Frischer, ‘Unravelling the purple thread: function word variability and the Scriptores Historiae di nuovo issue contains three articles by P

D. Frischer, ‘Unravelling the purple thread: function word variability and the Scriptores Historiae di nuovo issue contains three articles by P

While we should not overestimate the esibizione 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 preciso mimic the authorial structure as outlined mediante the manuscript tradition […] [T]he variability of usage of function words may be used as per measure of multiple authorship, and that based on the use of these function words, the SHA appears puro be of multiple authorship.8 8 Ed. K. Tse, F. J. Tweedie, and B https://datingranking.net/it/lovestruck-review/. 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 of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion con 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 esatto revisit the question of scapolo authorship subsequent preciso the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of solo authorship was no longer tenable; see ‘The conversation of authorship,’ in the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published con G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld verso multi-authorial view of the text, in his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘A study of verso late antique corpo 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 per devaluation of computational methods durante classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant sicuro sistema on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art per computational HA studies in the same issue of LLC durante 1998 and few studies have dared esatto 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 puro be durante 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, esatto name but two examples, are in nessun caso longer considered major impediments mediante automated authorship studies any more.12 12 M. Eder, ‘Mind your campione: 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: A 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 per decade spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen verso tremendous growth and development.14 14 Ed. Stamatatos, ‘Per 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, per the traditional sense of an auctor intellectualis. Per wealth of studies con 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 ed.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 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.