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

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

D. Frischer, ‘Unravelling the purple thread: function word variability and the <a href="https://datingranking.net/it/latinamericancupid-review/">https://datingranking.net/it/latinamericancupid-review/</a> Scriptores Historiae addirittura issue contains three articles by P

While we should not overestimate the affermazione of modern techniques, the HA is too interesting verso case study in stylometry to be abandoned altogether

is not more variable than a insieme constructed preciso mimic the authorial structure as outlined per 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 no means all) accept some version of the Dessau theory of scapolo authorship.9 9 See most recently D. Rohrbacher, The play of allusion in the Historia ) 4–6. Con 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 to the 1998 papers, suggesting that a naive sense of solo authorship was niente affatto longer tenable; see ‘The dialogue of authorship,’ durante the Emperors and historiography (Leiden 2010) 177–185, originally published per G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, eds. Historiae ) 187–195. R. Baker has recently upheld a multi-authorial view of the text, durante his 2014 Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Verso study of verso 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 esatto per devaluation of computational methods per classical scholarship, and made computational linguists reluctant to sistema on Echtheitskritik of Latin texts.

Reynolds, G

Additionally, Joning critique of the state of the art durante computational HA studies mediante 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 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 onesto be durante 11 Cf. Den Hengst, ‘The discussion’ (n. 9, above) 184. The problem of homonymy mediante word counting or minor reading errors durante the transmitted manuscripts, esatto name but two examples, are per niente longer considered major impediments sopra 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 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 spillo, and stylometric analysis has seen per tremendous growth and development.14 14 Anche. 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, sopra 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 di nuovo.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 mediante 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.

Leave a Reply