artiste peintre en cotentin



The case of the Historia Augusta, verso collection of imperial biographies from Hadrian preciso Carus supposedly written by six different authors, provided the impetus for the introduction of computational methods into the Echtheitskritik of ancient authors in 1979. After a flurry of studies in the 1990s, interest waned, particularly because most of those studies seemed onesto support conclusions incompatible with the scholarly consensus on the question. Sopra the paper, we approach this question with the new tool of authorship verification – one of the most promising approaches con forensic stylometry today – as well as the established method of principal components analysis sicuro demonstrate that there is niente affatto simple alternative between solo and multiple authorship, and that the results of per computational analysis are per fact compatible with the results obtained from historical, literary, and philological analysis.

The Historia Augusta (henceforth HA) is per collection of biographies of Roman emperors stretching from Hadrian (AD 117–138) preciso Carus (AD 282–283) and his sons Carinus (AD 283–285) and Numerian (AD 283–284).1 1 Justin Stover would like sicuro thank George Woudhuysen for helpful suggestions. We are both grateful puro the editors for accepting this paper and the anonymous referees for many helpful suggestions. The code and texts for this paper can be found per the following repository: The lives purport sicuro be written by six different authors, Aelius Spartianus, pridius, Trebellius Pollio, and Flavius Vopiscus, working under the Emperors Diocletian (AD 284–305) and Constantine (AD 306–337). For much of the period it covers, the HA represents the only extended narrative source, and the testimony it offers can be invaluable. Unfortunately, the HA is also famous for its bizarre details and puzzling omissions, as well as its lurid focus on emperors’ peccadilloes and personal habits esatto the detriment of their political accomplishments. It also notoriously includes documents – speeches, letters, laws – which are almost certainly fabricated by the author(s), and cites verso whole host of authors nowhere else attested, and probably invented.2 2 See L. Homo, ‘Les documents de l’Histoire Considere et leur valeur historique’, RH 151 (1926) 161–198 and 152 (1926) 1–31. But the problem of the HA is not only its unreliability as an historical source: it also includes throughout troubling anachronisms, mentions of office and titles that only came into being in the middle of the fourth century, decades after the supposed dates of its composition. Sopra 1889, Hermann Dessau put forth the provocative thesis that the HA was con fact the rete di emittenti of verso single author working under the reign of Theodosius (AD 379–395), and that division of the lives between six authors and their dedications to Diocletian and Constantine were merely a literary ploy.3 3 H. Dessau, ‘Uber Zeit und Personlichkeit der Scriptores Historiae Augustae’, Hermes 24 (1889) 337–92. Ronald Syme – the most https://datingranking.net/it/latinomeetup-review/ influential exponent of the Dessau thesis – would famously term the author ‘a rogue grammaticus’.4 4 R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968) 207.

1. Per computational solution?

As early as the late 1970s, it was realized that this question of single or multiple authorship sopra verso campione offered verso perfect analisi case for statistical methods of authorship attribution. Ian Marriott conducted per groundbreaking analysis, published con the Journal of Roman Studies sopra 1979, which suggested that computational analysis indicated celibe authorship of the corpus.5 5 I. Marriott, ‘The authorship of the Historia Augusta: two calcolatore elettronico studies’, JRS 69 (1979) 65–77. This was a seminal application of forensic stylometry, as developed by Mosteller and Wallace, to per Latin text.6 6 F. Mosteller and D. Wallace, Inference and disputed authorship: the Federalist (Cambridge, Ciononostante 1964). Unfortunately, his analysis was marred by methodological errors, particularly the use of sentence length as per criterion of authorship, which is niente affatto longer considered an effective stylometric feature even for modern texts, and should definitely not be used for ancient texts, where the punctuation is coppia esatto the modern editor.7 7 D. Sansone, ‘The computer and the Historia Augusta: verso note on Marriott’, JRS 80 (1990) 174–77. For the correlative poor performance of ancora.g. average sentence or length, consult the extensive comparative evaluation reported in: J. Grieve, ‘Quantitative authorship attribution: an evaluation of techniques’, LLC 22 (2007) 251–70.

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookie name Active
Save settings
Cookies settings