2.2 "the application of thought to textual criticism" by a.e.  (Page 7/10)

This is thoughtlessness in the sphere of recension: come now to the sphere of emendation. There is one foolish sortof conjecture which seems to be commoner in the British Isles than anywhere else, though it is also practiced abroad, and of lateyears especially at Munich. The practice is, if you have persuaded yourself that a text is corrupt, to alter a letter ortwo and see what happens. If what happens is anything which the warmest good-will can mistake for sense and grammar, you call itan emendation; and you call this silly game the palaeographical method.

The palaeographical method has always been the delight of tiros and the scorn of critics. Haupt, for example,used to warn his pupils against mistaking this sort of thing for emendation."The prime requisite of a good emendation,"said he,"is that it should start from the thought; it is only afterwards that other considerations, such as those of metreor possibilities, such as the interchange of letters, are taken into account."And again:"If the sense requires it, I am prepared to write Constantinopolitanus where the MSS. have the monosyllabic interjection o ."And again:"From the requirement that one should [78]always begin with the thought, there results, as is self-evident, the negative aspect of thecase, that one should not, at the outset, consider what exchange of letters may possibly have brought about the corruption of thepassage one is dealing with."And further, in his oration on Lachmann as a critic:"Some people, if they see that anything in an ancient text wants correcting, immediately betake themselvesto the art of palaeography, investigate the shapes of letters and the forms of abbreviation, and try one dodge after another, as ifit were a game, until they hit upon something which they think they can substitute for the corruption; as if forsooth truth weregenerally discovered by shots of that sort, or as if emendation could take its rise from anything but a careful consideration ofthe thought."

But even when palaeography is kept in her proper place, as handmaid, and not allowed to give herself the airs ofmistress, she is apt to be overworked. There is a preference for conjectures which call in the aid of palaeography, and whichassume, as the cause of error, the accidental interchange of similar letters or similar words, although other causes of errorare known to exist. One is presented, for instance, with the following maxim:"Interpolation is, speaking generally, comparatively an uncommon source of alteration, and we shouldtherefore be loth to assume it in a given case."

Every case is a given case; so what this maxim really means is that we should always be loth to assumeinterpolation as a source of alteration. But it is certain, and admitted by this writer when he uses the phrase"comparatively uncommon,"that interpolation does occur; so he is telling us that we should be loth to assume interpolation even when thatassumption is true. And the reason why we are to behave in this ridiculous manner is that interpolation is, speaking generally,comparatively an uncommon source of alteration.