Thu Oct 31 12:13:00 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 31 12:13:00 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA00555; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:11:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199610311710.KAA02210@wave.sheridan.wy.us>
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
From: "Dave Washburn" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:06:24 -7
Subject: Re: More on 2427
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1349

Bob Waltz wrote:
> This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript
> tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? For example,
> I've seen people who consider F G of Paul to be direct descendents of
> D -- which is simply ludicrous. I'd just like to know how others feel.

It seems to me that this is one of those questions that has never 
been adequately answered, could be critical for several aspects of 
TC, but has sort of gotten lost in the shuffle of other 
methodological questions.  Hort developed his whole text-type system 
based on the principle "identity of error implies identity of 
origin," but I'm not sure that's a valid canon.  How much "identity 
of error"?  What is meant by "identity of origin?"

It seems to me that what we need most in order to answer this 
question are some clear examples of direct descent and/or copying so 
that we can - at least for one period of the stream of transmission - 
examine the forces that were in action, i.e. how much change, 
correction by other mss., and all the rest.  Without such clear 
examples, I'm not totally convinced that we can answer this question 
(though I remain hopeful that somehow we can).

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
I've never had an original thought in my life,
so this opinion must be someone else's fault.

Back