Subject: tc-list Formulae and textual criticism

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:32:19 -0500

Re the discussion of logic & textual criticism:

I would recommend that *anyone* interested in textual criticism read the
lecture given by A.E. Housman in Cambridge, in 1921, titled "The
Application of Thought to Textual Criticism."  It was published in the
*Proceedings of the Classical Association in the same year (Vol. 18, pp.
67-84).  Two quotations from this lecture:

"Textual criticism is a science, and, since it comprises recension and
emendation, it is also an art" (p. 68).

"Of course you can have hard-and-fast rules if you like, but then you will
have false rules, and they will lead you wrong;  because their simplicity
will render them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but
complicated by the play of personality" (p. 68).

For those who do not know who Housman was, I recommend you check the "old"
(pre-Macro- Micro-padeia) *Encyclopaedia Britannica*.  An excellent
biography of Housman is also available:  *A.E. Housman, The Scholar-Poet*,
by R.P. Graves (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1979).

--Petersen,
Penn State University,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies.

---

From: Bruce Morrill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:26:52 -0600 (CST)

Thanks, Bill.  I also remember a statement attributed to Housman, though I
don't know the source, that textual criticism is "the science of finding
and the art of removing error."

Bruce Morrill   [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:39:56 -0600

>67-84).  Two quotations from this lecture:

[ ... ]

>complicated by the play of personality" (p. 68).

It is obvious that what we have here is an irreconcileable argument.
Those who *want* TC to be an art will make it an art; those who
want it to be a science will attempt to make it a science. (I say
"attempt to" because, of course, any attempt at rigour may fail.
Whereas one can always create "art" -- at least in one's own
mind. The question of whether it is any good is irrelevant.)

To me, it is obvious which is the preferable form -- but then, again,
I'm biased by being scientifically trained. I could also claim to
be an artist (since I'm a folk musician) -- but I wasn't trained
in that.... :-)

But I must also enter an objection. Housman is speaking of *classical*
textual criticism. In one sense at least, this differs from NTTC.
In classical TC (with some exceptions such as Homer) we are dealing
with relatively few manuscripts. Housman's career, for instance, was
devoted to Manilius. I don't know how many manuscripts there are
of Manilius, but I doubt it's more than a dozen. Tacitus exists in
two, which have no overlap. Beowulf exists in one (and that one now
badly damaged). In cases such as this, I readily concede that TC
must proceed artistically.

That's not the case for NTTC, where we have more manuscripts than
we know what to do with....

I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion, as I
doubt we will change anyone's opionions. But if someone *really*
wants to argue that scientific rigour is bad -- well, I invite
that person to go live in a log cabin for a year, with no electricity
or tools made out of any material more advanced than cast iron,
and *then* come back and tell me scientific rigour is to be
avoided. :-)

>by R.P. Graves (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1979).

Of course, Housman is also noteworthy as one of the few relatively
modern poets who actually understood the value of *simplicity*
in poetry. _A_Shropshire_Lad_ won't teach you a thing about TC --
but it might demonstrate what's wrong with English poetry today. (My
turn to play the curmudgeon. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:55:22 -0800 (PST)

> It is obvious that what we have here is an irreconcileable argument.

Irreconcilable?  How so?  The history of TC, and NT TC in particular, is
littered with attempts to formulate these hard-and-fast rules. Each
attempt has been proven a failure.  And it was proven a failure by methods
other than the "rigorous" methods you propose. 

But since you mentioned that one of the tests for a good theory is the
ability to predict new discoveries, it is good to point out that Westcott
and Hort made several conjectures about which variant was the earlier
reading, conjectures which were then proved correct with the discovery of
earlier papyri.  They made these conjectures by relying on the methods you
condemn as non-scientific and non-rigorous. 

[snip] > But I must also enter an objection. Housman is speaking of
*classical* > textual criticism. In one sense at least, this differs from
NTTC. > In classical TC (with some exceptions such as Homer) we are
dealing > with relatively few manuscripts. Housman's career, for instance,
was > devoted to Manilius. I don't know how many manuscripts there are >
of Manilius, but I doubt it's more than a dozen. Tacitus exists in > two,
which have no overlap. Beowulf exists in one (and that one now > badly
damaged). In cases such as this, I readily concede that TC > must proceed
artistically. > > That's not the case for NTTC, where we have more
manuscripts than > we know what to do with.... > It is true that we have
many more manuscripts than for any of the Classical authors.  It is also
true that this opens the door for the application of some statistical
methods, methods that are entirely useless for the TC of Classical
authors.  But it does NOT imply that these statistical methods can REPLACE
the methods Housman is speaking of.  At best, it can supplement and extend
them. 

After all, with the many more manuscripts, we have many more variations. 
The reasons for these variations are often not obvious.  At times, the
variations have theological motiviations that were obvious only to a few
even at the time they were made! 

> and *then* come back and tell me scientific rigour is to be

Isn't this what Ted Kaczynski did?

But seriously now, nobody is claiming that "scientific rigour is to be
avoided".  What I am saying (and I think this is not too far from what the
others are saying as well), is that what you call "scientific rigour" is
too narrowly defined.  Your notion of "scientific rigour" is really "the
experimental method", which method has produced excellent results in the
last 500 years in the physical sciences.  It has also yielded fruit in
psychology, sociology, history and a few others of the humanities in the
last 150 years or so, but it has never been able to replace the other
scientific methods of these fields, as it did in the physical sciences. 

> >by R.P. Graves (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1979).

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:47:59 -0600

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote:
 
>Irreconcilable?  How so?

I meant that we will never reach agreement. A few people -- of whom
I seem to be the only vocal one :-) -- will never accept that
subjectivity is desirable. The rest of the people on this list will
never accept that subjectivity is not desirable.

It is, as best I can tell, a fundamental difference in the way we
view the universe.

>The history of TC, and NT TC in particular, is

If a proof isn't rigorous, it isn't a proof. :-)

>condemn as non-scientific and non-rigorous. 

Not quite -- since W&H were being as rigorous as was possible in their
day (the fact that they were geniuses of internal criteria does not
mask the fact that they relied primarily on external criteria).

If the evidence were still as it was in Hort's day -- if there were
no P46, no 1739, no P72, no minuscules of Family 2138 -- then I
would probably accept Hort's theory (with computer controls on the
evidence) as being the best possible in its time.

> It is true that we have

An entirely serious question: How do you know?

[ ... ]

>Isn't this what Ted Kaczynski did?

So? It would seem to me that that is an argument for scientific
rigour, if it is an argument for anything at all. (Which it
probably isn't. :-)

>scientific methods of these fields, as it did in the physical sciences. 

But there is a difference. In NTTC, we have a defined objective:
Recovery of the original text. What is the "objective" of, say,
history? If we had a precise objective, perhaps we could invent a
scientific method.

I will concede that I can't offer true "proof" that my methods
are better than others'; the only way we can have true proof is
to have the autographs. But in the meantime I am at least offering
a method that is relatively repeatable. :-)

***

Folks, I see little point in continuing this discussion. What we see
here is a difference in belief systems. As I already stated, there is
*no reconciling such differences.*

But since I am one of the few defenders of rigorous methods, I must
keep answering, if for no other reason than to show that the answers
exist. If you, like me, wish we could drop this pointless thread,
then just don't answer. I know I haven't convinced you. But you
haven't convinced me, either. :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]