2.2 "the application of thought to textual criticism" by a.e.  (Page 2/10)

Secondly, textual criticism is not a branch of mathematics, nor indeed an exact science at all. It deals with amatter not rigid and constant, like lines and numbers, but fluid and variable; namely the frailties and aberrations of the humanmind, and of its insubordinate servants, the human fingers. It therefore is not susceptible of hard-and-fast rules. It would bemuch easier if it were; and that is why people try to pretend that it is, or at least behave as if they thought so. Of course you canhave hard-and-fast rules if you like, but then you will have false rules, and they will lead you wrong; because their simplicity willrender them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but complicated by the play of personality. A textual critic [69]engaged upon his business is not at all like Newton investigating the motions of the planets: he is much more like a dog hunting forfleas. If a dog hunted for fleas on mathematical principles, basing his researches on statistics of area and population, hewould never catch a flea except by accident. They require to be treated as individuals; and every problem which presents itself tothe textual critic must be regarded as possibly unique.

Textual criticism therefore is neither mystery nor mathematics: it cannot be learnt either like the catechism or likethe multiplication table. This science and this art require more in the learner than a simply receptive mind; and indeed the truthis that they cannot be taught at all: criticus nascitur, non fit . If a dog is to hunt for fleas successfully he must be quick and he must be sensitive. It is no good for arhinoceros to hunt for fleas: he does not know where they are, and could not catch them if he did. It has sometimes been said thattextual criticism is the crown and summit of all scholarship. This is not evidently or necessarily true; but it is true that thequalities which make a critic, whether they are thus transcendent or no, are rare, and that a good critic is a much less commonthing than for instance a good grammarian. I have in my mind a paper by a well-known scholar on a certain Latin writer, half ofwhich was concerned with grammar and half with criticism. The grammatical part was excellent; it showed wide reading andaccurate observation, and contributed matter which was both new and valuable. In the textual part the author was like nothing somuch as an ill-bred child interrupting the conversation of grown men. If it was possible to mistake the question at issue, hemistook it. If an opponent's arguments were contained in some book which was not at hand, he did not try to find the book, but hetried to guess the arguments; and he never succeeded. If the book was at hand, and he had read the arguments, hedid not understand them; and represented his opponents as saying the opposite of whatthey had said. If another scholar had already removed a corrup-[70]tion by slightly altering the text, he proposed to remove it by altering the text violently. So possible is it to bea learned man, and admirable in other departments, and yet to have in you not even the makings of a critic.