2.2 "the application of thought to textual criticism" by a.e.  (Page 4/10)

[72] Thirdly, these internal causes of error andfolly are subject to very little counteraction or correction from outside. The average reader knows hardly anything about textualcriticism, and therefore cannot exercise a vigilant control over the writer: the addle-pate is at liberty to maunder and theimpostor is at liberty to lie. And, what is worse, the reader often shares the writer's prejudices, and is far too well pleasedwith his conclusions to examine either his premises or his reasoning. Stand on a barrel in the streets of Bagdad, and say ina loud voice,"Twice two is four, and ginger is hot in the mouth, therefore Mohammed is the prophet of God,"and your logic will probably escape criticism; or, if anyone by chance shouldcriticise it, you could easily silence him by calling him a Christian dog.

Fourthly, the things which the textual critic has to talk about are not things which present themselves clearly and sharply to themind; and it is easy to say, and to fancy that you think, what you really do not think, and even what, if you seriously tried tothink it, you would find to be unthinkable. Mistakes are therefore made which could not be made if the matter underdiscussion were any corporeal object, having qualities perceptible to the senses. The human senses have had a much longer historythan the human intellect, and have been brought much nearer to perfection: they are far more acute, far less easy to deceive.The difference between an icicle and a red-hot poker is really much slighter than the difference between truth and falsehood orsense and nonsense; yet it is much more immediately noticeable and much more universally noticed, because the body is more sensitivethan the mind. I find therefore that a good way of exposing the falsehood of a statement or the absurdity of an argument intextual criticism is to transpose it into sensuous terms and see what it looks like then. If the nouns which we use are the namesof things which can be handled or tasted, differing from one another in being hot or cold, sweet or sour, then we realise whatwe are saying and take care what we say. But [73] the terms oftextual criticism are deplorably intellectual; and probably in no other field do men tell so many falsehoods in the idle hope thatthey are telling the truth, or talk so much nonsense in the vague belief that they are talking sense.

This is particularly unfortunate and particularly reprehensible, because there is no science in which it is morenecessary to take precautions against error arising from internal causes. Those who follow the physical sciences enjoy the greatadvantage that they can constantly bring their opinions to the test of fact, and verify or falsify their theories by experiment.When a chemist has mixed sulphur and saltpetre and charcoal in certain proportions and wishes to ascertain if the mixture isexplosive, he need only apply a match. When a doctor has compounded a new drug and desires to find out what diseases, ifany, it is good for, he has only to give it to his patients allround and notice which die and which recover. Our conclusions regarding the truth or falsehood of a MS. reading can never beconfirmed or corrected by an equally decisive test; for the only equally decisive test would be the production of the author'sautograph. The discovery merely of better and older MSS. than were previously known to us is not equally decisive; and even this inadequate verification is not to beexpected often, or on a large scale. It is therefore a matter of common prudence and common decency that we should neglect nosafeguard lying within our reach; that we should look sharp after ourselves; that we should narrowly scrutinise our own proceedingsand rigorously analyse our springs of action. How far these elementary requirements are satisfied, we will now learn fromexamples.