2.2 "the application of thought to textual criticism" by a.e.  (Page 8/10)

Now to detect a non sequitur , unless it leads to an unwelcome conclusion, is as much beyond thepower of [79] the average reader as it is beyond the power of theaverage writer to attach ideas to his own words when those words are terms of textual criticism. I will therefore substitute otherterms, terms to which ideas must be attached; and I invite consideration of this maxim and this ratiocination:

"A bullet-wound is, speaking generally, comparatively an uncommon cause of death, and weshould therefore be loth to assume it in a given case."

Why is interpolation comparatively uncommon? For the same reason that bullet-woundsare: because the opportunity for it is comparatively uncommon. Interpolation is provoked by real or supposed difficulties, and isnot frequently volunteered where all is plain sailing; whereas accidental alteration may happen anywhere. Every letter of everyword lies exposed to it, and that is the sole reason why accidental alteration is more common. In a given case whereeither assumption is possible, the assumption of interpolation is equally probable, nay more probable; because action with a motiveis more probable than action without a motive. The truth therefore is that in such a case we should be loth to assumeaccident and should rather assume interpolation; and the circumstance that such cases are comparatively uncommon is noreason for behaving irrationally when they occur.

There is one special province of textual criticism, a large and important province, which is concerned with [80]the establishment of rules of grammar and of metre. Those rules arein part traditional, and given us by the ancient grammarians; but in part they are formed by our own induction from what we find inthe MSS. of Greek and Latin authors; and even the traditional rules must of course be tested by comparison with the witness ofthe MSS. But every rule, whether traditional or framed from induction, is sometimes broken by the MSS.; it may be by few, itmay be by many; it may be seldom, it may be often; and critics may then say that the MSS. are wrong and may correct them inaccordance with the rule. The state of affairs is apparently, nay evidently, paradoxical. The MSS. are the material upon which webase our rule, and then, when we have got our rule, we turn round upon the MSS. and say that the rule, based upon them, convicts them of error. We are thus working in a circle, that is a factwhich there is no denying; but, as Lachmann says, the task of the critic is just this, to tread that circle deftly and warily; andthat is precisely what elevates the critic's business above mere mechanical labour. The difficulty is one which lies in the natureof the case, and is inevitable; and the only way to surmount it is just to be a critic.