Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1702Re: directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
  • Kumo997029@aol.com
    Jan 12, 1999
      In a message dated 99-01-10 11:26:35 EST, you write:

      <<
      Tim Reynolds wrote -
      >
      >relative brevity indicates the *direction* of piracy.
      >
      I can see that relative brevity might indicate the absence of piracy in
      one direction, but not the presence of piracy in the opposite direction.
      For where one version is briefer than another, each could be briefer
      than a version prior to both of them. If one version of a Shakespearean
      speech is longer than another, it simply does not follow that the
      shorter version was formed by pirating the longer.

      The pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk relative to Mk might
      indicate that Mark used neither Matthew nor Luke. It is a logical
      howler, however, to infer from this that therefore Matthew and Luke used
      Mark. It is perfectly consistent with the pericope-by-pericope brevity
      of Mt and Lk relative to Mk that no synoptic gospel was dependent on any
      other synoptic gospel.

      I think Tim's statement should read -

      >-- relative brevity indicates the *absence of piracy* in the direction
      >-- from the shorter to the longer version.
      >--

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON
      >>
      Brian,

      You're right as far as you go, but you have only one piece of a three-piece
      problem.

      Consider, if you will, the First Quarto [Q1] chunk I sent to Dr. Carlson on a
      few days ago. We have:

      1. Textual scrambling, what I've been calling "pervasive textual
      microvariants". So we know the relation between the Q1 and Folio *may* be
      auditory piracy.

      2. The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
      involved, the direction is from F to Q1.

      3. Finally, we know the situation of the F text, locked in a trunk backstage
      at the Globe while tickets to Hamlet were scalped outside. The case for AP
      is, I believe, conclusive.

      Compare the synoptic situation. Minor textual infidelity is the most striking
      feature of the three texts, the Mt and Lk versions are regularly shorter than
      their Mk counterparts, and Clement tells us the Mk holograph was "very well
      guarded" and accessible only through inhouse readings. If this isn't QED, I
      believe it deserves consideration.

      A friend suggests I may have overlooked something:

      Subj: Re: Non-existence of the Argument from Length
      Date: 99-01-10 17:37:21 EST
      From: TTalley532
      To: Kumo997029

      Tim,
      Seems a good parallel to the argument from length. It does not explain
      "auditory piracy," though. Wasn't that what he was asking about?
      Tom

      "Auditory piracy" is appropriating a text available only in a public recital
      venue by listening as hard as you can to a performance and then reconstructing
      it as well as possible as soon as possible.

      Tertium datur,

      Tim
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic