1702Re: directional non-indicator
- Jan 12, 1999In a message dated 99-01-10 11:26:35 EST, you write:
Tim Reynolds wrote -
>I can see that relative brevity might indicate the absence of piracy in
>relative brevity indicates the *direction* of piracy.
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 directionBest wishes,
>-- from the shorter to the longer version.
You're right as far as you go, but you have only one piece of a three-piece
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
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
Seems a good parallel to the argument from length. It does not explain
"auditory piracy," though. Wasn't that what he was asking about?
"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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>