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

Re: Non-existence of the Argument from Length

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... I m interested in learning more about the concept of auditory bootlegs. Do you have a recommendation of a good source explaining what auditory bootlegs
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:56 PM 1/2/99 EST, Kumo997029@... wrote:
      >Let me rephrase Carlson: Is the pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk
      >relative to Mk a clue to Synoptic provenance?
      >
      >Yes, it suggests that Mt and Lk are auditory bootlegs of Mk.
      >
      >Do other clues point in the same direction?

      I'm interested in learning more about the concept of "auditory bootlegs."
      Do you have a recommendation of a good source explaining what auditory
      bootlegs are and whether relative brevity is a touchstone of auditory
      piracy?

      Stephen Carlson

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Kumo997029@aol.com
      Dr. Carlson, There s no one source, no Encyclopedia Brit entry. The phenomenon has been under Shakespearean attention since Greg: A.S. Cairnross tells us
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 9, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Dr. Carlson,

        There's no one source, no Encyclopedia Brit entry. The phenomenon has been
        under Shakespearean attention since Greg:

        "A.S. Cairnross tells us that Q1 [first quarto, ed] 'has all the recognized
        features of . . . a report -- abbreviation, transposition of material, the use
        of synonyms, recollections external and internal; with inferior metre, and
        verse wrongly divided as prose'."

        Cited from the most recent relevant study, Maguire, *Shakespearean Suspect
        Texts: the 'Bad' Quartos and their Contexts*. She isn't, for methodological
        reasons, comparing texts, which is how what you detect what she calls
        "omissions, so she's not much help. Background in Hart, *Stolne and
        Surreptitious Copies: a comparative study of Shakespeare's bad quartos*, and
        Pollard, *Shakespeare's Fight With the Pirates and the Problem of the
        Transmission of the Text*.

        This isn't what you requested. But you really don't need a "good source" at
        all:

        To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
        To Die, to sleepe, is that all? I all:
        No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes,
        For in that dreame of death, when wee awake,
        And borne before an euerlasting Iudge,
        From whence no passenger euer retur'nd,
        The vndiscouered country, at whose sight
        The happy smile, and the accursed damn'd.
        But for this, the ioyfull hope of this,
        Whol'd beare the scornes and flattery of the world,
        Scorned by the right rich, the rich curssed of the poore?
        The widow being oppressed, the orphan wrong'd,
        The taste of hunger, or a tirants raigne,
        And thousand more calamities besides,
        To grunt and sweate vnder this weary life,
        When that he may his full Quietus make,
        With a bare bodkin, who would this indure,
        But for a hope of something after death?
        Which pusles the braine, and doth confound the sence,
        Which makes vs rather beare those euilles we haue,
        Than flie to others that we know not of.
        I that, O this conscience makes cowardes of vs all,
        Lady in thy orizons, be all my sinnes remembred.

        Compare this 22-line First Quarto version with the 35-line Folio version in
        your bookcase and I think you'll get the picture.

        SUNERGOS SOU,

        Tim Reynolds
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Tim Reynolds wrote - ... I can see that relative brevity might indicate the absence of piracy in one direction, but not the presence of piracy in the opposite
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 10, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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

          E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
          10 York Close, Godmanchester,
          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
        • Kumo997029@aol.com
          In a message dated 99-01-10 11:26:35 EST, you write:
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            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
          • Bob Schacht
            ... recital ... reconstructing ... I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the auditory piracy concept, but the label does not transport well.
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              At 07:24 PM 1/12/99 -0500, Kumo997029@... wrote:
              >...
              >..."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
              >

              I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the "auditory piracy"
              concept, but the label does not transport well. The purposes of the
              performances were different: Shakespeare had every reason to want to
              control his intellectual capital. The evangelists, however, were more
              interested in *spreading* the good news. They would be well pleased at the
              efforts of an auditor to hear the Word and spread the News. This makes the
              concept all the more interesting, although a different label is needed.
              Contrast the following: Imagine a member of the audience coming up to the
              actor who portrayed Hamlet and saying, "That was a great soliloquy you did
              there; I got the 'To be, or not to be, that is the question! Whether tis
              nobler..." etc etc. for several lines, and then saying "but I lost track
              after that. Could you repeat what you said after that?" Well, the actor
              might not be to eager to recite the same lines for the benefit of the
              memorizer. But now imagine the same scene with an evangelist: "That sermon
              on the plain was really great, but I can only remember the first three
              blessings. What were the other ones?" The reader in this case would
              probably be happy to supply the information-- orally. One might even say
              that among the evangelists, 'auditory piracy' would have been encouraged?
              So in the case of the Synoptics, back-checking might have been an
              acceptable practice, whereas in the case of auditory piracy, back-checking
              would have been difficult. On the other hand, the distance between
              performances might have been greater if a whole gospel were to be heard
              only from the bishop's copy as he toured his domain.

              Nevertheless, the statistics on the mechanics of similarity between
              Shakespearean copies might make interesting comparisons regarding the
              Synoptics-- but one should also include statistics on textual variants
              within a text tradition.

              Would one of the trademarks of auditory piracy be confusion of homonyms? Do
              we have any examples of that?

              Bob
              Robert Schacht
              Northern Arizona University
              Robert.Schacht@...

              "This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method':
              that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's
              position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our
              criticism to be worth while." [Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific
              Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5]
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Tim Reynolds wrote - ... Tim, sorry if I am labouring the point, but no, we do not know this at all. I would suggest your statement should read - ... The
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Tim Reynolds wrote -
                >
                >The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
                >involved, the direction is from F to Q1.
                >
                Tim, sorry if I am labouring the point, but no, we do not know this at
                all. I would suggest your statement should read -
                >
                >The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
                >involved, the direction is NOT FROM Q1 TO F.
                >
                The conclusion that the direction is not from Q1 to F is consistent both
                with AP in the direction from F to Q1, and also with *no* AP in the
                direction from F to Q1. If AP is involved, what can be inferred is the
                negative conclusion that the AP is not in a given direction. The
                positive conclusion, that AP is in a given direction, cannot be inferred
                from the data.

                Q1 being significantly shorter than F is a directional NON-indicator.

                Of course, if "F" is the original autograph, then the direction cannot
                be from Q1 to F in any case. We would know this, however, without even
                looking at Q1, and it would not follow from a comparison of F and Q1,
                but would be true even if Q1 was significantly longer than F. The
                special situation of "F" being an autograph manuscript is hypothetical,
                however, since we do not have any autograph manuscripts of the works of
                Shakespeare. Indeed, the whole point of arguing from the occurrence of
                AP arises from the original autographs having been lost. If we had the
                autographs, the non-original parts of the dependent scripts would be
                obvious irrespective of arguments from the occurrence of AP.

                In my view the distinction between a directional indicator and a
                directional non-indicator is by no means trivial. It seems to me that a
                great deal of synoptic criticism founders on this point. It is not at
                all easy to show that the writer of document Y used document X. Very
                often the data adduced shows *not* that the writer of document Y used X,
                but that the writer of document X did not use Y. The crucial point is
                that X not using Y is not the same as Y using X. Showing that Matthew
                did not use Luke does not show that Luke used Matthew, and so on. I have
                yet to see an argument that Luke used Matthew which does not attempt to
                use a directional non-indicator as a directional indicator.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
                10 York Close, Godmanchester,
                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
              • Mark Goodacre
                Like Bob I am intrigued by the possibility that the first quarto of Hamlet (etc.) and its relationship to the folio version might shed light on the synoptic
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Like Bob I am intrigued by the possibility that the first quarto of Hamlet
                  (etc.) and its relationship to the folio version might shed light on the
                  synoptic problem and I am grateful to Tim for bringing it up. I once went to
                  see a performance of the first quarto of Hamlet, a real curiosity the most
                  memorable part of which was indeed "To be or not to be; aye, there's the
                  point". I seem to remember too that the line "O that this too too solid flesh
                  would melt" was rendered "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt" (or
                  vice versa?), which would be well explained by auditory piracy -- either word
                  would make good sense.

                  However in relation to the Synoptic Problem, and specifically the argument from
                  length, several qualifications need to be made:

                  (1) It is not the case that Matthew and Luke are consistently shorter than Mark
                  in indvidual pericopae as Sanders demonstrated in _Tendencies_ (see several
                  previous messasges on this).

                  (2) The first quarto of Hamlet is overall shorter than the folio version. I
                  remember this clearly because we had time to get a couple of rounds in before
                  closing time (often the most memorable part of the evening). Now this means
                  that the first quarto is shorter both in overall length and in individual
                  particulars like the famous soliloquy (22 lines vs. 35 by Tim's count). This,
                  then, is different from the situation in the Synoptics where Mark is overall
                  shorter but sometimes in indvidual percipae longer.

                  The following qualification from Bob is also right, I think, and all the more
                  so if one accepts the conclusions of the recent book by Bauckham (ed.) on
                  Gospel Audiences:

                  > I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the "auditory piracy"
                  > concept, but the label does not transport well. The purposes of the
                  > performances were different: Shakespeare had every reason to want to control
                  > his intellectual capital. The evangelists, however, were more interested in
                  > *spreading* the good news. They would be well pleased at the efforts of an
                  > auditor to hear the Word and spread the News. This makes the concept all the
                  > more interesting, although a different label is needed.

                  But I for one would be interested to hear any more reflections on how this
                  analogy from Shakespeare might help us get our nose out of the Synopsis.

                  Mark
                  --------------------------------------
                  Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                  Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                  Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                  --------------------------------------

                  Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                  Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Kumo997029@aol.com
                  In a message dated 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST, you write:
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 16, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST, you write:

                    << Subj: "auditory piracy"
                    Date: 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST
                    From: Robert.Schacht@... (Bob Schacht)
                    To: Synoptic-L@...

                    At 07:24 PM 1/12/99 -0500, Kumo997029@... wrote:
                    >...
                    >..."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
                    >

                    I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the "auditory piracy"
                    concept, but the label does not transport well. The purposes of the
                    performances were different: Shakespeare had every reason to want to
                    control his intellectual capital. The evangelists, however, were more
                    interested in *spreading* the good news. They would be well pleased at the
                    efforts of an auditor to hear the Word and spread the News. This makes the
                    concept all the more interesting, although a different label is needed.
                    Contrast the following: Imagine a member of the audience coming up to the
                    actor who portrayed Hamlet and saying, "That was a great soliloquy you did
                    there; I got the 'To be, or not to be, that is the question! Whether tis
                    nobler..." etc etc. for several lines, and then saying "but I lost track
                    after that. Could you repeat what you said after that?" Well, the actor
                    might not be to eager to recite the same lines for the benefit of the
                    memorizer. But now imagine the same scene with an evangelist: "That sermon
                    on the plain was really great, but I can only remember the first three
                    blessings. What were the other ones?" The reader in this case would
                    probably be happy to supply the information-- orally. One might even say
                    that among the evangelists, 'auditory piracy' would have been encouraged?
                    So in the case of the Synoptics, back-checking might have been an
                    acceptable practice, whereas in the case of auditory piracy, back-checking
                    would have been difficult. On the other hand, the distance between
                    performances might have been greater if a whole gospel were to be heard
                    only from the bishop's copy as he toured his domain.

                    {I wish I could work the response business in the list.

                    {This just in (AP!):

                    {CHURCH REPORTS THEFT OF SACRED BONES

                    {CHANDLER, Ariz.--Centuries-old sacred bone fragments and the reliquary box in
                    which they were displayed have disappeared from a Greek Orthodox Church. The
                    pebble-sized fragments date from the 3rd and 4th centuries.

                    {"These are very highly venerated," said the Rev. Philip Armstrong, priest of
                    St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church. "The relics of saints are considered to
                    be sources for healings, for answered prayers and for the blessing of
                    premises. It is really a grave loss spiritually to us."
                    --Associat
                    ed Press

                    {While the Church wanted Christians to share in these benefits, the idea was
                    that they'd do it in Chandler. Matthew had to steal Mark's text for the same
                    reason the Venetians had to steal his body. The only difference I can see is
                    that the Hamlet pirate did it for money and Mt did it to make this unique
                    recruitment tool available to Christendom at large, exhibiting that zeal you
                    posit of the evangelists, which difference doesn't affect the texts.}

                    Nevertheless, the statistics on the mechanics of similarity between
                    Shakespearean copies might make interesting comparisons regarding the
                    Synoptics-- but one should also include statistics on textual variants
                    within a text tradition.

                    {Let's not get over-involved with Shakespeare. It's more or less an accident
                    that AP scholarship is more or less confined to Shakespeare studies. Once
                    sensitized to the phenomenon one runs across it from time to time. In 1851
                    Paris "such eminent preachers as Lacordaire and De Ravignan" complained:

                    {"More than ever do we see the spread of enterprises aiming, as they
                    directly announce, to publish verbatim issues of sermons, lectures,
                    instructions, delivered in the churches of Paris by the most celebrated
                    preachers; and this against the express wish of these preachers, against
                    their incontestable rights, and to the prejudice of the dignity and
                    liberty of the sacred Word. Consequently, the priests undersigned, who
                    more than others have had to suffer from this lamentable industry, avow
                    that not only are they averse to these reproductions, but that the same
                    are generally inexact, marred, and even so deformed as to compromise, in
                    outward opinion, the purity of their orthodoxy ..."}

                    Would one of the trademarks of auditory piracy be confusion of homonyms? Do
                    we have any examples of that?

                    {Morton Smith suggested I go after itacisms. My snotty feeling (I was
                    younger) was that if he couldn't see what was going on a couple of itacisms
                    wouldn't enlighten him. But yes, homonyms would be "trademarks of auditory
                    piracy". I haven't looked. Thesis topic.}

                    Bob
                    Robert Schacht
                    Northern Arizona University
                    Robert.Schacht@... >>

                    {Tim}
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    Dear list, I don t know who started it, but I do hope we have seen the last for a while of discourse on auditory piracy. I think it is an extremely unpromising
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear list,

                      I don't know who started it, but I do hope we have seen the last for a
                      while of discourse on auditory piracy. I think it is an extremely unpromising
                      avenue to pursue, especially as an explanation for the gospels of Matthew and
                      Luke, understood as deriving from a presumed "heard" Mark. The authors of both
                      these Gospels are manifestly persons who had intimate, hands-on familiarity
                      with numerous books, and it is unlikely in the extreme that, even in the (also
                      unlikely) event that the Gospel of Mark already existed when they wrote, they
                      were reduced to the exigency of picking up what they could of it from random
                      auditory events. The theory simply doesn't merit the further exercise of our
                      collective mental resources, in my never-too-humble view. Requiescat in pace.
                      Amen.

                      By the way, happy New Year, everyone!

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Antonio Jerez
                      ... AMEN to each and everyone of those words of wisdom! Best wishes Antonio Jerez
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Leonard Maluf wrote:

                        >Dear list,
                        >
                        > I don't know who started it, but I do hope we have seen the last for a
                        >while of discourse on auditory piracy. I think it is an extremely unpromising
                        >avenue to pursue, especially as an explanation for the gospels of Matthew and
                        >Luke, understood as deriving from a presumed "heard" Mark. The authors of both
                        >these Gospels are manifestly persons who had intimate, hands-on familiarity
                        >with numerous books, and it is unlikely in the extreme that, even in the (also
                        >unlikely) event that the Gospel of Mark already existed when they wrote, they
                        >were reduced to the exigency of picking up what they could of it from random
                        >auditory events. The theory simply doesn't merit the further exercise of our
                        >collective mental resources, in my never-too-humble view. Requiescat in pace.
                        >Amen.
                        >
                        >By the way, happy New Year, everyone!
                        >
                        >Leonard Maluf


                        AMEN to each and everyone of those words of wisdom!

                        Best wishes

                        Antonio Jerez
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.