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

"auditory piracy"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
      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 2 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
        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 3 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
          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 4 of 25 , Jan 16, 1999
            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 5 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
              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 6 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
                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.