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

Re: A challenge

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: [ BTW -- I know Dearing asked us to respond off-list. But I have questions that no one
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 9, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" <dearing@...> wrote:

      [ BTW -- I know Dearing asked us to respond off-list. But I have
      questions that no one else seems to be asking, so I thought I would
      post here. ]

      >Dear listers:
      > A textual stemma has a general form that may need to be determined
      >before the stemma is decided upon. For example, with three texts,
      >none of which can be intermediary between the others,

      A minor point: Should this not be *directly* intermediary? It is
      usually easy to show that A is the parent of B. It is much harder
      to show that A is the ancestor of B with intervening mixture. I
      assume, from the comments in the rest of this paragraph, that you
      are simply saying that none of the manuscripts are parents of any
      of the others. Correct?

      [ ... ]

      > An archetype has all the correct readings in the texts, and if no
      >one text has all of them, we need to recognize the abstract form to
      >decide among the other possibilities and to reconstruct the archetype
      >(with the three texts in the example, when they agree, the lost text
      >agrees with them; otherwise it agrees with any two of the extant
      >texts). This is quite a different procedure from choosing the
      >text with the most best readings and substituting the rest in it,
      >leaving the great preponderance of its readings unweighed in the
      >balance.

      While I generally agree with the reconstruction method proposed
      (except that I would substitute "text-types" for "texts"), I am
      not sure I understand your distinction. In the final sentence, by
      "best readings," do you mean based on internal evidence or on
      majority rule? For, if the latter, I do not see the distinction
      between the two methods.

      > With more than three texts, the stemma may have one or more
      >"rings" in it if nothing is done to remove them. If A and B have
      >"yes" where C and D have "yea" and A and C have "no" where B and
      >D have "nay" then the abstract form of the ring is A--B ("yes"), B--D
      >("nay"), D--C ("yea"), and C--A ("no"). The archetype may be any of
      >the four texts or the common ancestor of any two that are connected,
      >say, of A and C, making B a descendant of A and D the common
      >descendant of B and C (i.e., when A and C disagreed, sometimes A and
      >sometimes C had the best reading; the archetype would then read "no"
      >whether or not that was one of the identifiably best readings).

      While I concede the possibility of a "ring" in a point of variation
      involving four texts and two points of variation, I do not think
      it possible to create such a grouping if one includes more manuscripts
      and more readings. For example, with four manuscripts and two binary
      readings, there are sixteen possible breakdowns of results. Adding
      just one more reading doubles this. Adding a fifth manuscript increases
      the possibilities by 25%. And so on. The only way one can find "rings"
      is to confine one's self to very small samples of the text. But if
      one is so confined, how does one decide, of the three variants
      yes/yea, no/nay, and should/shall, whether to focus our attention
      on yes/yea and no/nay to the exclusion of should/shall?

      > To "break" such a ring we decide which is the "weakest link," all
      >variations considered, and before we look for the archetype -- note,
      >before we look for the archetype. If, for example, there are over all
      >fewer AB agreements than AC agreements or BD agreements or CD
      >agreements, then we say that the agreement of A and B in having "yes"
      >is abnormal (without deciding whether it is accidental, coincidental
      >or emendatory) and set it aside. In effect, then, we have three
      >variant readings, "yes (A)," "yes (B)" and "yea," and the abstract
      >relationship among the four texts is A--C--D--B. Other evidence may
      >modify the relationship without changing the basic series: a lost
      >text may take the place of C with C connected to it, or a lost text
      >may take the place of D with D connected to it, or there may be two
      >lost texts, with C connected to one and D to the other, and one of
      >these lost texts may be the archetype.

      Again, I agree that we should determine everything possible about our
      manuscripts before we look for the archetype. But I fail to see the
      point of "breaking the ring." The only justification I can see is to
      cast off one of the four manuscripts so that one can make a decision
      in the event of a two-versus-two tie. (Which, BTW, is *not* my method;
      in a two-versus-two tie I would actually look to internal evidence.)
      But it would appear that your method rewards texts which agree often.
      In the case of a tie, I would be inclined, in the abstract, to reward
      those which did *not* agree often.


      > Now, using A--B--D--C--A for the ring we have just been
      >considering, there may also be rings A--B--C--D--A and A--
      >C--B--D--A, three rings that we may call alternates. And if there are
      >additional texts we may have two small rings A--B--D--C--A and
      >A--B--E--F--A within a larger ring A--C--D--B--E--F--A, the two
      >smaller of which we may call connected.

      Technical footnote: There are actually *six* possible rings with
      four members (assuming we always start with A):

      A-B-C-D
      A-B-D-C
      A-C-B-D
      A-C-D-B
      A-D-B-C
      A-D-C-B

      If you have a method for restricting this to the rings you listed,
      I failed to understand it.

      > In order to be consistent in breaking the rings and to divide as
      >few links as possible, we need to break them in a certain order and
      >may need to repeat the process after the first round of breaking.
      >These increasingly complicated matters are treated on pp. 93-98 of my
      >book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis. If those who wish
      >to take up my challenge wish also to have a Xerox copy of these pages
      >I shall be happy to send them one. So what is my challenge?
      > You may decide that you can live with a few rings in your stemmas.
      >You will then find that with a medium sized New Testament book like
      >First John and the twenty earliest surviving texts, there are nearly
      >7000 rings. I have written a computer program that patiently
      >identifies all the smaller rings, breaks the rings in the required
      >order, and then repeats the process as often as necessary. This
      >program traces many linkages that do not lead to rings, and if, for
      >example, A leads to C, C to D, D to B, B to E, E to F, and F does
      >not lead to A, the program has (I fear) wasted some time. It is smart
      >enough to know that if A leads to B but never to any other text
      >to the exclusion of B then A--B will never be a link in any ring. It
      >might be smartened up so as to know that if F does not lead to A, as
      >in the longer example above, then it may be that F will never lead to
      >A and the search can stop short when E leads to F. But I have a
      >feeling that the initial form of a stemma is like a great net and
      >that you ought to be able to move forward from any place or tag end
      >on its circumference breaking the meshes (rings) as you come to them
      >until the remaining strands spread out like fans within fans, not a
      >cross link among them. Do you have or can you divise an algorithm for
      >doing this? You do not need to be a computer programmer -- a step by
      >step explanation will do, showing how to start with one text and comb
      >out the linkages between it and the rest. Remember, unless one of the
      >texts has all the best readings it is impossible to decide on the
      >archetype until the comb-out is completed.

      Speaking as a computer programmer, I don't think you've defined the
      problem clearly enough for me to comment on a solution algorithm.
      I don't doubt that you have actually refined your method further
      than what you have described here, but based on the comments you've
      made, I can't add anything.

      -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

      Robert B. Waltz
      waltzmn@...

      Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
      Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
      (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
    • James R. Adair
      Several years ago I read both of Dearing s books and found them both fascinating and informative. He has of course only given us a brief synopsis of his views
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 10, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        Several years ago I read both of Dearing's books and found them both
        fascinating and informative. He has of course only given us a brief
        synopsis of his views on the list. Since it's been a while since I read
        them, I want to test my memory a bit and reply to both Vinton Dearing and
        Bob Waltz.

        On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

        > On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" <dearing@...> wrote:
        >
        > >Dear listers:
        > > A textual stemma has a general form that may need to be determined
        > >before the stemma is decided upon. For example, with three texts,
        > >none of which can be intermediary between the others,
        >
        > A minor point: Should this not be *directly* intermediary? It is
        > usually easy to show that A is the parent of B. It is much harder
        > to show that A is the ancestor of B with intervening mixture. I
        > assume, from the comments in the rest of this paragraph, that you
        > are simply saying that none of the manuscripts are parents of any
        > of the others. Correct?

        There is no necessity to say "directly intermediary," since with any three
        mss with any given set of readings, even if there is an apparent ring, it
        can be shown that by creating a hypothetical intermediary ms that has the
        majority reading whenever the mss split 2-1, this ms can be added to the
        other three in such a way as to eliminate the ring:

        A A
        / \ --> |
        B---C x
        / \
        B C


        In case not everyone is clear on the definition of a ring, let me try to
        explain it. Dearing's genealogical method begins with the assumption that
        every ms under consideration had only one exemplar, so if a reading is
        present in two mss, they should be genetically related (of course, common
        scribal mistakes such as the addition or omission of a conjunction must be
        eliminated from consideration). From time to time, a scribe might create
        a variant that also appears in an unrelated ms, thus giving the appearance
        of a relationship that is not real. And of course, in the case of
        biblical mss, since we know that sometimes one ms was corrected from
        another, variants from (mostly) unrelated mss can appear in another ms.
        These agreements based on either accident or correction are called rings.

        > > With more than three texts, the stemma may have one or more
        > >"rings" in it if nothing is done to remove them. If A and B have
        > >"yes" where C and D have "yea" and A and C have "no" where B and
        > >D have "nay" then the abstract form of the ring is A--B ("yes"), B--D
        > >("nay"), D--C ("yea"), and C--A ("no"). The archetype may be any of
        > >the four texts or the common ancestor of any two that are connected,
        > >say, of A and C, making B a descendant of A and D the common
        > >descendant of B and C (i.e., when A and C disagreed, sometimes A and
        > >sometimes C had the best reading; the archetype would then read "no"
        > >whether or not that was one of the identifiably best readings).
        >
        > While I concede the possibility of a "ring" in a point of variation
        > involving four texts and two points of variation, I do not think
        > it possible to create such a grouping if one includes more manuscripts
        > and more readings. For example, with four manuscripts and two binary
        > readings, there are sixteen possible breakdowns of results. Adding
        > just one more reading doubles this. Adding a fifth manuscript increases
        > the possibilities by 25%. And so on. The only way one can find "rings"
        > is to confine one's self to very small samples of the text. But if
        > one is so confined, how does one decide, of the three variants
        > yes/yea, no/nay, and should/shall, whether to focus our attention
        > on yes/yea and no/nay to the exclusion of should/shall?

        Bob is right about adding mss and readings. With many mss and many
        readings, one quickly gets not just simple rings but whole networks of
        mss. To break these networks into a simple tree, Dearing proposes
        breaking individual links, starting with the weakest ones, until a simple
        tree is created.

        > > To "break" such a ring we decide which is the "weakest link," all
        > >variations considered, and before we look for the archetype -- note,
        > >before we look for the archetype. If, for example, there are over all
        > >fewer AB agreements than AC agreements or BD agreements or CD
        > >agreements, then we say that the agreement of A and B in having "yes"
        > >is abnormal (without deciding whether it is accidental, coincidental
        > >or emendatory) and set it aside. In effect, then, we have three
        > >variant readings, "yes (A)," "yes (B)" and "yea," and the abstract
        > >relationship among the four texts is A--C--D--B. Other evidence may
        > >modify the relationship without changing the basic series: a lost
        > >text may take the place of C with C connected to it, or a lost text
        > >may take the place of D with D connected to it, or there may be two
        > >lost texts, with C connected to one and D to the other, and one of
        > >these lost texts may be the archetype.
        >
        > Again, I agree that we should determine everything possible about our
        > manuscripts before we look for the archetype. But I fail to see the
        > point of "breaking the ring." The only justification I can see is to
        > cast off one of the four manuscripts so that one can make a decision
        > in the event of a two-versus-two tie. (Which, BTW, is *not* my method;
        > in a two-versus-two tie I would actually look to internal evidence.)
        > But it would appear that your method rewards texts which agree often.
        > In the case of a tie, I would be inclined, in the abstract, to reward
        > those which did *not* agree often.

        In the case of a tie, as I recall, Dearing's method says that the it
        doesn't matter which link is broken--either is equally likely to be the
        correct way to break it. I think it would interesting to combine this
        purely mechanical approach with a subjective evaluation of internal
        readings and see what happens.

        > > Now, using A--B--D--C--A for the ring we have just been
        > >considering, there may also be rings A--B--C--D--A and A--
        > >C--B--D--A, three rings that we may call alternates. And if there are
        > >additional texts we may have two small rings A--B--D--C--A and
        > >A--B--E--F--A within a larger ring A--C--D--B--E--F--A, the two
        > >smaller of which we may call connected.
        >
        > Technical footnote: There are actually *six* possible rings with
        > four members (assuming we always start with A):
        >
        > A-B-C-D
        > A-B-D-C
        > A-C-B-D
        > A-C-D-B
        > A-D-B-C
        > A-D-C-B
        >
        > If you have a method for restricting this to the rings you listed,
        > I failed to understand it.

        There are only three possible rings. Remember that since the mss are a
        ring, the last is connected to the first. Thus, in Bob's list above, the
        last three groups of mss are equivalent to the first three (#4 = #2, #5 =
        #3, #6 = #1). Maybe it's clearer to draw it this way:

        A-B A-C A-C
        | | | | | |
        D-C B-D D-B

        > > In order to be consistent in breaking the rings and to divide as
        > >few links as possible, we need to break them in a certain order and
        > >may need to repeat the process after the first round of breaking.
        > >These increasingly complicated matters are treated on pp. 93-98 of my
        > >book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis. If those who wish
        > >to take up my challenge wish also to have a Xerox copy of these pages
        > >I shall be happy to send them one. So what is my challenge?
        > > You may decide that you can live with a few rings in your stemmas.
        > >You will then find that with a medium sized New Testament book like
        > >First John and the twenty earliest surviving texts, there are nearly
        > >7000 rings. I have written a computer program that patiently
        > >identifies all the smaller rings, breaks the rings in the required
        > >order, and then repeats the process as often as necessary. This
        > >program traces many linkages that do not lead to rings, and if, for
        > >example, A leads to C, C to D, D to B, B to E, E to F, and F does
        > >not lead to A, the program has (I fear) wasted some time. It is smart
        > >enough to know that if A leads to B but never to any other text
        > >to the exclusion of B then A--B will never be a link in any ring. It
        > >might be smartened up so as to know that if F does not lead to A, as
        > >in the longer example above, then it may be that F will never lead to
        > >A and the search can stop short when E leads to F. But I have a
        > >feeling that the initial form of a stemma is like a great net and
        > >that you ought to be able to move forward from any place or tag end
        > >on its circumference breaking the meshes (rings) as you come to them
        > >until the remaining strands spread out like fans within fans, not a
        > >cross link among them. Do you have or can you divise an algorithm for
        > >doing this? You do not need to be a computer programmer -- a step by
        > >step explanation will do, showing how to start with one text and comb
        > >out the linkages between it and the rest. Remember, unless one of the
        > >texts has all the best readings it is impossible to decide on the
        > >archetype until the comb-out is completed.

        Long ago I wrote a program myself (using a method somewhat different from
        Dearing's) that would create a tree from a given set of mss and readings,
        but it didn't break the rings, only identified them. My question in
        regard to the whole approach is this. Is it valid to use the model of a
        simple tree when dealing with the transmission of the biblical text? This
        question can't be answered in a strictly theoretical way--data is needed.
        At what point in the transmission of the NT, for example, did scribes
        begin correcting their newly copied mss from a second exemplar? Harry
        Gamble, in _Books and Readers in the Early Church_, seems to imply that
        the majority of early mss were created privately by copying a single
        exemplar. When did the practice of correcting the text against a second
        ms become widespread enough so that, after that point, the idea of using a
        simple tree to model the transmission of the text breaks down?

        Jimmy Adair
        Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
        and
        Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
        ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
      • Vinton A. Dearing
        I am grateful to Bob Waltz for his second communication. If there are others who wish a more detailed explanation of the problem as I see it and who wish to
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 12, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          I am grateful to Bob Waltz for his second communication. If there are
          others who wish a more detailed explanation of the problem as I see
          it and who wish to tackle it, please let me know.
          Vinton Dearing
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.