This page has been validated.
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
xi
| PAR. | PAGES | |
| 75. | Presumption in favour of composite as against homogeneous attestation increased by proximity to the time of the autograph ; | 58 |
| 76. | but needing cautious application on account of possible mixture | 59 |
| Section IV. Internal Evidence of Groups (77, 78) | 60—62 | |
| 77. | Inference of identical origin from identical readings applicable to groups of documents; | 60 |
| 78. | and thus available for separating the elements of mixed documents, and determining their respective characters | 61 |
| Section V. Recapitulation of methods in relation to each other (79—84) | 62–66 | |
| 79. | The threefold process and the results of the Genealogical method | 62 |
| 80. | This method the surest basis of criticism, wherever sufficient evidence is extant for tracing genealogical relations | 63 |
| 81, 82. | Subordinate verification by other kinds of evidence, more especially Internal Evidence of Groups | 63 |
| 83. | Sound textual criticism founded on knowledge of the various classes of facts which have determined variation, and therefore governed by method | 65 |
| 84. | Personal instincts trustworthy only in virtue of past exercise in method | 65 |
| Section VI. Criticism as dealing with errors antecedent to existing texts (85—95) | 66—72 | |
| A. 85—92. Primitive errors | 65—70 | |
| 85. | Agreement or disagreement of the most original transmitted text with the autograph indeterminable by any documentary evidence | 66 |
| 86. | Occasional paradox of readings authenticated by Genealogical and Transcriptional Evidence, yet condemned by Intrinsic Evidence (a); | 67 |
| 87. | explained by the inability of documentary evidence to attest more than relative originality; which does not exclude corruption | 67 |
| 88. | Such readings sometimes further condemned by decisive Internal Evidence for rival readings, which are in fact cursory emendations by scribes (b) | 68 |
| 89. | Variations falling under these two types not really relevant as to the value of the preceding methods | 69 |
| 90. | Two other cases of primitive corruption, (c) with variants apparently independent of each other, and the best attested variant condemned by Intrinsic Evidence, and (d) with no variation, and the one extant reading condemned by Intrinsic Evidence | 69 |
| 91. | In all four cases the use of Intrinsic Evidence as the basis of decision exactly analogous to its use in ordinary cases; | 69 |
