One of the most vexed questions of textual criticism, and one which divides scholars more perhaps than any other, is the ques tion to what extent admitted imperfections and inconsistencies may properly be left in a text as due to the default of an author rather than of a scribe or compositor. No universal rule is here attainable. Each case must be considered on its merits; and the critic's procedure must of necessity be "eclectic"—an epithet often used with a tinge of reproach, the ground for which it is not easy to discover. Two general considerations may be indi cated. If the autograph of a work is not accessible, there is no means of distinguishing between the involuntary errors of a scribe and the involuntary errors—"slips of pen"—of an author. For these are in fact only scribe's mistakes, the author being his own amanuensis.
Passing over this class we come to one about which there may frequently be serious doubt. What is clearly erroneous or faulty may as clearly be intended, and therefore not to be removed by the critic. In Chaucer's "Miller's Tale" 3,457) astromie is used for astronomie, and Noe and Noel (Christmas) confused, "Nowelis flood" 3,457), because the speaker is an illiterate carpenter. In the "Prologue" to the "Parson's Tale" (I0) there is, on the other hand, a mistake of Chaucer's own, which no judicious critic would think of removing, the constellation Libra being said to be "the moon's exaltation" when it should be Sat urn's. But this error in an astrological detail would not warrant us in assigning to the poet the blunder about Jacob and Laban in the same tale (see above). Much depends on the precision with which an error can be corrected : wherever there are more plau sible ways than one of doing this, the faulty reading must be allowed to remain. Collateral as well as direct evidence must be obtained. If there is a number of instances where there is faultiness which is hard to remove, it is probable that the evil lies too deep for emendation. The author's own carelessness may be to blame, or, as in the case of Virgil and Lucan, he may not have been allowed to put the finishing touches to his work.
Certain lapses from grammatical correctness and metrical regu larity that we find in the poems of Shelley are undoubtedly due to the author, though the number of these has been reduced (as Mr. Buxton Forman has pointed out) with our improved knowl edge of the sources of the text. Among such lapses we may instance Prince Athanase (287), The shadow of thy moving wings imbue Its deserts and its mountains; "To a Skylark" (8o), "Thou lovest—but ne'er knew love's sad satiety." The solecism in the Preface to the Adonais, "My
known repugnance to the narrow principles of taste on which several of his earlier compositions were modelled prove at least that I am an impartial judge," would probably have been cor rected by the poet if his attention had been called to it ; but the two first ones, with others, cannot be thus regarded. We may detect occasional laxity also in his handling of his verse. Lines are left unrhymed; or the same word is used in place of another rhyming word.
Authority, as already hinted, has properly no place in textual criticism. For his facts a textual critic may, and of ten must, be beholden to others : but never for his opinions. It adds noth ing to the evidence for a reading that it has been approved by a Lachmann or a Madvig or rejected by a Stoeber or a Carutti : and an appeal to names on any such question confuses issues and deters inquiry. But inasmuch as there are many persons, includ ing most makers of school editions, who prudently and modestly desire a better road to truth than their own investigations can discover and think thus to find it, it will not be amiss to observe on the one hand that the concurrence of a succession of editors in a reading is no proof and often no presumption either that their agreement is independent or that their reading is right ; and on the other that, though independence may generally be granted to coinciding emendations of different scholars, yet from the general constitution of the human mind it is likely that not a few of these will be coincidences in error rather than in truth.
As time goes on, textual criticism will have less and less to do. In the old texts its work will have been performed so far as it is performable. What is left will be an obstinate remainder of diffi culties for which there is no solution or only too many. In the newer texts, on the other hand, as experience has already shown, it will have from the outset but a very contracted field.
(J. P. P.) THA'ALIBi [Abu Mansur tAbd u1-Malik ibn Mahommed ibn Ismail uth-Tha'alibi] (961-1038), Arabian philologist, was born in Nishapur. His most famous work is the Kitab Yatimat ud-Dahr, on the poets of his own and earlier times, containing valuable extracts (Damascus, 4 vols., 1887). Another work, the Kitiib Fiqh ul-Lugha, is lexicographical, the words being arranged in classes. It has been published at Paris (1861), Cairo (1867), and Beirut (1885, incomplete).