that is, those which bear any relation to sense, would never be made unless in the eyes of the scribe who makes them they were improvements in sense or in the expression of sense: even when made unconsciously, it is the relative satisfaction which they give to his mental state at the time that creates or shapes them. Yet in literature of high quality it is as a rule improbable that a change made by transcribers should improve an author's sense, or express his full and exact sense better than he has done himself. It follows that, with the exception of pure blunders, readings originating with scribes must always at the time have combined the appearance of improvement with the absence of its reality. If they had not been plausible, they would not have existed: yet their excellence must have been either superficial or partial, and the balance of inward and essential excellence must lie against them. In itself therefore Transcriptional Probability not only stands in no antagonism to Intrinsic Probability, but is its sustaining complement. It is seen in its proper and normal shape when both characteristics of a scribe's correction can alike be recognised, the semblance of superiority and the latent inferiority.
34. It is only in reference to mental or semi-mental causes of corruption that the apparent conflict between Transcriptional and Intrinsic Probability has any place: and neither the extent nor the nature of the apparent conflict can be rightly understood if we forget that, in making use of this class of evidence, we have to do with readings only as they are likely to have appeared to transcribers, not as they appear to us, except in so far as our mental conditions can be accepted as truly reflecting theirs. It is especially necessary to bear
