are the most likely to convey an unadulterated transcript of the original text; in other words, in dealing with matter purely traditional, to ignore the relative antecedent credibility of witnesses, and trust exclusively to our own inward power of singling out the true readings from among their counterfeits, wherever we see them. Nor is it of much avail to allow supposed or ascertained excellence of particular documents a deciding voice in cases of difficulty, or to mix evidence of this kind at random or at pleasure with Internal Evidence of Readings assumed in practice if not in theory as the primary guide. The comparative trustworthiness of documentary authorities constitutes a fresh class of facts at least as pertinent as any with which we have hitherto been dealing, and much less likely to be misinterpreted by personal surmises. The first step towards obtaining a sure foundation is a consistent application of the principle that knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings.
39. The most prominent fact known about a manuscript is its date, sometimes fixed to a year by a note from the scribe’s hand, oftener determined within certain limits by palæographical or other indirect indications, sometimes learned from external facts or records. Relative date, as has been explained above (§ 8), affords a valuable presumption as to relative freedom from corruption, when appealed to on a large scale; and this and other external facts, insufficient by themselves to solve a question of reading, may often supply essential materials to the process by which it can be solved. But the occasional preservation of comparatively ancient texts in comparatively modern MSS forbids confident reliance on priority of date unsustained by other marks of excellence.
