that the more complex arrays of existing documents point to the more ancient ramifications: they may just as easily be results of a wide extension given comparatively late by favourable circumstances to readings which previously had only a narrow distribution. Conversely a present narrowness of distribution need not be a mark of relatively recent divergence: it may as easily (see § 76) be the only surviving relic of an ancient supremacy of distribution now almost obliterated by the invasion of mixture. This is of course a somewhat extreme case, but it is common enough: as a matter of fact, mixture is found to operate on every scale, from the smallest to the largest.
62. Mixture being thus liable to confuse and even invert the inferences which would indubitably follow from the conditions of transmission were transmission exclusively divergent, we have next to enquire what expedients can be employed when mixture has been ascertained to exist. Evidently no resource can be so helpful, where it can he attained, as the extrication of earlier unmixed texts or portions of texts from the general mass of texts now extant. The clearest evidence for tracing the antecedent factors of mixture in texts is afforded by readings which are themselves mixed or, as they are sometimes called, ‘conflate’, that is, not simple substitutions of the reading of one document for that of another, but combinations of the readings of both documents into a composite whole, sometimes by mere addition with or without a conjunction, sometimes with more or less of fusion. Where we find a variation with three variants, two of them simple alternatives to each other, and the third a combination of the other two, there is usually a strong presumption that the third is the latest and due to mixture, not the third the earliest and the other two due to two independent impulses of simplification. Peculiar contexts may no doubt sometimes give rise to this paradoxical double
