derek-thomas/squad-v1.1-t5-question-generation huggingface dataset:
In the English language, the works of Shakespeare have been a particularly fertile ground for textual criticism—both because the texts, as transmitted, contain a considerable amount of variation, and because the effort and expense of producing superior editions of his works have always been widely viewed as worthwhile. The principles of textual criticism, although originally developed and refined for works of antiquity, the Bible, and Shakespeare, have been applied to many works, extending backwards from the present to the earliest known written documents, in Mesopotamia and Egypt—a period of about five millennia. However, the application of textual criticism to non-religious works does not antedate the invention of printing. While Christianity has been relatively receptive to textual criticism, application of it to the Jewish (Masoretic) Torah and the Qur'an is, to the devout, taboo.[citation needed]

Question: What is one reasons Shakespeare is a good place to focus on textual criticism? Question: Aside from Shakespeare, what is another book that is a major focus of textual criticism? Question: Name two of the oldest civilizations that textual criticism has focused on. Question: Over approximately what expanse of time can textual criticism be applied to written works? Question: Why is there opposition to textual criticism of Jewish and Muslim religious books?
Maas comments further that "A dictation revised by the author must be regarded as equivalent to an autograph manuscript". The lack of autograph manuscripts applies to many cultures other than Greek and Roman. In such a situation, a key objective becomes the identification of the first exemplar before any split in the tradition. That exemplar is known as the archetype. "If we succeed in establishing the text of [the archetype], the constitutio (reconstruction of the original) is considerably advanced.

Question: What is the first goal when attempting to analyze a new text? Question: Why is finding the first exemplar important in textual criticism? Question: The exemplar is otherwise known as what? Question: The final product of reconstruction is known as what?
The textual critic's ultimate objective is the production of a "critical edition".[citation needed] This contains the text that the author has determined most closely approximates the original, and is accompanied by an apparatus criticus or critical apparatus. The critical apparatus presents the author's work in three parts: first, a list or description of the evidence that the editor used (names of manuscripts, or abbreviations called sigla); second, the editor's analysis of that evidence (sometimes a simple likelihood rating),[citation needed]; and third, a record of rejected variants of the text (often in order of preference).[citation needed]

Question: What is the goal of the textual critic? Question: What is included in or accompanies in "critical edition"? Question: A critical edition of a text is accompanied by what? Question: What is the purpose of the critical apparatus? Question: What is included in the first part of the critical apparatus? Question: What is included in the second part of the critical apparatus? Question: What is included in the final part of the critical apparatus?
Before mechanical printing, literature was copied by hand, and many variations were introduced by copyists. The age of printing made the scribal profession effectively redundant. Printed editions, while less susceptible to the proliferation of variations likely to arise during manual transmission, are nonetheless not immune to introducing variations from an author's autograph. Instead of a scribe miscopying his source, a compositor or a printing shop may read or typeset a work in a way that differs from the autograph. Since each scribe or printer commits different errors, reconstruction of the lost original is often aided by a selection of readings taken from many sources. An edited text that draws from multiple sources is said to be eclectic. In contrast to this approach, some textual critics prefer to identify the single best surviving text, and not to combine readings from multiple sources.

Question: Why are there multiple variations of texts before the advent of the printing press? Question: Are printed editions immune to variation? Question: How do differences in works arise when using a printing press? Question: An edited text compiled through many sources is known as what?
When comparing different documents, or "witnesses", of a single, original text, the observed differences are called variant readings, or simply variants or readings. It is not always apparent which single variant represents the author's original work. The process of textual criticism seeks to explain how each variant may have entered the text, either by accident (duplication or omission) or intention (harmonization or censorship), as scribes or supervisors transmitted the original author's text by copying it. The textual critic's task, therefore, is to sort through the variants, eliminating those most likely to be un-original, hence establishing a "critical text", or critical edition, that is intended to best approximate the original. At the same time, the critical text should document variant readings, so the relation of extant witnesses to the reconstructed original is apparent to a reader of the critical edition. In establishing the critical text, the textual critic considers both "external" evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and "internal" or "physical" considerations (what the author and scribes, or printers, were likely to have done).

Question: Different documents that represent the same original text are called what? Question: What are the variations in the text of witnesses known as? Question: How or why do variations enter a witness text? Question: As well as representing the original text, a critical text must also do what? Question: Why is it important to document variations in witness texts when compiling a critical text?
The collation of all known variants of a text is referred to as a variorum, namely a work of textual criticism whereby all variations and emendations are set side by side so that a reader can track how textual decisions have been made in the preparation of a text for publication. The Bible and the works of William Shakespeare have often been the subjects of variorum editions, although the same techniques have been applied with less frequency to many other works, such as Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, and the prose writings of Edward Fitzgerald.

Question: What is a variorum? Question: What is the purpose of a variorum? Question: Name two works that are often the subject of a variorum. Question: Name one author who is less frequently the subject of a variorum.
Eclectic readings also normally give an impression of the number of witnesses to each available reading. Although a reading supported by the majority of witnesses is frequently preferred, this does not follow automatically. For example, a second edition of a Shakespeare play may include an addition alluding to an event known to have happened between the two editions. Although nearly all subsequent manuscripts may have included the addition, textual critics may reconstruct the original without the addition.

Question: What is often included in an eclectic reading? Question: Why would someone prefer a second edition to a first edition? Question: Do textual critics always include additions found in the majority of subsequent versions of a work?
External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred, since these are less likely to reflect accidents or individual biases. For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one. Other factors being equal, these are the best witnesses. The role of the textual critic is necessary when these basic criteria are in conflict. For instance, there will typically be fewer early copies, and a larger number of later copies. The textual critic will attempt to balance these criteria, to determine the original text.

Question: What is external evidence? Question: Why are older manuscripts preferred? Question: What characteristic of a compilation of witnesses is the most beneficial to a textual critic? Question: What characteristic of a single witness is the most beneficial to a textual critic?
Two common considerations have the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization—resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.

Question: Define "lectio brevior" Question: Define "lectio difficilior" Question: What is the main principle of lectio brevior? Question: What is the main principle of lectio difficilior? Question: Is a lectio brevrio or lectio difficilior approach more akin to the original text?
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton J. A. Hort (1828–1892) published an edition of the New Testament in Greek in 1881. They proposed nine critical rules, including a version of Bengel's rule, "The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties." They also argued that "Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses", and that "The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others."

Question: How many rules were proposed in the 1881 publication of the New Testament in Greek? Question: What is Bengel's rule? Question: What is more important for a textual critic: quality or quantity? Question: Does ease of reading correlate to accuracy in relation to the original text? Question: What is the criteria needed to include or dismiss a reading when critiquing texts?
Since the canons of criticism are highly susceptible to interpretation, and at times even contradict each other, they may be employed to justify a result that fits the textual critic's aesthetic or theological agenda. Starting in the 19th century, scholars sought more rigorous methods to guide editorial judgment. Best-text editing (a complete rejection of eclecticism) became one extreme. Stemmatics and copy-text editing – while both eclectic, in that they permit the editor to select readings from multiple sources – sought to reduce subjectivity by establishing one or a few witnesses presumably as being favored by "objective" criteria.[citation needed] The citing of sources used, and alternate readings, and the use of original text and images helps readers and other critics determine to an extent the depth of research of the critic, and to independently verify their work.

Question: Is textual criticism immune to bias on the part of the critic? Question: When did scientists begin searching for a more defined guideline for textual criticism? Question: What inclusion helps readers and critics understand the motivation behind the compiler? Question: What is a further benefit of including sources, texts and original images in a critique?
Stemmatics, stemmology or stemmatology is a rigorous approach to textual criticism. Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) greatly contributed to making this method famous, even though he did not invent it. The method takes its name from the word stemma. The Ancient Greek word στέμματα and its loanword in classical Latin stemmata may refer to "family trees". This specific meaning shows the relationships of the surviving witnesses (the first known example of such a stemma, albeit with the name, dates from 1827). The family tree is also referred to as a cladogram. The method works from the principle that "community of error implies community of origin." That is, if two witnesses have a number of errors in common, it may be presumed that they were derived from a common intermediate source, called a hyparchetype. Relations between the lost intermediates are determined by the same process, placing all extant manuscripts in a family tree or stemma codicum descended from a single archetype. The process of constructing the stemma is called recension, or the Latin recensio.

Question: What is stemmatics? Question: What is a cladogram? Question: What is implied when two witnesses have a number of errors in common? Question: What is a hyparchetype? Question: What is recension?
The process of selectio resembles eclectic textual criticism, but applied to a restricted set of hypothetical hyparchetypes. The steps of examinatio and emendatio resemble copy-text editing. In fact, the other techniques can be seen as special cases of stemmatics in which a rigorous family history of the text cannot be determined but only approximated. If it seems that one manuscript is by far the best text, then copy text editing is appropriate, and if it seems that a group of manuscripts are good, then eclecticism on that group would be proper.

Question: Which steps most closely resembles copy-text editing? Question: What process is best used when only one manuscript is viable? Question: What process is best used when there are a number of viable manuscripts available?
The critic Joseph Bédier (1864–1938) launched a particularly withering attack on stemmatics in 1928. He surveyed editions of medieval French texts that were produced with the stemmatic method, and found that textual critics tended overwhelmingly to produce trees divided into just two branches. He concluded that this outcome was unlikely to have occurred by chance, and that therefore, the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses. He suspected that editors tended to favor trees with two branches, as this would maximize the opportunities for editorial judgment (as there would be no third branch to "break the tie" whenever the witnesses disagreed). He also noted that, for many works, more than one reasonable stemma could be postulated, suggesting that the method was not as rigorous or as scientific as its proponents had claimed.

Question: What was Joseph Bédier's main criticism of the stemmatic method? Question: Why is a methos that only produces two branches seen as inferior? Question: To what did Joseph Bédier attribute the prevalence of the stemmatic method? Question: Why would editors only want two alternative branches when analyzing a text? Question: What was the final implication of Joseph Bédier's analysis of the stemmatic method?
The stemmatic method's final step is emendatio, also sometimes referred to as "conjectural emendation." But in fact, the critic employs conjecture at every step of the process. Some of the method's rules that are designed to reduce the exercise of editorial judgment do not necessarily produce the correct result. For example, where there are more than two witnesses at the same level of the tree, normally the critic will select the dominant reading. However, it may be no more than fortuitous that more witnesses have survived that present a particular reading. A plausible reading that occurs less often may, nevertheless, be the correct one.

Question: What is the last step in the stemmatic method? Question: At what point can a critic using the stemmatic become less concerned with critical analysis? Question: Why may the dominant reading may be the weaker reading?
The bibliographer Ronald B. McKerrow introduced the term copy-text in his 1904 edition of the works of Thomas Nashe, defining it as "the text used in each particular case as the basis of mine." McKerrow was aware of the limitations of the stemmatic method, and believed it was more prudent to choose one particular text that was thought to be particularly reliable, and then to emend it only where the text was obviously corrupt. The French critic Joseph Bédier likewise became disenchanted with the stemmatic method, and concluded that the editor should choose the best available text, and emend it as little as possible.

Question: When was the term copy-text introduced? Question: What was the initial definition of copy-text? Question: Explain the process used by McKerrow as an alternative to the stemmaic method
By 1939, in his Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare, McKerrow had changed his mind about this approach, as he feared that a later edition – even if it contained authorial corrections – would "deviate more widely than the earliest print from the author's original manuscript." He therefore concluded that the correct procedure would be "produced by using the earliest "good" print as copy-text and inserting into it, from the first edition which contains them, such corrections as appear to us to be derived from the author." But, fearing the arbitrary exercise of editorial judgment, McKerrow stated that, having concluded that a later edition had substantive revisions attributable to the author, "we must accept all the alterations of that edition, saving any which seem obvious blunders or misprints."

Question: What work was the first to see McKerrow use his new method? Question: Why did McKerrow alter his previous method of criticism? Question: How did McKerrow alter his approach to copy-text analysis? Question: What did McKerrow concede about his new copy-text method?
Although Greg argued that an editor should be free to use his judgment to choose between competing substantive readings, he suggested that an editor should defer to the copy-text when "the claims of two readings ... appear to be exactly balanced. ... In such a case, while there can be no logical reason for giving preference to the copy-text, in practice, if there is no reason for altering its reading, the obvious thing seems to be to let it stand." The "exactly balanced" variants are said to be indifferent.

Question: Are there times when an editor's judgement should be deferred? Question: What should one do when two readings are contradictory but balanced? Question: What do editors call variants that are exactly balanced?
Whereas Greg had limited his illustrative examples to English Renaissance drama, where his expertise lay, Bowers argued that the rationale was "the most workable editorial principle yet contrived to produce a critical text that is authoritative in the maximum of its details whether the author be Shakespeare, Dryden, Fielding, Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Stephen Crane. The principle is sound without regard for the literary period." For works where an author's manuscript survived – a case Greg had not considered – Bowers concluded that the manuscript should generally serve as copy-text. Citing the example of Nathaniel Hawthorne, he noted:

Question: What where the limitations of Greg's analyses? Question: Is the idea formed by Greg limited to a specific time period? Question: What is the main criticism of Greg's work? Question: What will an editor do in the case where an author's work was not wiped out?
McKerrow had articulated textual criticism's goal in terms of "our ideal of an author's fair copy of his work in its final state". Bowers asserted that editions founded on Greg's method would "represent the nearest approximation in every respect of the author's final intentions." Bowers stated similarly that the editor's task is to "approximate as nearly as possible an inferential authorial fair copy." Tanselle notes that, "Textual criticism ... has generally been undertaken with a view to reconstructing, as accurately as possible, the text finally intended by the author".

Question: What are editors trying to ultimately accomplish? Question: What did Bower's say about Greg's method? Question: If an editor can't achieve an exact reproduction of an authors work, what should be the goal? Question: What did Tanselle say about textual criticism?
Bowers and Tanselle argue for rejecting textual variants that an author inserted at the suggestion of others. Bowers said that his edition of Stephen Crane's first novel, Maggie, presented "the author's final and uninfluenced artistic intentions." In his writings, Tanselle refers to "unconstrained authorial intention" or "an author's uninfluenced intentions." This marks a departure from Greg, who had merely suggested that the editor inquire whether a later reading "is one that the author can reasonably be supposed to have substituted for the former", not implying any further inquiry as to why the author had made the change.

Question: Who argued against works where the author listens to input from others? Question: Who wanted to determine why an author made changes to a work? Question: What idea did Tanselle champion? Question: Does Greg believe a later work can be substituted for a earlier one?
Bowers confronted a similar problem in his edition of Maggie. Crane originally printed the novel privately in 1893. To secure commercial publication in 1896, Crane agreed to remove profanity, but he also made stylistic revisions. Bowers's approach was to preserve the stylistic and literary changes of 1896, but to revert to the 1893 readings where he believed that Crane was fulfilling the publisher's intention rather than his own. There were, however, intermediate cases that could reasonably have been attributed to either intention, and some of Bowers's choices came under fire – both as to his judgment, and as to the wisdom of conflating readings from the two different versions of Maggie.

Question: When was Maggie first published? Question: I what year was Maggie printed for commercial use? Question: What changes were made for the commercial publication of Maggie? Question: What alterations did Crane make to secure commercial publication? Question: What was Bower's first step in editing multiple works into a single product? Question: What was the first step Bowers took in editing a single work with two versions? Question: What was Bower's second step in editing multiple works into a single product? Question: What was the second step Bowers took in editing a single work with two versions? Question: What was one of the criticisms Bowers faced after editing Maggie?
Some critics believe that a clear-text edition gives the edited text too great a prominence, relegating textual variants to appendices that are difficult to use, and suggesting a greater sense of certainty about the established text than it deserves. As Shillingsburg notes, "English scholarly editions have tended to use notes at the foot of the text page, indicating, tacitly, a greater modesty about the "established" text and drawing attention more forcibly to at least some of the alternative forms of the text".

Question: Are appendices easy to use for the average reader? Question: Where can a reader find more information on text variants after noticing a footnote? Question: Can a reader be certain of the validity of information found in a clear-text edition? Question: How do most editors work around the reference problems of clear-text editing?