nc33/MultiSpan_SQUAD huggingface dataset:
Textual_criticism

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: When did scientists begin searching for a more defined guideline for textual criticism?
Answer: 19th century

Question: What inclusion helps readers and critics understand the motivation behind the compiler?
Answer: The citing of sources used, and alternate readings, and the use of original text and images

Question: What is a further benefit of including sources, texts and original images in a critique?
Answer: the depth of research of the critic

Question: Is textual criticism immune to bias on the part of the critic?
Answer: justify a result that fits the textual critic's aesthetic or theological agenda
Textual_criticism

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?
Answer: a rigorous approach to textual criticism

Question: What is a cladogram?
Answer: The family tree is also referred to as a cladogram.

Question: What is implied when two witnesses have a number of errors in common?
Answer: it may be presumed that they were derived from a common intermediate source

Question: What is a hyparchetype?
Answer: a common intermediate source

Question: What is recension?
Answer: The process of constructing the stemma
Textual_criticism

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?
Answer: examinatio and emendatio

Question: What process is best used when only one manuscript is viable?
Answer: copy text editing

Question: What process is best used when there are a number of viable manuscripts available?
Answer: eclecticism
Textual_criticism

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?
Answer: emendatio

Question: At what point can a critic using the stemmatic become less concerned with critical analysis?
Answer: the critic employs conjecture at every step of the process

Question: Why may the dominant reading may be the weaker reading?
Answer: , it may be no more than fortuitous that more witnesses have survived that present a particular reading
Textual_criticism

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?
Answer: 1904

Question: What was the initial definition of copy-text?
Answer: the text used in each particular case as the basis of mine

Question: Explain the process used by McKerrow as an alternative to the stemmaic method
Answer: choose one particular text that was thought to be particularly reliable, and then to emend it only where the text was obviously corrupt.
Textual_criticism

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: Why did McKerrow alter his previous method of criticism?
Answer: deviate more widely than the earliest print from the author's original manuscript."

Question: How did McKerrow alter his approach to copy-text analysis?
Answer: inserting into it, from the first edition which contains them, such corrections as appear to us to be derived from the author."

Question: What did McKerrow concede about his new copy-text method?
Answer: 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?
Answer: Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare
Textual_criticism

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?
Answer: the claims of two readings ... appear to be exactly balanced

Question: What should one do when two readings are contradictory but balanced?
Answer: if there is no reason for altering its reading, the obvious thing seems to be to let it stand.

Question: What do editors call variants that are exactly balanced?
Answer: indifferent
Textual_criticism

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: Is the idea formed by Greg limited to a specific time period?
Answer: The principle is sound without regard for the literary period.

Question: What will an editor do in the case where an author's work was not wiped out?
Answer: the manuscript should generally serve as copy-text

Question: What where the limitations of Greg's analyses?
Answer: English Renaissance drama

Question: What is the main criticism of Greg's work?
Answer: works where an author's manuscript survived
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?
Answer: Bowers and Tanselle

Question: Who wanted to determine why an author made changes to a work?
Answer: Tanselle

Question: Does Greg believe a later work can be substituted for a earlier one?
Answer: a later reading "is one that the author can reasonably be supposed to have substituted for the former

Question: What idea did Tanselle champion?
Answer: unconstrained authorial intention
Textual_criticism

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: What alterations did Crane make to secure commercial publication?
Answer: remove profanity, but he also made stylistic revisions

Question: What was Bower's first step in editing multiple works into a single product?
Answer: to preserve the stylistic and literary changes of 1896

Question: What was Bower's second step in editing multiple works into a single product?
Answer: to revert to the 1893 readings where he believed that Crane was fulfilling the publisher's intention rather than his own

Question: What was one of the criticisms Bowers faced after editing Maggie?
Answer: his judgment

Question: I what year was Maggie printed for commercial use?
Answer: 1896

Question: What was the first step Bowers took in editing a single work with two versions?
Answer: to preserve the stylistic and literary changes of 1896,

Question: What was the second step Bowers took in editing a single work with two versions?
Answer: to revert to the 1893 readings where he believed that Crane was fulfilling the publisher's intention

Question: What changes were made for the commercial publication of Maggie?
Answer: to remove profanity, but he also made stylistic revisions

Question: When was Maggie first published?
Answer: 1893
Textual_criticism

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?
Answer: appendices that are difficult to use,

Question: Can a reader be certain of the validity of information found in a clear-text edition?
Answer: suggesting a greater sense of certainty about the established text than it deserves

Question: How do most editors work around the reference problems of clear-text editing?
Answer: notes at the foot of the text page

Question: Where can a reader find more information on text variants after noticing a footnote?
Answer: appendices
Textual_criticism

Although some earlier unpublished studies had been prepared, not until the early 1970s was true textual criticism applied to the Book of Mormon. At that time BYU Professor Ellis Rasmussen and his associates were asked by the LDS Church to begin preparation for a new edition of the Holy Scriptures. One aspect of that effort entailed digitizing the text and preparing appropriate footnotes, another aspect required establishing the most dependable text. To that latter end, Stanley R. Larson (a Rasmussen graduate student) set about applying modern text critical standards to the manuscripts and early editions of the Book of Mormon as his thesis project – which he completed in 1974. To that end, Larson carefully examined the Original Manuscript (the one dictated by Joseph Smith to his scribes) and the Printer’s Manuscript (the copy Oliver Cowdery prepared for the Printer in 1829–1830), and compared them with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of the Book of Mormon to determine what sort of changes had occurred over time and to make judgments as to which readings were the most original. Larson proceeded to publish a useful set of well-argued articles on the phenomena which he had discovered. Many of his observations were included as improvements in the 1981 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon.

Question: When did textual criticism applied to the Book of Mormon?
Answer: the early 1970s

Question: What was one portion of preparing a new edition of the Holy Scriptures?
Answer: digitizing the text and preparing appropriate footnotes

Question: How was the most reliable version of the Holy Scriptures determined?
Answer: applying modern text critical standards to the manuscripts

Question: When did Larson finish his project?
Answer: 1974

Question: Whose observations were included in the 1981 publication of the Book of Mormon?
Answer: Larson
Textual_criticism

By 1979, with the establishment of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) as a California non-profit research institution, an effort led by Robert F. Smith began to take full account of Larson’s work and to publish a Critical Text of the Book of Mormon. Thus was born the FARMS Critical Text Project which published the first volume of the 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text in 1984. The third volume of that first edition was published in 1987, but was already being superseded by a second, revised edition of the entire work, greatly aided through the advice and assistance of then Yale doctoral candidate Grant Hardy, Dr. Gordon C. Thomasson, Professor John W. Welch (the head of FARMS), Professor Royal Skousen, and others too numerous to mention here. However, these were merely preliminary steps to a far more exacting and all-encompassing project.

Question: What is FARMS?
Answer: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies

Question: Who spearheaded the Critical Text of the Book of Mormon project?
Answer: Robert F. Smith

Question: How many years did it take to publish all three volumes of the Book of Mormon Critical Text?
Answer: the first volume of the 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text in 1984. The third volume of that first edition was published in 1987

Question: Was the third volume of the first edition deemed sufficient?
Answer: The third volume of that first edition was published in 1987, but was already being superseded by a second, revised edition of the entire work

Question: Who is the head of FARMS?
Answer: Professor John W. Welch
Textual_criticism

In 1988, with that preliminary phase of the project completed, Professor Skousen took over as editor and head of the FARMS Critical Text of the Book of Mormon Project and proceeded to gather still scattered fragments of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon and to have advanced photographic techniques applied to obtain fine readings from otherwise unreadable pages and fragments. He also closely examined the Printer’s Manuscript (owned by the Community of Christ—RLDS Church in Independence, Missouri) for differences in types of ink or pencil, in order to determine when and by whom they were made. He also collated the various editions of the Book of Mormon down to the present to see what sorts of changes have been made through time.

Question: When was phase one completed?
Answer: 1988

Question: Who took over after the preliminary phase?
Answer: Professor Skousen

Question: Why did Professor Skousen gather fragments and have them analyzed?
Answer: to obtain fine readings

Question: What process what used to study the gathered fragments?
Answer: advanced photographic techniques

Question: On what did Skousen analyze ink and pencil remnants?
Answer: Printer’s Manuscript
Textual_criticism

Shemaryahu Talmon, who summarized the amount of consensus and genetic relation to the Urtext of the Hebrew Bible, concluded that major divergences which intrinsically affect the sense are extremely rare. As far as the Hebrew Bible referenced by Old Testament is concerned, almost all of the textual variants are fairly insignificant and hardly affect any doctrine. Professor Douglas Stuart states: "It is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading to those now serving as the basis for current English translations."

Question: How common are variations in text that alter the meaning of the Urtext of the Hebrew Bible?
Answer: extremely rare

Question: To what degree do variations in the Old Testament alter the meaning?
Answer: hardly affect any doctrine

Question: Who claims that the Old Testament is essentially the same throughout all variations?
Answer: Professor Douglas Stuart

Question: How many variations of the Old Testament offer the same meaning?
Answer: virtually every possible alternative reading
Textual_criticism

While textual criticism developed into a discipline of thorough analysis of the Bible — both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament — scholars also use it to determine the original content of classic texts, such as Plato's Republic. There are far fewer witnesses to classical texts than to the Bible, so scholars can use stemmatics and, in some cases, copy text editing. However, unlike the New Testament where the earliest witnesses are within 200 years of the original, the earliest existing manuscripts of most classical texts were written about a millennium after their composition. All things being equal, textual scholars expect that a larger time gap between an original and a manuscript means more changes in the text.

Question: Does the Bible or Plato's Republic have more witnesses?
Answer: There are far fewer witnesses to classical texts than to the Bible

Question: What's the gap between original Christian texts and subsequent editions of the same works?
Answer: within 200 years

Question: What's the gap between original classical texts and subsequent editions of the same works?
Answer: about a millennium after their composition

Question: How does the expanse of time correlate to authenticity with regard to original and subsequent versions of texts?
Answer: a larger time gap between an original and a manuscript means more changes in the text.
Textual_criticism

Scientific and critical editions can be protected by copyright as works of authorship if enough creativity/originality is provided. The mere addition of a word, or substitution of a term with another one believed to be more correct, usually does not achieve such level of originality/creativity. All the notes accounting for the analysis and why and how such changes have been made represent a different work autonomously copyrightable if the other requirements are satisfied. In the European Union critical and scientific editions may be protected also by the relevant neighboring right that protects critical and scientific publications of public domain works as made possible by art. 5 of the Copyright Term Directive. Not all EU member States have transposed art. 5 into national law.

Question: What is the criteria for copyright?
Answer: if enough creativity/originality is provided

Question: What minor things can be included and not invalidate a copyright?
Answer: The mere addition of a word, or substitution of a term with another one believed to be more correct

Question: Are footnotes included in the copyright of the original work?
Answer: All the notes accounting for the analysis and why and how such changes have been made represent a different work autonomously copyrightable

Question: What rights do scientific publications in the EU enjoy?
Answer: the relevant neighboring right that protects critical and scientific publications of public domain works
Gramophone_record

The commercial rivalry between RCA Victor and Columbia Records led to RCA Victor's introduction of what it had intended to be a competing vinyl format, the 7-inch (175 mm) 45 rpm disc. For a two-year period from 1948 to 1950, record companies and consumers faced uncertainty over which of these formats would ultimately prevail in what was known as the "War of the Speeds". (See also format war.) In 1949 Capitol and Decca adopted the new LP format and RCA gave in and issued its first LP in January 1950. The 45 rpm size was gaining in popularity, too, and Columbia issued its first 45s in February 1951. By 1954, 200 million 45s had been sold.

Question: Which company lost the "War of the Speeds"?
Answer: RCA

Question: What speed ultimantly ended up winning the war of the speeds?
Answer: 45 rpm

Question: Over which years did the "War of the Speeds" last? 
Answer: 1948 to 1950

Question: By 1945 what was the total sale of 45s?
Answer: 200 million

Question: Which two companies were involved in the "War of the Speeds"?
Answer: RCA Victor and Columbia Records