"Absence Present in the Text"

The Abstract Text

1 Belly band and 2 Flap

3 Endpaper and 4 Book cover

5 Top edge and 6 Fore edge

7 Tail edge and 8 Right page, recto

9 Left page, verso and 10 Gutter

(Image from Wikipedia)

I learn something new every day, even when I'm not looking to . . . as in several of those ten things above.

But that's not what I'm blogging about this fine morning. No. Rather, I merely intend to post another exchange that I had with the impressive E. Bruce Brooks, a scholar of Chinese who has made a foray into New Testament studies to test his principle of inconcinnity (and related principles) for finding layers in the growth of texts.

Professor Brooks recently remarked on the Synoptic Listserve (i.e., a scholarly listserve focusing on the textual interconnections among Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that "rejecting a source is one way of using it" -- by which he meant that an author can be aware of a source and yet reject it, and that this can tell us something about the author's views.

I was struck at the point made by Professor Brooks and commented (Synoptic-L Message #2245):

Is there an ambiguity about "source" here? If an account is not drawn upon by a writer, is it a source?

This gets us up to some rarefied heights. For instance, I publish a lot on John Milton (to such depths have I fallen), and I read many articles that I do not use. But what if -- and this has never happened -- I really hated an article by some scholar and refused to 'use' it even though I was implicitly arguing against it. Would that article be a source?

Are there three sorts of sources:

1. sources used (presence in text);
2. sources not used, ignored (absence in text); and
3. sources rejected, but not ignored (absence present in text)?

Number one is what I ordinarily consider sources. Number two is what I ordinarily do not consider sources. But number three? I haven't thought about this before, not very carefully, at least.

Professor Brooks replied (Synoptic-L Message #2248):

I had suggested that other texts which a later writer decides not to incorporate are sources of a sort.

JEFFERY: But what if -- and this has never happened -- I really hated an article by some scholar and refused to 'use' it even though I was implicitly arguing against it. Would that article be a source?

BRUCE: Absolutely. It is something out there which shapes the thing that is in here. If you hate your father, and arrange your whole life to be the opposite of what your father represents, are you being influenced by your father? The psychoanalytic profession, here (for once) with support from myself, would unhesitatingly say so.

JEFFERY: Are there three sorts of sources:

1. sources used (presence in text);
2. sources not used, ignored (absence in text); and
3. sources rejected, but not ignored (absence present in text)?

Number one is what I ordinarily consider sources. Number two is what I ordinarily do not consider sources. But number three? I haven't thought about this before, not very carefully, at least.

BRUCE: I very much like the phrase "absence present in text." And I don't promise not to use it in other contexts.

Professor Brooks goes on to make several more even more profound points, but I don't want to give him too much credit since my point in today's blog entry is to glorify myself.

I trust that I have succeeded . . . even if merely through a bit of reflected glory.