13. The process of recensio, then, leads us as a rule either
(1) to a surviving codex unicus, or (2) to an archetype which
can be reconstructed with certainty throughout, or (3) to
two variant-carriers which either survive or can be recon-
structed; these variant-carriers guarantee the text of the
archetype only when they agree (not of course when they
vary). Disregarding for the moment the latter case (for
which see § 19), we must test the uniform tradition of the
cases where they agree to discover whether it represents the
original.

14. As a result of this examinatio we discover that the
tradition is either (1) the best conceivable, or (2) as good
as other conceivable traditions, or (3) worse than another
conceivable tradition but at all events tolerable, or (4)
intolerable.

In the first of these four cases we must look on the tradi-
tion as original, in the last as corrupt; in the other two cases
we may, or must, hesitate.

There is, of course, no absolute standard of good or bad
to guide us here; in judging matters of form we must go by
the style of the work, in matters of content by the author's
presumable knowledge or point of view. As regards sub-
ject-matter the classical scholar must often turn for help to
other branches of knowledge (technical, &c.); in matters of
style he alone is responsible, and it must be his keenest
endeavour throughout his life to perfect his feeling for style,
even if he realizes that one man's lifetime is not long enough
to allow a real mastery in this field to reach maturity. (Cf.

-10-