Why did some 19th-century scholars reject passages from ancient texts too readily?

In 19th-century classical scholarship, some practitioners rejected passages from ancient texts too readily due to an over-reliance on a rigid, "scientific" approach to textual criticism. Following the success of the critical method associated with Karl Lachmann, many scholars developed a "blind confidence" in these techniques, applying them mechanically without sufficient intelligence or common sense.12

This trend led to a practice known as wholesale athetesis, where scholars dismissed works or specific passages as spurious simply because they contained inconsistencies within the text. These practitioners often ignored warnings—such as those from the Latinist J.N. Madvig—that one must allow for anomalies and inequalities in an author's personal style.1

Ultimately, this methodological rigidity became a form of "critical orthodoxy" among less gifted scholars. They exuberantly prioritized their own perceived powers of emendation and deletion over a more nuanced understanding of ancient literature, a trend that eventually prompted a reaction from later scholars who advocated for a more cautious, empirical approach that balanced method with intrinsic literary judgment.132