Analyzing Handwriting and Grammar: Insights from Agamemnon Tselikas

Agamemnon Tselikas has provided an in-depth analysis of a particular manuscript, focusing on grammatical and syntactic issues. His meticulous examination sheds light on various aspects of the text, pointing out errors and potential corrections. Here, we delve into Tselikas' insights, highlighting key points from his report.

Grammatical and Syntactic Comments by Agamemnon Tselikas

1. Lack of Verb: Tselikas notes that in lines 3-4, the expected verb "εἰσὶ" is absent after the word "γάρ". While this absence is not necessarily a mistake, it does raise questions about the completeness of the sentence structure.

2. Case Agreement: In line 7, Tselikas points out that "ἐλευθέρους" should be in the nominative case (ἐλεύθεροι) to agree with the participle "καυχώμενοι", as they share the same subject.

3. Correction of Word Form: He suggests correcting "ἀνδραποδώδων" to "ἀνδραποδωδῶν" in line 7, referencing Gregory of Nissa's "Life of Moses" and John Chrysostom's "De Anna".

4. Missing Accent: Tselikas observes that the accent is missing in "το ἀληθὲς" in line 8. He suggests the scribe may have intended to write "τἀληθὲς".

5. Ambiguity in Writing: In line 13, the writing of "ο" in "παραδίδοται" is unclear. Tselikas questions whether the correct form should be "παραδίδονται" or "παραδίδεται".

6. Pleonasm: Line 19 features "ὁ Μάρκος," which Tselikas identifies as pleonastic, meaning it is unnecessarily redundant.

7. Missing Accent and Spirit: Tselikas points out that "τα ταυτου" in line 19 lacks both an accent on "τα" and a soft spirit on "ταυ". The correct form should be "τὰ ταὐτου" or more appropriately "τὰ ἑαυτοῦ".

8. Preferred Word Choice: In line 24, he suggests "προσθείς" as a more appropriate word than "ἐπιθεὶς".

9. Dependency of Infinitive: The dependence of the infinitive "μυσταγωγήσειν" in line 25 is unclear. Tselikas explains that if it depends on "προσεπήγαγε," it should be a participle of purpose (μυσταγωγήσων ὁ Μάρκος). If it depends on "ἠπίστατο," the subject should be "τὴν ἐξήγησιν," which is not probable.

10. Object of the Verb: In line 27, the object of "προπαρεσκεύασεν" is unclear. It is uncertain whether it refers to his Gospel or himself before his death.

11. Syntax Issues: Lines 30-32 have incorrect syntax. Tselikas suggests a rephrasing for clarity: "Ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν μιαρῶν δαιμόνων ὄλεθρον τῷ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένει πάντοτε μηχανώντων ὁ Καρποκράτης διδαχθείς."

12. Incorrect Verb Form: The verb "μηχανώντων" in line 31 is incorrect. The proper form is "μηχανωμένων."

13. Correction Needed: Line 32's "ἀπατηλοῖς" should be corrected to "ἀπατηλαῖς."

14. Ambiguity in Writing: In line 33, it is unclear whether the scribe wrote "δο" or "δου" in "κατεδούλωσεν." Tselikas suggests "καταδολιεύσας" as a more appropriate word if it is "δο".

15. Modern Usage: The word "ἀπόγραφον" in line 34, meaning a copy of a book, is very modern. Tselikas suggests "ἀντίγραφον" as the correct term.

16. Correction of Relative Pronoun: In line 34, "ο" should be corrected to "ὃ".

17. Accent Correction: Line 35's "βλασφημόν" should be corrected to "βλάσφημον" and "δόξα" to "δόξαν."

18. Subjunctive Declension: In line 37, "ἐξανλτῆται" should be corrected to "ἐξανλτεῖται." The use of the subjunctive is inappropriate here.

19. Dense Syntax: Lines 38-40 have very dense syntax. Tselikas suggests adding an infinitive such as "λέγειν" or "διατείνεσθαι" for clarity.

20. Correction of Form: Line 41's "ἀληθῆ" should be "τἀληθῆ."

21. Completing the Passage: In line 44, "ἔχοντος ἀρθήσεται" should be completed as "τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται."

22. Reference to Ecclesiastes: Line 44's "ὁ μωρὸς ἐν σκότει πορευέσθω" should be compared to Ecclesiastes 2:14, "ὁ ἄφρων ἐν σκότει πορεύεται."

23. More Appropriate Wording: Line 47's "ἠρωτημένα" should be prefixed with "πρός τά" or "τοῖς ἐρωτηθεῖσιν."

24. Incorrect Spelling: Line 56's "απ᾽ εκύλισε" should be "ἀπεκύλισε."

25. Missing Infinitive: Line 61's "ἐπέταξεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς" is missing an infinitive object, such as "ἐλθεῖν."

26. Incorrect Negation: Line 67's "ουκ" should be "οὐχ."

27. Pleonasm: Line 69's "αὐτὸν" is pleonastic, as it is redundant.

Categories of Observations

Tselikas divides these observations into two categories:

Category A: Author's Errors These include syntactic and meaning errors that Clement would not likely make. Examples are observations 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 28.

Category B: Scribe's Errors These are dictation errors, common in Byzantine and post-Byzantine manuscripts, suggesting the scribe's lack of sufficient language knowledge. Examples are observations 3, 4, 5, 14, 15a, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, and 27.

Tselikas' analysis provides a comprehensive look at the manuscript's grammatical and syntactic issues, offering corrections and insights that enhance our understanding of the text. His detailed examination underscores the importance of careful scrutiny in textual studies.

This blog post is based on the handwriting analysis report by Agamemnon Tselikas. The full report can be found here.