Handwriting and Paleographic Observations by Agamemnon Tselikas

Agamemnon Tselikas has conducted an in-depth paleographic analysis of a manuscript, focusing on the handwriting style, grammatical structures, and syntactic peculiarities. His meticulous study provides insights into the authenticity and origins of the manuscript, as well as the skill level of the scribe. Here, we delve into Tselikas' observations, highlighting key points from his comprehensive report.

Paleographic Observations by Agamemnon Tselikas

1. Origin of Leaves: Tselikas confirms that the leaves on which the letter is written indeed belong to the edition of the works of Ignatius. This conclusion is based on a comparison of the shape and material composition of the paper of the letter (based on photographic samples) with leaves of the book found in the Patriarchal Library.

2. Initial Impressions: At first glance, Tselikas notes that the manuscript of Clement’s letter appears to be from the late 17th to late 18th century. He observes that the scribe is experienced and maintains a consistent ductus in the design of the letters. The multiformity in the design of the letters, according to Tselikas, is not unusual as it is common in the tradition of minuscule Greek script.

3. Line Continuity: A significant number of the lines and links in the letters are not continuous, suggesting that the scribe’s hand was moving carefully and tentatively rather than spontaneously. This careful approach indicates an effort to maintain the correct shape of the letters.

4. Writing Style and Comparisons: Tselikas compares the writing style of the manuscript with other contemporary manuscripts and the general practice of writing in the post-Byzantine period. He notes some completely foreign or irregular forms that do not align with the traditional rules of Greek writing.

Examples of Poor Knowledge of Greek Writing

1. Use of the Soft Spirit: The way the soft spirit is linked as a continuation of the line of α in "ἀ" is strange. The connecting line is not continuous, and the curve of the soft spirit appears to be done in a second movement, simply linked to the elevated line of α.

2. Rare Usage of Soft Spirit: The use of the soft spirit in "αν," "εν," and as a continuation of "ν" is extremely rare in manuscripts.

3. Irregular Forms of π: The scribe uses two forms of π—one closed and one open. The open form is highly irregular, resembling κ or ε in some instances (e.g., "ἐπιστολῶν," "Καρποκρατιανῶν," "ἀπὸ," "ἀποῤῥίπτοντες," "ἀνδραπoδώδων").

4. Separate Writing of Soft Spirit: The soft spirit is always written separately from the letter ε, except in specific words like "ἐπιθεὶς," "ἐπιφέρει," and "ἐπικρύπτεσθαι," where ε is written as α.

5. Irregular Circumflex on ῦ: The circumflex on ῦ is irregular, curving to the left instead of the right. The line connecting υ with the curve of the circumflex is discontinuous.

6. Simplified Writing of και: In verses 27 and 65, και is written with a simple wavy line down, without an accent.

7. Simplified ψ: The horizontal line of ψ is a simple dot instead of a longer, straight line. This simplification extends to the way the letter I is written in names like Ἰάκωβος and Ἰησοῦς.

8. Simplified ζ: The letter ζ is so simplified that it resembles a curved τ.

9. Incomplete η: When following τ, η is written downward as ι, missing an additional line.

10. Simplified ει: The upper ending of ι and the entire complex formation of ει is highly simplified.

11. Incorrect Abbreviations: The abbreviation for Κυρίου usually consists of the letters κυ, not κου, as seen in verses 16 and 46. The scribe would typically abbreviate words like θεού, Ἰησοῦν, Ἰησοῦς, and Δαβὶδ, but this is not consistently followed.

12. Open Ending Syllable: In verse 17, the ending syllable ος is written as an open θ, with the circle closing in a further motion.

13. Incorrect Writing of το μι: In verse 30, το μι is not written correctly.

14. Incorrect Formation of σι: The formation of σι is strange, with the ι linking to the circle of σ in an unconventional manner.

15. Irregular Formation of δ: The letter δ is formed irregularly, with the circle written first and then the line added.

16. Unnatural Writing of αι: In verse 31 (δαι) and verse 36 (ταίς), αι is written similarly to καὶ, which is unnatural.

17. Incorrect Formation of θ: The letter θ is written in a way that resembles ν or υ, with the upper section added later.

18. Disconnected Abbreviation of εται or νται: The abbreviation ται is not disconnected, with the curve of αι starting from the bottom of ε or ν and the line of τ added inside the curve.

19. Modern Use of Dots: The use of two dots to separate a word is quite modern in Greek manuscripts and is not consistently applied in the text.

Summary of Observations

Tselikas divides his observations into two categories:

Category A: Author's Errors These include syntactic and meaning errors that Clement would not likely make, such as 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 offers a thorough examination of the manuscript's paleographic aspects, providing corrections and insights that enhance our understanding of the text. His detailed study 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.