Reassessing the "Strange" Ligatures in the Letter to Theodore
The Reproduction of Standard Ligatures
One of the fundamental points against the argument for forgery is the ease with which standard ος ligatures have been reproduced across a multitude of manuscripts. English, Scottish, French, Italian, and Jewish scribes from various periods have all managed to replicate this ligature. The attached ος ligature seen in the Letter to Theodore, however, is significantly more intricate and challenging to produce.
The scribe responsible for the Letter to Theodore demonstrates a remarkable consistency in rendering this complex ligature. The process involves creating a series of loops and flourishes in a single stroke, maintaining this complexity throughout the manuscript. The question then arises: if Morton Smith were the forger, why would he opt for such a difficult-to-reproduce ligature when a simpler and more common one would suffice?
Consistency in Ligature Usage
A critical aspect of the ligature usage in the Letter to Theodore is its placement following letters with "chevron-shaped" forms, such as nu (ν) and kappa (κ). This specific and consistent application suggests an unconscious habit of the scribe rather than an intentional forgery. If Smith were the forger, he would have needed to invent not just the ligature but also this specific contextual usage pattern, which seems unlikely.
Had Smith forged the letter, he would logically have employed his invented ligature in γυμνὸς, a word where ος follows nu. Tselikas, however, reads the manuscript correctly as γυμνοὶ, which does not necessitate the use of this ligature. This discrepancy underlines the improbability of Smith having the foresight to invent such a nuanced and consistent scribal habit.
Comparative Manuscripts
One of the few instances of a similar "attached" ος ligature appears in the manuscript titled “Monastery of the Lavra H.34. John of Damascus” (H.34). While the scribe of H.34 employs the ligature for words like πρὸς, the Letter to Theodore does not follow this pattern uniformly. Instead, the Letter to Theodore uses the ligature exclusively after chevron-shaped letters. This nuanced application further diminishes the likelihood of forgery.
Had Smith based his forgery on H.34, he would have likely mimicked the exact usage patterns found in that manuscript. The presence of the ligature in H.34 to write πρὸς, which is not mirrored in the Letter to Theodore, suggests an independent and authentic scribal practice rather than a copied or invented one.
Implications for Authenticity
The detailed analysis of ligatures, particularly the ος ligature, reveals a level of scribal authenticity that complicates the forgery hypothesis. The consistent application of the ligature after specific letters, the complexity of its formation, and the discrepancies in usage compared to other manuscripts all point towards the Letter to Theodore being a genuine document rather than a modern forgery.
Tselikas's focus on the "strangeness" of the ligature does not hold up against the broader context of manuscript traditions. The presence of unusual ligatures is not in itself indicative of forgery, especially when such ligatures can be contextualized within the broader spectrum of post-Byzantine manuscript practices.
Conclusion
The peculiarities of the ligatures within the Letter to Theodore, far from proving its inauthenticity, instead support its genuineness. The complexity and consistency of the ligature formations, particularly the ος ligature, align with established scribal practices from the period. The argument for forgery is weakened by the intricate and consistent use of these ligatures, suggesting that the Letter to Theodore is likely an authentic historical document. This underscores the need for careful, context-aware analysis in paleographic studies, avoiding hasty conclusions based on isolated features.
Comments
Post a Comment