One note here - regarding analyzing the ductus of the script - Tselikas writes:andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 9:37 am I made an earlier post in a similar thread here
To paraphrase: Tselikas did not strictly speaking establish that the handwriting is later than the 18th century, What Tselikas did claim to establish is that although the handwriting is in one sense an 18th century Greek cursive, the scribe is not writing cursive because this is how they learnt to write rapidly and legibly. Instead the scribe is carefully and deliberately writing in a script that does not come naturally. This sort of conclusion is standard palaeography (analyzing the ductus of the script).
Such a conclusion is strictly speaking entirely compatible with an 18th century writer. However it is IMO more plausibly explained by a later writer imitating 18th century handwriting,
Andrew Criddle
One of the features that would betray that it isn't actually an 18th century hand would be inconsistency in the ductus of the design of the letters, so it is natural that Tselikas would be looking to see if he could find evidence of that kind of inconsistency. His report says he didn't find it but instead found that the scribe maintains a "constant ductus in the design of the letters," indicating that "the scribe is experienced" in this form of writing, allowing this consistency to be maintained for the three pages of writing.
Then the next point that Tselikas makes is:
The point on continuity indicates that the writer is picking up their pen from the paper before setting down again. Describing the consistency of the ductus requires standard paleographic expertise, as you point out. Describing the amount of discontinuity in the writing is also objectively a feature of the text.
Something not done here by Tselikas -- such as providing comparison with other writing with respect to the amount of discontinuity in the writing -- can also be done at the descriptive level, in a verifiable way.
The inferences made from the facts mentioned -- whether the writer was "careful," "deliberate," "tentative," and "not moving spontaneously" -- those are all inferences that can be offered and discussed. But it's correct to make a distinction here, that these claims are of a different nature. The opposite claims -- that the writer was "careless," "natural," "confident," or "moving spontaneously" -- would also be of a different nature. They would be inferences that are at one further remove from the facts themselves, i.e., the verifiable aspects of the text that can therefore be confirmed by analysis by any other paleographic expert.
Thanks again, Andrew, for your comment.