DOI article:
Crum, Walter E.: Progress of Egyptology: coptic studies
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11503#0079
Coptic Stddies.
G7
service as a standard by which to recognize the metres of the more
ancient literature.
Among the essays collected in honour of Professor Ebers' sixtieth
birthday,12 Dr. von Lemm has contributed one dealing with various
linguistic details,—(1) his recognition of the form mmo as singular of the
antiquated plural imperative mmeeiten; (2) of oulom as the Sa'idic
counterpart of mrom £/u,/3pv/j,wv, " pillow"; (3) and of the name of
Eustochius of Antioch in the Turin encomium upon Athanasius. Inci-
dentally we are glad to hear that the same schol tr is preparing an edition
of the important Martyrdom of S. Victor, previously edited by M.
Bouriant.
Professor F. Eossi published in 1895 a short article with transcriptions
of three Turin ostraca, two of which were already known from Stern's
paper in the Zeitschrift of 1878. The reverse of one of the latter bears
however the continuation of the text in cryptographic characters, and
this apparently puzzled the earlier as well as the later editor. In an
additional note Professor Rossi has now given their solution,13 aided
presumably by the transcription of a similar text in Hyvernat's Album
paleographique. Both these and the other cases of Coptic cryptograms
are after all but examples of the well-known Greek system, the key to
which may be seen in Gardthausen's Paliiographie, p. 235.
In his organ, the Sphinx, Professor Piehl has a lengthy criticism of
Steindorff's Grammar 14 which, among several noteworthy observations,
•contains statements showing that the critic prefers, in certain questions
at any rate, the views of the older to those of the Berlin philologists.
Professor Piehl is justified in regretting that none of the younger Coptic
scholars have much knowledge of demotic, which he holds would give
better material for comparisons thau is afforded by the more distant
hieroglyphic periods. But some of his discussions are based mainly on
hypotheses : that, for example, as to the extent to which the Coptic and
more ancient alphabets correspond, or as to the relative ignorance of the
later and earlier scribes. The sign treated in Berlin as 'Am Professor
Piehl still regards as a vowel, and he has certain observations on the
nature of the vowel in the syllable which sufficiently indicate his
attitude.
In the same publication Professor Piehl, incited presumably by the
recent work of Professor Atkinson, spends much pains in displaying the
weaknesses of M. Bouriant's edition of the texts relative to the Council
of Ephesus.15 The errors of the latter are certainly pretty numerous,
though several of those cited are in reality free rather than faulty
G7
service as a standard by which to recognize the metres of the more
ancient literature.
Among the essays collected in honour of Professor Ebers' sixtieth
birthday,12 Dr. von Lemm has contributed one dealing with various
linguistic details,—(1) his recognition of the form mmo as singular of the
antiquated plural imperative mmeeiten; (2) of oulom as the Sa'idic
counterpart of mrom £/u,/3pv/j,wv, " pillow"; (3) and of the name of
Eustochius of Antioch in the Turin encomium upon Athanasius. Inci-
dentally we are glad to hear that the same schol tr is preparing an edition
of the important Martyrdom of S. Victor, previously edited by M.
Bouriant.
Professor F. Eossi published in 1895 a short article with transcriptions
of three Turin ostraca, two of which were already known from Stern's
paper in the Zeitschrift of 1878. The reverse of one of the latter bears
however the continuation of the text in cryptographic characters, and
this apparently puzzled the earlier as well as the later editor. In an
additional note Professor Rossi has now given their solution,13 aided
presumably by the transcription of a similar text in Hyvernat's Album
paleographique. Both these and the other cases of Coptic cryptograms
are after all but examples of the well-known Greek system, the key to
which may be seen in Gardthausen's Paliiographie, p. 235.
In his organ, the Sphinx, Professor Piehl has a lengthy criticism of
Steindorff's Grammar 14 which, among several noteworthy observations,
•contains statements showing that the critic prefers, in certain questions
at any rate, the views of the older to those of the Berlin philologists.
Professor Piehl is justified in regretting that none of the younger Coptic
scholars have much knowledge of demotic, which he holds would give
better material for comparisons thau is afforded by the more distant
hieroglyphic periods. But some of his discussions are based mainly on
hypotheses : that, for example, as to the extent to which the Coptic and
more ancient alphabets correspond, or as to the relative ignorance of the
later and earlier scribes. The sign treated in Berlin as 'Am Professor
Piehl still regards as a vowel, and he has certain observations on the
nature of the vowel in the syllable which sufficiently indicate his
attitude.
In the same publication Professor Piehl, incited presumably by the
recent work of Professor Atkinson, spends much pains in displaying the
weaknesses of M. Bouriant's edition of the texts relative to the Council
of Ephesus.15 The errors of the latter are certainly pretty numerous,
though several of those cited are in reality free rather than faulty