is scarcely an improvement. The name is (H)Srsiesis, and occurs
regularly, just in this sequence, among the Tabennesiote abbots.
The second of these books is Dom E. C. Butler's study of the early
accounts of Egyptian monasticism.7 Here we are given first the
discussion of the problems, and are to await a subsequent edition of the
texts. Very elaborate investigations of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental
recensions lead the author to the conclusion that the shorter Greek text
(ed. Meursius) of which Heraclides' ' Paradise' (ed. Eosweyd) is a
Latin translation, must be the original Hist. Lausiaca. Like Dr.
Preuscken, Dom Butler has recognized the Greek form of the Hist.
Monach., and regards it as the work which Sozomen consulted and
attributed to Timothy of Alexandria. Coptic documents are, he thinks,
still difficult to value exactly; some of them—the Lives of Pachomius—
seem early enough to rank almost with the Greek. But Amelineau's
grounds for supposing the first Pachomian biography to have been in
Coptic are shown to be inadequate, and passages are cited from the
Arabic, Sa'idic and Bohairic Lives further to prove that he was wrong in
asserting the closest relationship to be that existing between the two
first of these. All three Dom B. would rather regard as independently
derived from a Coptic archetype, and that again from a Greek original.
But scattered through the book there is a great deal of matter relating
to Coptic literature beyond what is here mentioned ; §§ 12, 13, are long
dissertations upon the Coptic and Ethiopic versions of the Lausiao
History; § 16 contains a sketch of the growth of the collections of
AjjOj^htlieymata, one of which is so prominent in Zoega's Catalogue;
while Appendices III. and IV. are devoted respectively to Amelineau's
claims for Coptic originals of various texts, and to a table of
correspondences between the various versions of the Pachomian Lives.
Besides the works last described, two articles by M. Ladeuze
must be mentioned, which also deal with early Egyptian monasticism.8
M. L. holds that the problem of the original form of the Pachomian
Lives has not been satisfactorily settled by Amelineau nor by Griitz-
macher, who practically adopted A.'s views. He examines seven texts,
Greek, Coptic and Latin, and concludes that the original Life is repre-
sented by the Greek Bto?, and the Paralipomena (both ed. Bollandists),
that from these the Latin version printed by Surius is derived, while
from it in turn was extracted the other Latin text of Dionys. Exig. (ed.
Eosweyd). As for the Coptic Lives, they too depend in part upon
Greek originals (as against Amelineau), though some Coptic texts
may belong to independent but secondary compositions. L. has, in