(v. John of Nikiu), became Al-'Araj or Al-'Uairij. As to the Mokaukis him-
self, Mr. Butler clearly shows—and he here agrees with M. Pereira—that he
and Cyrus, the Melkite patriarch and governor, are identical, and he makes
a brilliant suggestion to explain the name itself: namely, that " Mokaukis,"
preserved in Coptic as Pi-kwukios, is really Pikaukasios, i.e. 6 Kavtcdaio^,
an epithet most appropriate to Cyrus, formerly bishop of Phasis in the
Caucasus. He further suggests an alternative etymology in the abusive
word Kavxo^, possibly applied by his Jacobite victims to the hated patriarch.
The chief obstacle to accepting either proposal will probably lie in the
necessary equation of the initial Mo- and the Coptic article Pi-, for which
it may be difficult to find analogies.
5. Philological. The " Egyptian " language became the " Coptic " at the
time when the spread of Christianity called for a version of the Scriptures
in the vernacular. Such is the crudest expression of the linguistic division
which it is more convenient than exact to assume between the final heathen
period and its successor. In reality it can not be doubted that many
attempts had been made to transcribe the clumsy and complicated demotic
script into Greek characters before that perfected system had been evolved
which we see in the earliest Coptic Bible-manuscripts. The two invaluable
monuments of such attempts which still remain are the Anastasi magical
papyrus in Paris,* the Egyptian passages in which were edited by Erman,
and the verso of the Horoscope papyrus in the British Museum, described
many years ago by Goodwin. The latter of these is now but partly legible,
and this, together with the great obscurity both of the idiom and of the
writer's method of transcribing sounds, has given Mr. Griffith, who has
issued a careful transcript of the text,31 a very difficult task. Mr. Griffith
ascribes the papyrus to the second century—some 200 years, that is, before
the earliest Christian MSS.—and recognizes the dialect represented as of
the Middle Egyptian group, whereas he regards that of the Paris text as
Sa'idic. As to the meaning of the text, it remains still "hopelessly
obscure," while the orthography appears so inconstant as even to suggest
the work of a non-Egyptian scribe. Besides the London " Old Coptic " text,
Mr. Griffith has also dealt with that in Paris,35 and points out many interest-
ing demotic parallels as a contribution to its interpretation. However great
the obscurity which still remains to be cleared, these two studies have un-
doubtedly thrown light—and from a new standpoint, that of demotic—upon
a multitude of points, and laid a solid foundation for future investigation.
The attention of Coptic as well as of demotic students should be directed
* Leyden Coptic MS. 9 (Christian magic, 6th—7th cent.) was Anastasi's. Could
it be from the same find as this and his others ?