the work without an intimate acquaintance with the jargon of the street
and market-place, quite out of the reach of the present writer. Yet,
suspicious as many of the equations may appear, this new work undoubtedly
contains much curious and interestimg material and it is to be hoped the
author will continue it.
Prof. Piehl has made contributions to Coptic philology in his reviews 43
of Forbes Eobinson's Apocryphal Gospels and of von Lemm's Dionysius,
while apropos of Griffith's explanation of the obscure god Petbe, he prefers 44
a derivation from a late word nth.
Prof. Beuigni has published43 a revision of his recent grammatical
synopsis of the language in view of the success of the first edition,—a
hopeful sign for the study of Coptic in Italy.
6. Art. What is the true place of Rome hi the early development of
art in the Christian East ? this is the question for the answering of which
Prof. Strzygowski's latest40 work aims at supplying material. Besides the
introduction, in which the current views—those of Wickhoff and Kraus—
are combatted, the book describes, in five chapters aided by many photo-
graphs, a variety of objects, some already known, others new, each of which
serves for a demonstration of how restricted was in reality the influence of
Eome upon either the style or the types in the art of Syria and Egypt.
The Egyptian products discussed are the newly-acquired bowl in the
British Museum, with the enthroned Christ and names of Constantine and
Fausta (ch. ii.), an elaborate scene carved in wood and of very obscure
meaning (ch. iii.), certain very remarkable painted—not dyed—draperies
perhaps illustrating the peculiar Egyptian process described by Pliny
(ch. iv.). This interesting book is criticized by Prof. V. Schultze,47 who
refuses the author's explanation of the Egyptian wood-carving, but
suggests no other. He also makes some good corrections in the reading of
the texts on the above-mentioned draperies. Criticisms have also appeared
by C. M. Ivaufmann,45 who declares himself on the whole for Kraus's
theory, and analytical reviews by A. Goldschmidt,49 who refers the above
wood-carving to Joshua, ch. x, and the present writer,30 who endeavours
to support the genuineness of the Constantine bowl.*
The same scholar has shown31 that a remarkable carved slab, found at
Salona, has, in its horse-shoe form, an undoubted resemblance to a class of
similarly shaped Christian stelae from Egypt, one of which was recently
published by M. Turaieff (v. Report, 1896-97. 68), and also to certain
tablets which mosques now and then contain (v. A. J. Butler, Coptic
Churches, ii. 8).
• I have since heard from Prof. S. that he now regards it as genuine.