fragments (Zoega, Krall, London, Munich, Cairo) point to a variety of
compositions relating to Dioseorus. Turaief, in his edition of de Bock's
MSS., lias printed1'' a passage from one wherein, as in Krall's, Dioseorus
is apparently himself the narrator.
Amelineau, in his publication of the correspondence of Peter Mongus
with Acacius of Constantinople, was thought to have demonstrated its
nnauthenticity. A collection fuller than the Coptic is the Armenian,
which is contained in the monophysite " Book of Letters," recently
described by Goussen,11 who regards the correspondence as genuine.
The new text certainly contains discreditable features which we might
have expected a Monophysite forger to omit. A study of these letters
may, I hear, be looked for from Conyreare.
Revxllout continues his publication,:' of the interesting letters of
Pesynthius of Coptos. But he now includes "plusieurs documents
analogues;" and of the eighteen texts printed, four clearly could not
be claimed for P.; no. 61 belongs, as its dialect shows, to Eshmunein,
62 probably comes from the Fayyiim, 64 is the Berlin ostracon printed
A. Z. '78, 18, while 65 is a Jeme papyrus in the British Museum.
Although von Lemm has announced an edition of all the known Coptic-
fragments of the History of Alexander the Great, the critical study which
Pietschmann has made of them10 is far from superfluous. Besides the
Paris and London leaves, others from the same MS. are in Berlin.
1'. calculates that the complete work contained some thirty-five sections.
Here and there the story is identical with the other versions; elsewhere it
Jacory's studies in apocryphal literature1'' have shown him another
Greek parallel, this time from Vassilief's Auecdota, to a passage in
Hebbelynck's Mijsteres des Lettre*. He also draws attention to some
words in Steindorff s Apoc. of Ellas which may be aimed against one of
the Gnostic heresies.
It may be noted that the acquisition by the Berlin Museum is announced
of an early Coptic papyrus, containing a hitherto unknown, apparently
Of new publications by members of the Coptic Church, two have reached
me; both directed agaiust Protestant encroachments. The first,1'" in 17
chapters and some 260 pages, is a clear and simple defence of the
" orthodox " doctrines and practices, with an appended account of the
Councils (including Chalcedon), written by Basilius, metropolitan of
• I owe this reference to M. de Rieci's Bulletin papyrologitjue (Her. des it, gi.