Progress of Egyptology.
recent Part of the New Palaeographical Society, with the suggestion on the
part of the editors that its date can hardly be earlier than the fifth
In passing to the annual volume of Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt,2 the
opportunity may be taken of congratulating the editors on their appoint-
ment as Professor and Eeader, respectively, of Papyrology in the University
of Oxford. The fifth part of their Oxyrhynchus Papyri is the most
important of all their volumes from the literary point of view; and the
Egypt Exploration Fund, as well as the editors, may be warmly
congratulated on its publication. It contains only five texts, with speci-
men facsimiles of each of them. The first is a page of a vellum MS. of the
fourth or fifth century, containing an apocryphal Gospel. This has also
been issued by the Egypt Exploration Fund as a separate pamphlet,
similar to the separate publications of the two collections of the ' Sayings
of Christ.' The passage preserved deals with the question of ritual
purifications, and contains a denunciation of the Pharisees by our Lord.
It is somewhat striking, but has small claims to authenticity or even a
very early date. The second text consists of some forty columns (about
280 complete lines, with many that are mutilated) of a fine second century
MS. of the Paeans of Pindar, and contains portions of nine odes, similar in
general character to the epinicians, and full of characteristic passages,
though with nothing equal to the best of the previously extant odes. The
most striking new passage is from the ode in honour of Ceos, which is
praised for its modest and virtuous simplicity. Was this meant for a
compliment to Simonides and Bacchylides, who were natives of that
island, and, if so, is there a suggestion of patronage in the commendation ?
The third text is the one which has hitherto attracted most attention.
This is the new history, which the editors, following E. Meyer and
Wilamowitz, identify with the Hellenica of Theopompus. There are 21
broad columns, dealing mainly with the affairs of b.c. 395, possibly also
(but this is one of the matters of controversy) with those of 396. The
style is equable, diffuse, and undistinguished. There are no speeches, but
several digressions, including one of considerable interest on the constitution
of Boeotia. The work must have been written before 346, probably before
356, and is independent of Xenophon, from whom it differs markedly.
The attribution to Theopompus is very questionable, especially on account
of the extreme dissimilarity of style from all that we know of that very
rhetorical historian. The claims of Ephorus have been mentioned, but
only to be decisively dismissed. Prof, de Sanctis advocates the authorship
of Androtion ; but there is little positive evidence in support of it, and the