the fragments attributed to him are shown to be in reality post-Nestorian.
On p. 2 is a fresh discussion of the sequence of the teachers in the cate-
In a study of Macarius the Egyptian, Stoffels 26 points out the in-
fluence of the Stoic philosophy of nature on his mystical theology, although
M. does not show any direct acquaintance with Greek thinkers. How he
became familiar with their views remains obscure. His was the first
mystical interpretation of Christianity, definitely formulated against
pantheism. As to the authenticity of his works, the historical facts
deduceable appear to fit a 4th century coenobite (not hermit) such as M.,
nearly contemporary with Augustine (cf. their doctrines of ' original sin').
He, rather than Dionysius the Areopagite, is the true first mystic: D.
is the learned speculator, M. the practical ascetic. When Byzantine
mysticism shall have been investigated, it may appear that M. was not
without influence upon the ' hesychiasts ' of Greece.
Winstedt's further instalment from the Munich MSS.2' includes a
fragment of an Epistle to Easil, ascribed to Chrysostom and relating to an
The ' Scholia on the Incarnation' of Cyril of Alexandria is but partly
extant in Greek. Conybeare's edition of the 8th century Armenian
version is therefore welcome.28 No book better sums up the dogmatic
contests and contrasts of the age of Nestorius; none was more popular
with the monophysites. The same publication also gives us Cyril's other-
wise unknown lettter to Theodosius on Easter, which contains the state-
ment that the writer had compiled a table of Easter dates upon the
Diocletian era. Julicher calls attention to the importance of this second
G. Fickek devotes a volume to Amphilochius of Iconium,™ and includes
therein a translation (by A. Jacoby) of the homily on the ' Sacrifice of
Isaac,'preserved in Bohairic (Vatic, lxi), which he inclines to accept as
authentic. Jacoby contemplates an edition of the text.
In a criticism of Amelineau's Oeuvres de Schenoudi,31 Nau takes
occasion to review the whole question of the authenticity of the works
usually attributed to that famous monk. Some pieces headed %ivov6iov
he would leave uncontested; but these are usually found in catenae and
thus they alone are guaranteed. Yet even when thus ascribed to S., why
are they more probably genuine than much other Coptic literature, falsely
attributed to famous names ? Again, where the 3rd person is used, can S.
himself be speaking 1 Nor do the troubles and violence referred to in the
texts fit with the supposed date; they point more probably to Arab times.