Progress of Egyptology.
It is seven years since E. C. Butler published the studies in the
His tor ia Lav, iaca which discussed and often settled the literary problems
surrounding that work. He has now edited the Greek text itself,35
according to the shorter of the two recensions, with an elaborate critical
apparatus. A highly interesting commentary, in the form of notes on
selected points, is added, wherein much new information is collected and
not a few long-standing confusions and obscurities are cleared up.
It may be here noted that, while Butler (note 69) is inclined to admit
the possibility of G-ayet's mummies being actually those of Thais and
Serapion (v. Report 1900-01, 77), Batiffol declines to accept the story of
Thais and her conversion as historical.38
We announced last year Pereira's publication of the Ethiopic text of
the life of Paul of Thebes; we now have the translation, with a critical
introduction.37 The editor finds its nearest counterpart, not in any of the
other oriental versions, but in one of the Greek versions. He draws
attention to curious resemblances with the Buddha legend.
The recent articles in Hauck's Recdencyclopedie include one on John
Moschus by Preusghen, whose words suggest the hope that he contem-
plates an edition of the " Pratum," so invaluable for the history of later
Egyptian monasticism ; and one on Pachomius and the subsequent history
of his monasteries by Grutzmacher.38
Baumstark's proposal to read "Julius" for " Hippolytus " as the author
of the famous canons («. Report 1902-03, 57) is declined by Funk39;
though he recognizes that only orientalists can finally decide this question.
Harnack thinks40 that, though these canons contain elements not
inadmissible as of Hippolytus' age and country, they are, in the form at
any rate in which we know them, " an Egyptian church-order," many of
whose precepts could not be either western or prenicene.
Attention need scarcely be drawn here to the chapters of Harnack's
new volume41 which relate to the literary work of the Alexandrine church
down to the age of Constantine. These include, besides sections on
Clement, Origen, Peter Martyr &c, discussions of the problems connected
with the apocryphal and juristic works which either originated with the
Egyptians or were early adopted by them.
A good resume of the recent discussion as to the early system of electing
the Alexandrine archbishops (v. Report 1900-01, 69) is given in an article
by CaBROL in his JJictionnaire.*2
After some years of announcement and expectation, we now have the
opening portions of two editions of the Patriarchal Chronicle of Severus of
Ashmunain. One is by Evetts, and appears in the Patrologia of MM.