HE EISENLOHR COLLECTION IN 
 i:GYPTOLOGY AND ASSYRIOLOGY 
 
 PRESENTED TO CORNEI,!, UNIVERSITY BY 
 
 X902 
 
 A.^./A^..7M .'^/s//^..a.sL 
 
 3947 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PJ 2023.A87 
 
 On South-Coptic texts: 
 
 3 1924 026 909 683 
 
 SOUTH- COFTIG TBit'S: 
 
 A CRITICISM 
 
 ON 
 
 M. BOTJRIANT'S 
 
 "ELOQES DU MAETYE VIOTOE, FILS DE EOMANUS." 
 
 BY 
 
 EOBEET ATKINSON, LL.D. 
 
 A PAPER 
 Read before the ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY, November 13, 1893; 
 
 and 
 Seprinted from the "Prooeedinbs." Srd Ser.,Vol. III., No. l. 
 
 [Fifty copies enly reprinted by the Aoadeihy for the Author.^ 
 
 DUBLIN : 
 
 PRIKTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 BY PONSONBT AND WELDRICK, 
 
 PRINTEK8 TO THE ACADBHY. 
 
 1893. 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http ://www. arch i ve . o rg/detai Is/cu31 924026909683 
 
[ 225 ] 
 
 XIII. 
 
 ON SOUTH.COPTIC TEXTS : No. II.— A CEITICISM ON 
 M. BOXJEIANT'S "ELOGES DU MAETYE VICTOE, FILS 
 DE EOMANUS." By EOBEET ATKINSON, LL.D. 
 
 [Read Notbmber 13, 1893.] 
 
 I HAVE already had occasion, in a pa,per read before the Eoyal Irish 
 Academy, May 8, 1893 {antea p. 1), to exhihit the very unsatisfactory 
 treatment of South Coptic by an Italian scholar. But the deficiencies 
 of knowledge which were patent in thexase of Prof. Eossi's publication, 
 are to be found in other editors of thisieglected language. 
 
 There is now going through the press in Paris a splendid-looking 
 series of folio volumes, under the auspices oitha MinisUre de I' Instruc- 
 tion Pullique et des Beaux Arts, and entitled, M^moibes publics pak 
 
 LES MbMBKES de la MiSSION AsOHiiOLOGHQUE FRAN9AISE AU CaIEE, 
 
 which contaias an edition of a South-Coptic text, not less-prolific of 
 discontent than some of Prof. Eossi's worst work. 
 
 These French Memoires are published sous la direction de M. 
 U. Bouriant; and it is just M. Bouriant's work that I propose here to 
 oritioise. 
 
 Broadly I may say that much of M. Bouriant's version is the product 
 of the methods of hieroglyphic divination so much in vogue. But these 
 times of ignorance have been too long winked at : the eTraoiSol tS>v 
 AiyuTTTiW must put away their (jyap/xaKia^, and the eyyacrT/3tj«.v6oi give 
 up their incantations ; the Egyptian o-kotos yv6^o<s must be lifted, and 
 the light of reason take the place of unauthorized speculation. 
 
 The texts I propose to examine are two Eloges du Martyr Victor, 
 contained in pp. 147-265 of the Second Fascicule of vol. viii. ; less 
 than one hundred and twenty pages of about sixteen lines each, some- 
 what under two thousand lines, so that it is not a very extensive 
 material out of which has been gathered this collection of curiosities 
 of translation. 
 
 E.I.A. PaOC.,' SEE. III., VOL. III. E 
 
226 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 [I- ] 
 
 Before descending to the small details of -which a review of this 
 kind must largely consist, I propose to give here several examples of 
 the results attained hy the method followed hy M. Bouriant, some of 
 the results heing not less interesting considered as translations, from a 
 language so finely organized as is Coptic, than the examples of transla- 
 tion furnished hy the puhlication treated of in my previous paper. 
 The method to which these perversions owe their origin may be 
 described briefly as consisting in — 
 
 {a) Insufficient knowledge of the perfectly definite system of 
 Coptic grammar. 
 
 (J) Very limited acquaintance with Coptic idiom. 
 
 (c) "Want of familiarity with the Bible. 
 
 Editions of Coptic text are not to be lightly undertaken in any case, 
 but under the conditions of the above method, the results cannot fail 
 to be disastrous. 
 
 1. I doubt whether the exemplification of the expression traiuttore 
 traiitore has ever been more plainly brought to view than in the 
 following passage [209, i ] : — 
 
 anok de iiran hijoi Je tike ebol nwkwi, tibes 
 mparan ethn tephjllake, ebol je netmmau men 
 secine mpsolf nneueren, auo w Srome mmau 
 ere pna nhetf nsafpot epesteko nfcine mpeasine 
 nftinau nhnagape, anok de mntai laau nsolsl 
 nsa laau n§a. 
 
 Pour moi, e'esi mon mm meme qui est cause que Von me dilaisse et qui 
 me vmt les peines que m'infligent mes gardiens ; car ceux-ci y trouvent 
 matiere d Unifice pour Vun et pour V autre; tout homme assez rempli de 
 misMcorde pour se rendre d la prison satisfait d leur demande et leur 
 donne quelque eadeau, mais powr moije n'ai de consolation d'aucun cdte. 
 
 In this we may note the following points : 
 
 («) my name is the cause of my being abandoned ; 
 
 (J) my guards inflict pains on me on account of my name ; 
 
 (c) they find gain therein ; 
 
 (d) pour Vun et pour V autre (to whatever these words may refer) • 
 (el they also get presents from pitying visitors. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 227 
 
 I do not think that I am doing* injustice to his translation in 
 holding that those are Five Points 'in the passage. 
 And every one of them is wrong ! 
 
 («) anok de pran hijoi je tike ebol nwkwi [209, i], "as 
 for me, the name is upon me that I am forgiven a little ". 
 
 (J) tihei mpara nethn tephyllake, "I am tortured more 
 than those who are in prison" ; where he has absolutely edited mp ar an, 
 as if it were a combination with pa -ran, 'my name', though it is 
 mtrapa [!]. How he proposes to analyse tihes, OXi^oixjoli, with 
 following ethn &c., I cannot imagine. 
 
 (c), (i), ebolje netmmau men secine mpsolf nneuereu, 
 "because they [= the prisoners] indeed get the consolation of each 
 other ". I do not know how he proposed to deal with his mpsolf; 
 the logic seems to demand mpsolsl, 'consolation'. 
 
 («) safpot epeiteko nfcine mpeusine&c, " goes to the prison 
 to visit them and gives them [the prisoners] presents", "whereas, he 
 continues, I have no consolation from any quarter". 
 
 The drift of the passage thus becomes : 
 
 " I have the name of being pardoned, but really I suffer more than 
 those who are kept in prison ; for they get mutual consolation and the 
 gifts of pitying visitors, whereas I have no consolation from any side ". 
 
 I do not think that anything could be worse than his treatment of 
 the second point : {e'est monnom) qui me vaut les peines que m'infligent 
 mes gardiens. This is very bad indeed from a grammatical point of 
 view, . but the inexplicable element in the matter to me is how the 
 logic of the paragraph seems to have been hidden from him. 
 
 2. There is a very significant specimen of editing, at [224, 12], 
 ni I' or, ni V argent ne servent de rien poiir preserver I'homme de la mart. 
 That is pure guess-work, for his text gives 
 
 mS nwb wde bat there is not gold nor silver 
 
 fias She in what way 
 
 mprome ( ) the man 
 
 ebol hS tanagfke mpmw from the necessity of death. 
 
 His phrase ie rien is the equivalent for the words of his text nas 
 She, 'in what manner', in very much the same way as on [215, 8] 
 einaswong nas nhe, 'how shall I recognize thee', which he has 
 rendered, je n'en sais rien. Further, where is the verb pour preserver, 
 
 B,2 
 
228 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 in the text? As he has edited it, tte passage is absolutely without 
 meaning of aut kind ! I will emend it : 
 
 Not, nas u-he mprome 
 but, na-s-nehm prome. 
 
 i.e.notn-as, "inwhat", 5-he, 'of manner', but n a, "will", i, "be 
 able", nehm, "to save". And so the words assume grammatical form 
 and logical coherence : mn nwb &c. then being the subject of the 
 clause, which means, shall not he able to save man. 
 
 3. Fancy a pagan Mng addressing a young Christian martyr as 
 follows [174, 5] : 
 
 Quel Dieu veux-tu que f adore ? JEst-ce que le Bieu que nous adorons 
 tous les jours n'a pas souffert ? Ne nous a-t-il pas riellement recom- 
 mandi A' adorer des dieux nowoeaux ? Sache lien ceci, c'est que Notre- 
 Seigneur Jhus-Christ a itS, est et sera iternellement ; c' est pourquoi ne 
 me dis plus qu^un homme ne peut avoir plusieurs dieux, ear si I'un d'eux 
 passe d Vetranger, les autres veillent A sa place. 
 
 I commend that clause to M. Bouriant's serious consideration, and 
 cannot help feeling that a strong temptation to sleepiness must have 
 overcome him at this particular ' psychological moment ' ! 
 
 (a) The first clause is wrong : 
 
 me Sta pnwte (jiii) has the Grod 
 
 ensmse naf mmene whom we serve daily 
 
 hise become wearied ? 
 
 It is the old blunder of equating /tij with ne-pas [see No. 36] ; and 
 the error of rendering hise here wrongly. 
 
 (5) The second clause is wrong : 
 
 e ntafosk tonw or has he become worn out utterly, 
 
 je ennawdst that we should worship 
 
 nbnnwte nbrre new gods P 
 
 The editor has elaborated a new meaning out of the root osk, which 
 he renders ' to recommend '; so that it will not be amiss to equate this 
 word with the Greek of the LXX ; cf . 
 
 South C. North C. 
 
 Ps. xlviii. 15, . iraKaiwBrifTerai., . na-6sk, . es-er-apas. 
 Ps. vi. 7, . . . iTrakaimOtjv, . ai-6sk, . ai-er-apas. 
 
 Of course there are other words to render iraXatoo), such as hite, 
 r-plce &c., but there can be no doubt of the use of osk, cf. Levit. 
 xiii. 10, wsobh efnaosk pe hm psaar mpefsoma, XeTrpa ■jroXaiovfi.ivri 
 €o-Tiv 6V tG Sep/taTt rov p^puTos. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriani. 229 
 
 (fi) And the third clause is wrong ; for quite apart from the 
 absurdity of a pagan king talking of ' Our Lord', and quoting Hebr. 
 xiii. 8, (which obviously must have come from the young martyr, 
 in a portion of the colloquy omitted from this text), what could be 
 more illogical than for him to say : " therefore don't tell me any more 
 that a man cannot have several gods &c." ? And what has become of 
 the grammar ? 
 
 mpfjo eroi an je ne me dis plus, que &c. 
 
 It is an impossible text, to which there are three fatal objections : 
 how could mpf have a n after it ? or how could j 6 be without its 
 object, or how could it govern the directive eroi? And the transla- 
 tion following, qu'un homme ne peut avoir plusiemrs dieux, is absolutely 
 out of place, for the words form a 'nominativus pendens', {as to the 
 case of a man) who has many gods &c. But, as it stands, the discus- 
 sion is unintelligible, because the rejoinder of the martyr has been 
 omitted. 
 
 4. And even when he has the original Greek before him, he is 
 not able to resist the temptation to go astray, by shutting his eyes to 
 the LXX aiter the first cursory glance ! How else can we com- 
 prehend a version like the following : — 
 
 J'ai passS [altered in the Corrig. ioto j'e passe'] sur la terre comme 
 tons mes pires. A moi qui suis jeune, il dit : je me suis reposi or ant 
 d' avoir marchi, et n'ai point acheve mon passage. 
 
 The interjected clause which he renders, " k moi qui suis jeune, il 
 dit ", is [176, 6] f OS nai nwkwi, which he has thus translated : 
 
 nai d moi 
 
 nwkwi qui suis jeume 
 
 f-6s» il dit. 
 
 Absolutely so ! ! 
 
 He knows the quotation, that it is from Ps. xxxviii. 14, and he 
 therefore was not suflSciently skilled in the Coptic vocabulary to 
 realize that the words were simply 
 
 fos nai nwkwi, " spare me a little", 
 
 with the not uncommon change of /and 5, cf. bos. Job vii. 19. 
 
 5. And the two clauses following are both wrong : — 
 
 («) je eiemton mmoi hathe mpatibok, a literal rendering 
 
 of Iva dvaij/viu) irpo tov /xe oTreXOeiv. 
 (J) tatmsaat esope, ' that I may cease to be', 
 
 Kol ovKeTi []i,rj VTrdp^o). 
 
230 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 6. The next lines continue the misconceptions : Vhomme marehe 
 dans un ensemhle d'imagea sans sa/ooir qui les a rassembUes. 
 
 "Why, such aversion makes ef-s6wh ehwn a participle agreeing 
 with hikon, and makes nnim the grammatical subject\ 
 
 prome moose hn whikon man walks in an eiicdv, 
 
 efsowh ehwn gathering up [riches] 
 
 enfsown an Je while not knowing 
 
 efsowh mmow nnim. /or whom he is gathering them. 
 
 A literal version of the LXX cv cIkovl StairopeueTat av^pwiros , 
 
 drja-avpi^ei kol ov yivucncei rCvi. crwd^iL avrd, Ps. xxxviii. 7, which he 
 quotes as the reference. 
 
 7. And then, still with the quotation lefore him, he goes on, 
 incomprehensibly, as follows : 
 
 Seigneur, enseigne-moi ma fin . . ., carj'e sais ce qui me manque 
 et Je mettrai un frein a ma louche pour que ma langue ne phche pas. 
 Car void que tu Vasfaite eoupahle de mes crimes, et ma force est comme 
 la force de ceux qui sont devant toi. 
 
 It is certainly not, car je sais, but afin que je sache, as he gives in 
 the Corrigenda, so that his attention must have been called to this 
 very passage. He further corrects : et ne pecherai pas par ma la/ngue ; 
 and he also emends : ma force n'est rien devant toi. But, the middle 
 clause was a problem he could not solve. The words are aktre 
 nahow eras, which cannot mean anything but "thou hast made 
 my days to become old ". And what is his version ? Evidently thus.: 
 
 ak-tre thou hast made 
 
 na-how my crimes 
 
 eras upon it [my tongue] [ ! ] 
 
 Fancy a Greek scholar supposing that yXScro-a was of the masculine 
 gender! As if eras could have represented the masculine word 
 p-las, ' the tongue' ; and this quite apart from the utter impossibility 
 of such a construction as ak-tre . . . eras, or of na-how meaning 
 ' my crimes' ! Tu Vasfaite coupcAle de mes crimes [!] 
 
 8. The Grreek words are often a difficulty to M. Bouriant, who 
 quotes St. Paul as saying : Les Mens des villes d'ici-las cesseront d^&tre, 
 mais nous sommes citoyens du del par le Christ. This he declares to 
 
 • be from Ephes. ii. 19, which is curious and noteworthy! But let us 
 examine his text [184, 3] : 
 
 {a) mn tanpolis mpeima esnaco, 
 
 les liens des villes d'ici-las cesseront d'etre [!!] 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 231 
 
 It almost takes one breath away : how could mH be followed by 
 esnaco? how could tanpolis mean 'les biens des villes'? how 
 could ta mean anything at all ? 
 
 It is all wrong, and should be mntan polis, " we have not here a 
 city which will last ", " continuing city ", for the quotation was from 
 Hebr. xiii. 14, /xivovtrav ttoXlv ! 
 
 (5) And the second clause was another quotation, nous sommes 
 eitoyens du del par le Christ, alia ere penpoliteuma hn mpeue 
 hatm peXS. Surely the word ■jroXtTEu/na is not so very common a 
 word in the New Testament as to have made it difficult to discover 
 that this also was a quotation, Philipp. iii. 20 ■^/tiv yap to ■n-oXtVeuju.a 
 kv oipavois vitdpxv., with an added " along with Christ", hatim peXS. 
 
 (c) And the subsequent words are also quotation, viz. Hebr. xi. 10, 
 which is ignored by the Editor, who also renders, ils ne regardent que 
 la ville qui a des fondations telles que doit en avoir une ville dont 
 Va/rohitecte et le eriatewr est Dieu, but the Coptic is a literal rendering 
 of the words tyjv tous de/j.eXiov; k)(ovcrav ttoXlv, tpolis ete wnts 
 snte mmau ; there is no telles que doit avoir. 
 
 And in the end o£ the paragraph, [184, 12], the Editor once more 
 goes wrong, rendering : fai dit que eeux qui avaient dtS ilevis dans la 
 richesse supportaient plus piniblement les souffranoes du monaeat ou du 
 martyre que ceux qui avaient iti elevis dans la pauvreti, d mains quails 
 n'eussent le cceur dur eomme une pierre. But why should martyrs 
 have hearts as hard as stone ? That is certainly not the idea of the 
 Coptic: eimete nsetajro mpeuhet nthe nwpetra, "unless 
 they strengthen their heart like a rook". 
 
 It is Trerpa, not virpoi ! 
 
 9. And again, consider his treatment of [186, 2], mpefka pnwte 
 naf Ebo^thos, rendered, Bieu lui a retire sa protection! Here we 
 have — 
 
 (o) pnwte , the subject after the verb without its introductory 
 
 [the " denotative" , as I call it] nci ; 
 (J) the proclitic form ka without an immediately following object ; 
 (c) the connexive n (before boethos) after ka ; 
 (<?) boethos made an abstract noun = 'protection'; 
 («) ka rendered ' to take away' ; 
 (/) naf, after ka, rendered 'to take nwaj from him'. 
 There are six distinct unmistakable fundamental errors in this version, 
 containing six French words ! 
 
 The words mean: "he did not put Grod to himself as a helper", 
 " he hath not made God his helper ". 
 
232 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 10. And here is another example of -want of skill ; this time 
 perhaps because M. Bouriant has not sufficient pMlologieal training 
 to realize what the dialectal peculiarities of his own text are ! 
 
 The passage occurs at [194, 1 1] wdikaios pe pjoeis efsoot 
 mpmokh nnreffnobe, rendered, le Seigneur est juste, lui qui punit 
 lesf antes des pScheurs. 
 
 And since when, or in what dialect, does 
 
 (a) raokh-jnean fautes ? 
 or (i) soot mean punishes? 
 
 The word mokh is dialectal for makh, 'the neck', and soot is 
 of course ' to cut off ', Kv/jtos Stxatos crvviKoxlnv aip^cVas ajxajyrwXSiv, 
 Ps. cxxviii. 4. 
 
 1 1 . Immediately after the above sentence, he resumes with the 
 words, mais n'insistons pas et retournons aux autres combats et d ee saint. 
 Here the phrase mais n'insistons pas is quite incorrect ; the words are 
 [194,1.], 
 
 eita je nnenjoore ebol mpsaje. 
 
 M. Bouriant thought of jo ore, 'strong', so he translated 
 n'insistons pas; and as it seems a difficulty to other Able Editors, 
 it will not be out of place to exemplify the proper meaning of the 
 word when followed by ehol. 
 
 It means ' to scatter, to confound ' ; thus Gen. xi. 9, ' they 
 called its name ' p-j66re ebol, a-vyxva-Lv. It is regularly used for 
 ^laa-KopTriifa, Siaa-KeSd^o) &c., cf. Ps. xxi. 40; xxxii. 20; Ixxii. 2; 
 Ixxxviii. 11; Eccl. xii. 5; Job xvi. 12; Jerm. xiii. 24; John x. 
 12, 62 ; &c. Of this meaning he has no notion, for he renders 
 Siea-Kopma-ev oo-tS of Ps. lii. 6, of which the Coptic [204, 12] is 
 pjoeis na joore ebol nnkees, by le Seigneur brisera les o«[!] 
 Therefore the above passage meant, "that we may not scatter, put 
 into confusion, the matter". 
 
 12. The very next words are wrongly rendered : Commengons a 
 nous oindre et a parfumer nos cmurs de son parfum. These words have 
 a sort of ' Song of Songs ' ring about them, though perhaps the 
 repetition of the word is weak; 'perfume our hearts ^iih. perfume', 
 is not a good rhetorical phrase, even if it advocated an intelligible 
 process ! But may be it might become intelligible after we had ' legun 
 to anoint ourselves'. There is no mention of any such 'anointing 
 of ourselves' in the Coptic text, which says simply [194, 13], 
 etrenkim epsocn, tare penhet wnof hm pefstinwbe, i.e. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 23S 
 
 " to let Tis stir the unguent that our heart may rejoiee in its sweet 
 scent " ; which translation, if it have less ol Solomon's rhapsodic 
 resonance, at least may claim the merit of doing no injustice to the 
 Copt's common sense in the employment of a metaphor. 
 
 13. And the next sentence is not right either, ta table .... 
 est couverte de mets exoellents, qui different les uns des autres si Hen que 
 chacun d'eux se trouve au goAt de quelqu'un. The Copt has not said, in 
 the last clause, that " each one of these ' mets ' is according to the taste 
 of somebody", for the words, [194, y] wet ttipe mpwa mpwa 
 mmow, only mean, " different is the taste of each individual [food] of 
 them"; and the relation of the earlier clauses is not stated, nanw 
 (which should have been nanww) nescinwom, " good its edibles, 
 because they differed from each other ". The argument was not that 
 each one could find something suited to his taste, but that each course 
 was so varied in taste that nobody could get full ! Hence, he adds, 
 aussi aujourd'hui ne pouvons-nous nous rassasier &c. 
 
 14. At[196,i], ^ehquoi, celui-ld aussi me f era sulir plus de tourments 
 encore que mon corps {ri'en a supporthy ! That was not quite the drift : 
 his text stands thus, afmeeue nteihe, je wara petere peikewa 
 naentf ejoi nhwo enethm pasoma, but it is clear from his wara, 
 and the parenthesis, that he had no notion of the construction. It 
 should be: w apa. petere &c., i.e. "what then is that which this 
 man also will inflict on me greater than those which are in my body ? " 
 
 That, of course, is but a small matter ; but on it the writer is 
 supposed to remark in the following lines, Ne sais-tu pas qu'il suffit de 
 faire passer I'or une ou deux fois par lefeu? Why, that is just what 
 the writer did woi say ! He says, mere wsop nwot r6se epnwb 
 etreupastf, S snau, "a single time does not suffice to refine gold, 
 nor twice, but they refine it many times ". 
 
 15. And M. Bouriant continues, suivant ce qu'a dit le sage Salomon,. 
 ^ qu'on le frappe suivant sa valeur afin qu!il soit tout a fait purifie' . 
 Wise or not, Solomon did not say so ! But the text is a nest of 
 blunders : 
 
 rehtw 
 
 
 
 
 
 qu^ on le frappe 
 
 ha 
 
 
 
 
 
 suivant 
 
 tef-sotp 
 
 
 
 
 
 sa valeur. 
 
 rEET WOED IS WEONO. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Correct 
 
 rebtw 
 
 ha 
 
 t< 
 
 efsotp 
 
 
 into 
 
 reht \i 
 
 ■ hat 
 
 ef-sotp 
 
 i.e. " beat [even] a piece of chosen silver ! " 
 
234 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 And the next sentence is wrong: la vigne elle-mime, si on la 
 plants dans un terrain merge, se contentera d'un simple labour comme les 
 autres qraines. No ! " Again, as to the vineyard, if they sow [plant 
 trees in] it in new ground, to get it ploughed one single time does not 
 suffice as in the case of other seeds", pmaneloole de on, eusanjof 
 hn wkah nbfre, mere wsop nwot rose etreuskai mmof 
 nthe mpkeseepe ncrooc. 
 
 16. His version of [206, i] is little short of astounding, suivant la 
 parole de Paul: ' une parole dite avec le coeur vaut mieux que dix milk 
 autres paroles dites aveo la langue\ This he has corrected into the real 
 quotation, j'aime mieux cinq paroles, 6iXo> irevre Xdyovs ; hut what a 
 disclosure of want of grammatical skill to edit as he did originally : 
 tiwes ti wniaje ! ! For indeed the correction was the result of the 
 discovery of the source of the quotation, as is shown by his helpless- 
 ness in the matter of a subsequent quotation, at [206, 4], le Seignewr a 
 dit aussi: ' mieux vaut parler avec le cieur qu' avec la louche'' [!], where 
 the Coptic has, ebolhm pehwo mphet esare ttapro saje, "out 
 of the abundance of the heart the mouth is wont to speak ". 
 
 17. And what judgment is to be passed on this passage ? 
 
 Ht si tu as jamais Ui d, la guerre, tu sais que si le peuple ne remporte 
 pas la victoire, le roi n'en est pas capable lui-mime. 
 
 No doubt a good sentiment, but the logic ? 
 
 "Why, the writer had just been talking of the vicarious punish- 
 ment inflicted on David through the sufferings of his people ! And 
 the words mean, "unless the people he overthrown, one cannot pre- 
 vail against the king", for the Coptic has, [215, i], eimetei nte 
 plaos cotp meuscincom epfro. 
 
 But M. Bouriant has not fathomed the abyss in which is contained 
 the doctrine of the passive ! 
 
 18. And his handling of the vocabulary shows how utterly at 
 the mercy of the winds of hazard he is at times when the word is not 
 absolutely commonplace. Here is a text, [215, 7], mpekswont 6 
 Biktor pahmhal eto Shot, "hast thou not recognized me, 
 Victor, my faithful servant?" And how does M. Bouriant render 
 this simple sentence ? 
 
 sais-tu, Victor, mon serviteur, qui est en face de toi ? 
 
 Here, instead of the adjective Shot, et-nhot, 'faithful', he has 
 made a clause, qui est en face de toi. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 235 
 
 That is :— 
 
 («) he Las made o, tie copula verb, a verb of existence ; 
 
 (J) he has ignored its folio-wing connexive of the predication ; 
 
 or, he has transformed ho into an adj. ; 
 («) he has made ho, 'face', a noun that can take a suffix •pronoun ; 
 
 {d) and he has made a suff. pron. 2 8g. masc. out of the appended 
 (ho)-t. (!) 
 
 ii-fao-tj en face de toi, [! !] 
 
 19. And it needs no great familiarity with the Coptic language 
 to see that his text and his translation are alike wrong, at [227, 13] : 
 
 nekbasanos tes mpplices, 
 
 nai eljer iihwo trap aigus 
 
 enkot pour itre supporUs 
 
 Snacolte par mea reins. 
 
 Certainly no form of grammatical analysis will supply that meaning; 
 and no dictionary will lend any aid to it, either ! There is nothing 
 about ' supporting ', and nothing about ' loins ' ; absolutely nothing. 
 The words mean : " sharpened more than the wheels of carts ", nhwo 
 e-n-kot nn-acolte. 
 
 Perhaps I can make it clearer by an example, of. Isai. xxviii. 27 
 (Maspero) auo pkot an ntacolte pe safkote hijm ptapn, ouSe 
 Tpo-)(p% ajt.a.i^rf's Trcpta^et ejri to K-vfjiivov. And if this is not sufficient, the 
 study of Isai. xli. 15 will probably remove all doubt : is Tpo;^ovs 
 d/udfijs . . . irptcTTijpoeiSets, 'sattf-?«A« wheels'. 
 
 He imagined the last word to be na-cloote 'my loins'! 
 
 20. The following is a good example of the necessary confusion 
 which arises when the Editor of Coptic texts is not tolerably saturated 
 with Biblical knowledge. This Coptic language, in the form in 
 which it has come down to us, is so permeated with the Bible, that 
 it is foolish to attempt the publication of a Coptic text without 
 having acquired this requisite familiarity. At every turn we meet 
 phrases which can only be understood by their ' situs ' being remem- 
 bered. 
 
 Thus, when it is told how the count summoned the young virgin 
 and asked her name, the answer she gave is utterly emptied of 
 meaning by the trivial version M. Bouriant has provided : elle lui dit : 
 ^ Pou/rquoi demandes-tu mon nom ? Cela m'etonne'. But the words are 
 [232, 13], etbe w ksine nsa paran pai wspere pe, where the last 
 words most assuredly were not intended by the writer to be thinned 
 
236 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 off and colloquialized into eela m'itonne ! The -words are a reference 
 toGen. xxxii. 29pai ete w ipere pe : the girl was going to explain the 
 mystical meaning of her name Stephanw, so the writer's mind at once 
 reverted to the well-known incident of Jacob, in the passage referred 
 to, from which the Coptic words here used are directly taken. 
 
 21. Here is a nice moral to put into the mouth of a young martyr 
 sermonizing his pagan father! — 8i TJrie mait oUi A Bcmid qui etait 
 son roi pourtant et voulait le r envoy er d, sa propre maison, le pieM de 
 David e<it iU cachS et Dieu n'eM pas, par vengeance, versi le sang 
 d^Vrie. One would have to get rid of a great many habits of 
 morals and memory before one could gulp down such a morsel as 
 this presented by M. Bowiant, that God shed the blood of Uriah in 
 vengeance for the latter's not having consented to &c. ! But the 
 Coptic text has not said so ; the last clause is [159, x] nere pjoeis 
 najikba an pe mpesnof nhwrias, i.e. 'God would not have 
 avenged the blood of Uriah '. 
 
 22. Particularly disagreeable are the minor blunders, because it is 
 just these small details of grammatical structure which give point and 
 definiteness to the language : the prepositions, the regents, the relative 
 particles, are the essential ligatures without which the skeleton is 
 liable to tumble down into a mere heap of bones. 
 
 Cf. the following passage [189, 3] : — 
 
 6 patbet insens^, ..... 
 
 aktr ma mmai tenw qui me donnes Voccasion 
 
 etrasaje nminak de retorquer tafolie. 
 hata mntathet. 
 
 Well, ti means 'to give', and ma means 'place', so that donnes 
 Voccasion seems to result ; but, it would not govern mmai ! 
 
 Here it is the ignorance of the ease governed by the verb 1 1 which 
 has brought about the absurdity. It was not ti ma at all; but the 
 Greek root n/iSv used according to Coptic usage, ak-tima mmai [for 
 inmoi], "thou hast honoured me to let me speak with thee". The 
 point was that Victor was about to snub the governor, who had been 
 his military subordinate, for daring to speak to him in such haughty 
 language ; adding, a propos de quoi es-tu devenu aussi oryueilleux ? 
 It is just the opposite of 190, 4, mpe paeidt Karaftov mmok 
 holos esaje nmmak. 
 
 23. Here is a passage which certainly deserved a little more conside- 
 ration from an Editor ! The martyr in his dTroXoyia for disobeying his 
 father's order tells of Abraham, how his disobedience to his father was 
 
Atkinson — On a South- Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 237 
 
 not punished, seeing that God ordered him to leave his father and to 
 cease •worshipping his father's idols. That is the context : here is the 
 continuation as given by M. Bouriant : 
 
 Cela vent dire : quitte lea habitudes mauvaises de tes pires, ahandonne 
 les idoles qu'ils revirent et suis-moi, car j'e suis le Dieu viritable, et ne 
 sois point un sectateur d'idoles comme les autres. Done pour oelui qui est 
 mart, adieu ses dignites ; car Bieu ne lui iira point : Sors de la maison 
 de ton pere, mats Dieu examinera le cmur de chacun . . . c'est I'dme 
 pecheresse qui mourra. 
 
 Now, I call attention to the central clause : 
 
 Bone pour celui qui est mart, adieu ses dignites. 
 
 What sense has it, or was it supposed to have ? The logic of the 
 passage is obviously this, that though a disobedient son was no doubt 
 to be put to death, yet if the son disobeyed his father on a principle 
 of higher obedience, obedience to the law forbidding idol-worship, 
 then the son was not amenable to the ]iunishment for such disobedience ; 
 the father suffered for his own sin, but the son did not die for it. And 
 the Coptic text of the central clause expressed that idea [200, 3] : 
 
 ara pai ntafmw did he then die, 
 
 pliol mpefbathmos outside of his fidB/ios? 
 
 continuing, ' assuredly God would not have said to him, come 
 out &c.' But how did M. Bouriant even imagine, adieu ses dignites ? 
 The phrase, pbol m, 'outside of, is a common equivalent for efto, 
 e^wOev : cf. Exod. xxvi. 35 ; Lev. viii. 17. 
 
 24. Or again, where is the logic to be found in the f oUowiug ? 
 
 Je suis venu pour Jeter le feu sw la terre Sfc. . , . void ce qu'il veut 
 dire : Je suis venu pour ripandre le feu de V intelligence sur les gentils et 
 sur tous eeux qui adorent la creature plutdt que le Criateur . . . etje 
 donnerai un signe a ceux qui me craignent ... Je ferai tomber sur les 
 peoheurs . . . une pluie de feu et de soufre Sfc. 
 
 So then, it would seem that in order to spread tke fire of intel- 
 Li&iiifCE over the Gentiles,, the suitable way is to rain flaming sulphur 
 down on them ! 
 
 And what said the Coptic writer? He simply talked of a koht 
 nnoeton, 'a vo-qTov fire', and had not the remotest notion in his 
 head of this fire of intelligence ! 
 
 But now, in the Coptic text the words are quite wrongly divided 
 [201, 2], for they are not nwj enwkoht, as he has it, but 
 
 ntaiei enwje nwkoht nnoeton. 
 M. Bouriant has taken the line over the n in nwk6ht to be the 
 
238 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 accent over tte final e of the previous word, thus mating complete 
 nonsense of Ms text, which would mean something like, " I have come 
 to he cast into a vorjTov fire"! ! 
 
 25. The logic of the phrase is perpetually at fault, there heing 
 hardly a paragraph where some error does not manifest itself ! E. gr. 
 la manifestation de tes paroles a eclairi mon coeur et mon dme, lien queje 
 n^aie supports que de Men petites souffrances en ton saint nom. Ce n'est 
 pas une grace pour moi d'avoir accompli ees choses. 
 
 That is not rightly ' phrased', but " though I have home some small 
 pains, it is not a special grace in me to have done so" [223, 2]. 
 
 Again [223, 4] : 
 
 puisque tu as dispersi ton corps et ton sang pour toute la terre, il est 
 utile que mon sang soit ripand/a pour ton saint nom. 
 
 This version is wrong ; it means, " if thou hast given thy body and 
 blood for the whole world, what is the gain of my shedding my hloodV 
 w hoof pe pheu mpasnof . It is, as before, the humility of the 
 martyr, disclaiming any special merits. 
 
 26. One would think that the Coptic words for ' to think' and ' to 
 remember' were distinct enough ; but M. Bouriant shows that he has 
 not a clear notion of the great gulf fixed between me cue and ari 
 pmeeue! Twice occurs the quotation : senatako noi neumeeue 
 tSrw, "all their thoughts shall perish", at [157, 2J and at [176, 4J ; 
 and twice has he misrendered it, leur mimoire disparaitra, leur souvenir 
 sera aneanti, in spite of the 01 SiaXoyitr/jioL avrSiv of Ps. cxlv. 4. 
 
 27. So one might suppose that the Coptic for 'to go away' and 'to 
 lie down to sleep ' could not be confused with each other ; but here 
 too M. Bouriant has proved that they can, and that on two occasions. 
 At [162, 9] we have: ngenkotk hn wmton hn amnte, rendered 
 va-fen paix en enfer; i.e. he took nkotk, which is a common verb 
 meaning, 'to lie down, to sleep', to be the reflexive kot-k, 'to 
 turn thyself, to go away'. And then, just after, he quotes a verse 
 from Job, viz. aunkotk hn wmton hn amnte, [162, 11 J, also 
 rendered, ils sont allesen paix a V enfer. Now, whatever shadow of 
 excuse there might be in confounding nkotk with kotk, there was 
 none whatever in the second occurrence, where the verb au -nkotk 
 could not conceivably mean ils sont alles ! And why does he say the 
 quotation is from Job xxxvi. 14 ? It is from xxi. 13, iv Se avairava-ei 
 a.8ov eKocfJ-T^Orjo-av. 
 
 28. This misconception of Coptic words occurs in the most unlikely 
 places ; and the treatment by M. Bouriant of many of the commoner 
 words shows that he has but the vaguest notions respecting them. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 23& 
 
 Thus when he translates, que la mart erie contre eux dans Venfer ! he 
 lays himself open to the criticism, what is the verb which he renders 
 orie'i The text says [166,9] marwsope ere pmw hra nsow 
 eamnte ; therefore hra must mean 'to cry'! No doubt, hra, ' voice,' 
 is one of the nouns with suflSxes which constitute such a characteristic 
 feature in Coptic, but it was not hra, 'voice', at all: it is the verh 
 hra nsa, 'to drive (sheep, cattle)'. 
 
 The structure of the clause was a complete mystery to the Editor 
 also: the words mean : " may they become (persons) whom death is 
 driving into hell " ! 
 
 29. And when the young martyr checks himself from devoting any 
 more time to answering the arguments of his opponent, how does 
 M. Bouriant set forth this ? pourquoi jetterais-je mes saints aux ohiens ! 
 But the words are [168,7] pl^i^lyj "why shall I give my holy 
 (things) to the dogs", einati nnapetwaab nneuhoor, referring 
 plainly to the phrase, fx.7] ^SiTc to ayiov tois kvo-'l, Matth. vii. 6. 
 
 30. One wonders how the Editor could have escaped hearing the 
 first verse of the Psalms, for otherwise it is scarcely possible that he 
 could have edited and translated it thus, 170, 6 nnessope mmoi sa 
 eneh etrabok hm psaje nnasebSs, wde nnaaherat hn tehie 
 nenreff nobe , il ne m' arriwera plus jamais de parler avec les impies ou 
 de suivre la voie des pScheurs. Clearly it was not saje, but sojne; 
 and then the passage is a literal version of Ps. i. 1, ovk iTropivOr) iv 
 ^ovXrj dcrcjSoii', koI iv 6S<3 afJ-apTOiXlov ovk eo'Trjl 
 
 31. Here is a passage which wiU exemplify the want of knowledge 
 of Coptic idiom which unfitted M. Bouriant for being the Editor of 
 South-Coptic texts. His translation of [149, 5] runs thus : Je ne 
 sais comment entamer son eloge, a mains que je ne rappelle la propre 
 parole du Seigneur, ' celui qui me glorijiera, je le gloriflerai '. Hegois 
 dans ta gloire celui que Dieu a favorise, ce saint qu'il a fait entrer dans 
 VarmSe celeste. 
 
 "Where is the logic in the last clause ? And who is to receive the 
 martyr into his glory ? But the grammar ! 
 The text is thus given : 
 
 aud sp epkeow Sefois dans ta gloire 
 
 nsa penta pnwte celui que Dieu 
 
 kharize mmof afavorise, 
 
 mpeipetwaab eafstrateue iumof ce saint quHl afaitentrer 
 
 hn mpeue. dans I'armee celeste. 
 
240 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 So then M. Bouriant believed it possible, that 
 
 (a) sp could govern the connexive n, in nsa; 
 
 (J) that such object could be dissevered from the proclitic sp ; 
 
 (c) that e-pkeow could mean "(receive) ««fo thy glory"; 
 
 (rf) that sa here meant 'individual'; 
 
 («) that sa penta could mean c«fc« $•«« ; 
 
 [or in place of {d) («), that the preposition nsa could be 
 used with s p , and that the proclitic could be so used ;] 
 
 (/) that kharize meant 'favoured' a person; 
 
 {g) that mm of after kharize referred to a, person; 
 
 (h) that the connexive m in mpeipetwaab put the word 
 into apposition with the word nsa; 
 
 («') that the initial an 6 was quite otiose. 
 Here are nine mistakes in one single line of his printed text ! 
 
 To understand the construction it is necessary (a) to realise the 
 meaning of the preposition nsa; to this end, cf . the following 
 passage from a homily given by Mingarelli 129 [;S7 of text] : — 
 
 as ce pe pebio quidnam est mel 
 
 nsa psaje mn tesbo nisi Scripturarum 
 
 nnegraphe Sermo et Dootrina ? 
 
 Therefore the phrase as pe p-X nsa p-Y, means "what is X 
 other than T?" IS'ow the insertion of ke between the article and 
 its noun only adds the meaning 'also', 'even'; cf. the sentence, 
 on [238, lo], 
 
 auo as pe pkemathetes and what is even the disciple 
 
 nsa pentafpoht ebol but one who has shed 
 
 mpefsnof ejni pefran his blood for His name ? 
 
 We express the meaning in EngUsh by saying "■what else is x 
 than y ? " " who else is the disciple but the martyr ? " 
 
 {V) Next, we have to ascertain the meaning and construction of 
 the Greek word xap'^e"' in its Coptic form ; cf., 
 
 [246, 5j ntaf kharize mmof naf, " which He granted to him "; 
 [253, 12] saf-kharize nau mptalco, " He grants them healing "- 
 
 It is therefore certain ia our passage that mpeipetwaab is the 
 dative, and that mmof is the complementary accusative ui the 
 relative clause, so that the words penta pnwte kharize mmof 
 mpeipetwaab mean: "that which God has vouchsafed to this 
 saint (in that He hath made him a soldier in the heavens) ". 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 241 
 
 "With these two points clear, -we may set about the emendation, 
 viz. — 
 
 not, auo sp epkeo w Ssa &c. 
 
 but and as pe pkeeow Ssa &c. 
 
 And thus the phrase becomes exactly like that on [238, lo] : " and 
 what is even honour, what else is honour but what God has vouchsafed 
 him?" 
 
 32. And finally, it is certain that no reasonable person could be 
 satisfied with M. Bouriant' s presentation of the following passage 
 at [251, 1 1]:— 
 
 anon de ntnwos an nom ne eonsentom mime pas 
 
 enesteue ntnestia sSte a Jeuner deux fois de suite, 
 
 sante neu now cjok 
 
 alia sanwom mais nous mangeons 
 
 mpnau etebnan quand nous voulons. 
 
 as tenw te tnmerig Quelle sera done noire part 
 
 mn pbag^ios Biktor d c6t4 de telle de St. V. 
 
 eanhise auquel on a vnflige 
 
 auke tootw ebol 
 
 auo mpwe^ro erof 
 
 anon de niebiSn .... 
 
 tncotp ajn basanos . . . tant de supplices. 
 
 The above passage of twelve lines has a dozen bad faults ! 
 
 (fl) it is not jeilner deux fits, but "the two [regular weekly] /««<« "- 
 
 (J) there is no de suite, which is also unmeaning. 
 
 (c) (d) («) there are four words omitted completely, without any hint 
 of their omission ! The words as they stand, indeed, are not intelligible, 
 but that is because the Editor was too imskiUed in the language to 
 enable him to divide them properly. I wiU amend the line : 
 
 not, sante neu now cjSk 
 but, sante ne-wnowe jok 
 
 i.e. "to fast the two fasts, till the hours should he completed " , and 
 then the next words follow on rightly. But his three items neu, 
 now, and ejok are utterly unmeaning ! 
 
 (/) Nor is it right to render mn as a o6ti de eelle de ; the words 
 imply no comparison, they connote a severance : " what then is our share 
 along with St. Victor?" 
 
 K.I. A. PEOC, SEE. in., VOL. m. s 
 
242 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 {g) The remaining lines are very bad. Cf . ttis juxtaposition of 
 the two renderings : 
 
 on whom men were wearied out avquel on a inflige 
 
 and gave up, .... 
 
 and could not conquer him ; .... 
 
 but we, poor wretches, .... 
 
 are overcome, without any torment ! tant de swpplices. 
 
 Here he has {g) misunderstood auhise ; (A) wrongly edited and 
 then omitted, auke tootw ebol [cf. 252, i] ; (^) left out the 
 next clause ; (/) omitted the following ; {Tc) failed to grasp the 
 meaning of tncotp as a, present passive, and {I) made no attempt at 
 rendering ajn. 
 
 Surely this is a deficient tale of bricks ! It may be said that the 
 epyoStwKTiys is strict, but at all events the axypov was abundantly 
 supplied, so that the o-wrafts t^s irXivOdais should have been forth- 
 coming. Would a little ' chafE ' mixed with the criticism lead to a 
 better treatment of the ' syntax ' in the future ? 
 
 [II. ] 
 
 These examples wiU suffice to bring into relief the kind of errors 
 committed by this school of Egyptologists. And curiously enough, 
 just a century ago [1786], Mingarelli made the same complaint about 
 Wilkins : Ceterum si ut Memphitica lingute peritus fuit Wilhinsius, 
 ita et thebaieam calluisset, .... mendis, quce .... notmi, lilrum 
 suum nequaquam foedmisset, Aegyp. Cod. Eel., Fasc. 2, p. 5. That is 
 precisely the position : — 
 
 The Editors of South Coptic will have to learn South Coptic : 
 they must not rely on their [great or small] skill in North Coptic. For 
 example, North Coptic use ai, ak, &c., as both perfect and present 
 prefix, but South Coptic does not. That is surely an elementary piece 
 of knowledge not hard to comprehend, but apparently it is hard to 
 realize ! The confusion in the translation of these verbal prefixes is 
 lamentable, and leads to all sorts of misconceptions, as will appear 
 from the numerous examples of defective editing now to be given 
 nearly in the order of the pages. 
 
 33. In the very second line of his translation, M. Bouriant errs on 
 this score, by rendering [147, 2] eke-wonh-k nai ebol qui m'es 
 apparu, instead of thou wilt appewr to me. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 243 
 
 On the same page we have mS ak-sw6n-t rendered ne me 
 reconnais tu pas ; but it is \h& perfect tense; see also No. [8]. 
 
 Again [148, id] saje etennajow imoi pwrler eomme nous V avons 
 fait, but, as we shall say ; for it is Vne future tense. 
 
 But it would be quite unnecessary to spend time oyer a review, 
 if it were merely a question of tenses. When however the laxity 
 of tense-rendering is extended to looseness of sense-rendering, then 
 criticism is not out of place. In the version : ' alors qu'il n^a pas 
 encore servi les mets suffisants d. ses convives,'' for hotan ef santohm 
 nnrome nfti nau nteukhria kalos [149, i], 'when he invites 
 the men that he may give them their need KaXfis ', we feel that the 
 translation is not good enough. 
 
 34. Andon reading the continuation : maisquandeeux-ciontUihien 
 traites, ils s'empressent autour de leur Mte et le comblent de louanges, we 
 feel that version has descended into perversion, for the text says: 
 ' they go away from him, praising him', esaupot ebolhitootf 
 [149, 2]. 
 
 35. How are we to take what he gives as the version of [149, y], 
 la stupidite d laquelle le diahle Vavait soumis? peflibe nta pdi- 
 abolos efjoeis erof nhetf. Here ef-joeis is quite impossible, 
 and the sentence means " his madness through which the devil ruled 
 over him", rjoeis. 
 
 36. Perhaps one would not err in judging that M. Bouriant was not 
 a distinguished Hellenist : I have often had to wonder what he takes 
 to be the function of the Greek /xij ; he hardly ever renders it rightly. 
 Ex. gr. [150, 6] me nanoi nhwo enai terw,yis ne suis pas meilleur 
 que tous ees autres. Is fn-^ then a categorical negative ? 
 
 This is no isolated case : it occurs constantly throughout his book. 
 M. Bouriant has not learnt the fundamental principle with reference 
 to the Coptic usage of the Greek negative particle i^-j, viz. that 
 /i^ CAifNOT be used in Coptic in the simple negative sense. 
 
 233,11, mt ntar-poss nthe mpeikewa, "hast thou gone 
 mad like this other one", where he renders, ne sois pas folle eomme 
 
 oe r. 
 
 [Here M. Bouriant must have absolutely taken the ^«r/«ci n regent 
 of 2 sg. fem. Stare, to be the conjunctive nte, for otherwise he 
 could not have even imagined an imperative here !] 
 
 Compare his treatment of this particle in the following : — 
 147,11, me akswont, "hast thou recognized me?" «« «ie j-eeow- 
 nais-tu pas? 
 
244 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 150, 12 me ntafaan nheke, "hath he made us poor?" m nous 
 a-t-il pas ilevis ? 
 
 157,8 me nan-wk nhwo eroi, "art thou better than I?" ne 
 veux-tu itre plus bon pour moi f 
 
 167,7 ^^ 5ta pnwte eratcom, " was God powerless?" Lieu 
 n' a-t-il pas semlU impuissant? 
 
 174,6 mg nta pnwte . . . hise, "has God become wearied 
 out?" est-ce que Lieu . . . n'apas souffert? 
 
 179, II me ntaklibe, "hast thou'gone mad?" n'es-tupas devenu 
 fou? _ 
 
 207,6 me ntaksorm, "hast thou gone astray?" rCes-tu pas 
 iga/ril 
 
 225, 13 me ntok wdiakonos, " art thou a deacon? " n^es-tupas 
 diaere ? 
 
 The negatives are wrong in his version of [221, 8], si j'e ne I'avais 
 pas voulu, je n'awrais pas laissi Diocletien te condamner dans ta ville ; 
 for the meaning is, "if I had wished, would I not have let D. give 
 sentence upon thee in thy own town without sending thee away to 
 Egypt". The very point was that Diocletian had not condemned 
 Victor in his own town ; butM. Bouriant's treatment of the negatives 
 is most reprehensible. The text is me ene ntaiwos mitre D. 
 tiapophasis erok hn tekpolis nftmtnnowk &o., where the /i^ 
 does not go with the ene , but belongs to the mei -tre clause ! 
 
 And just after, "if I had wished I would have caused thee to be 
 separated from Armenios," is rendered si je ne I'avais pas voulu, je ne 
 t'aurais pas laissi Mparer d'A., whereby he demonstrates that he does 
 not understand the particle ene, nor the imperf. fut. nei-na, which 
 is certainly not negative ! It is exactly the opposite : 
 
 not, " I did wish, so I did cause &c." 
 but, " I did not wish, so I did not cause." 
 
 37. This page [150, 12] again suggests strange ideas: me nta 
 pnwte enwost naf mmene alasse? le Lieu que nous adorons 
 chaquejour n'est-ilpas miserioordieux ? 
 
 Then what on earth is alasse ? misiricordieux ! The phrase meant : 
 has he changed ? for it was the Greek verb aX\axra-eiv. 
 
 38. The text continues : me ntafaan nheke para nensber 
 matoi? 'hath he made us poor beyond our fellow-soldiers ? ' But 
 M. Bouriant translates : ne nous a-t-il pas Sieves, nous, misirahles, 
 au dessus des soldats nos compagnons ? 
 
 Let any person read the text of these two passages and see whether 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 245 
 
 the mere logic should not have suggested a different version than that 
 given by M. Bouriant. 
 
 39. Again [151, ii], nanw nan para pel m^ese t^rf montre-toi 
 bonpour nous en presence de toute eettefoule : so then Trapa = ' in presence 
 of ? He would have had a more defensible rendering with nanwn 
 an, " m-e we not letter than aU this multitude ? " 
 
 40. Or what becomes of the particle mere in the clause on [152, 
 3], mere neeiote wem elelhmj nte nobhe Ensure nwcs, which 
 he renders : et si les phres mangent des raisins aigres, les fils auront lea 
 dents agaoees, mais chacun portera son propre fardeau ; cf. [187, y]. 
 
 There is certainly no et si in the negative mere, and the very 
 point of the final clause, is to emphasise the fact of the want of 
 solidarity between the parents and the children ! " The fathers do not 
 eat sour grapes, so that the children's teeth are set on edge, bat &c." 
 
 41. The division of Coptic words is not to he effected without a 
 clear comprehension of the laws of verbal and nominal structure, so 
 that when M. Bouriant gives e'est ce qu'enseigne le pricepte as a 
 rendering for kata the ntafweh mpsaje nsa tootf [153, 1], we 
 can only conclude that he knows nothing whatever of the structure 
 of a verbal form such as weh mpsaje! The thing is impossible : 
 it was wehm psaje, i. e. 'as he has repeated it immediately after ; ' 
 see also No. [90]. 
 
 42. The next clause is a quotation from Prov. xx. 26, as he 
 himself says, but he has rendered it, \le roi^fait retomher les maux sur 
 eux, ignoring the original Tpoxpv, and the Coptic n-w-kot. 
 
 43. Most people have some notions of the story of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 but they will probably be unaware of the variant provided by M. 
 Bouriant in his translation [154, 11]: il fit sa nourriture du pain 
 didaigni par les chiens repus. Here one has to fancy the bloated dogs re- 
 jecting some not very appetising pieces of bread, which then the bull, 
 Nebuchadnezzar, comes and eats ! The Coptic does not say this, but 
 the following : God deprived Nebuchadnezzar of "even the bread 
 the dogs get plenty of", auo pkeoeik ere neuhoor seu 
 mmof afhwroof mmof. The word hwro, means <o rf«;p«'f« 0/, <o 
 defraud of, cf. Gen. xxxi. 7, 14 ; xlviii. 11 ; Ps. xx. 3. 
 
 44. Nor is it correct to render as he has done at [155, 13], il 
 voulait nuire d eelui qui Vimplorait, when the Coptic has, epetsotp 
 erof, " to one who was letter than himself" : a not uncommon error. 
 
 45. Nor is it any more tolerable to say that Saul en fut avisS afin 
 qu'ilpAt le repousser, when the Coptic has [155, x] : af tame Sawl 
 
246 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 hm pai je afsahoof ebol mmof, "thereby Grod instructed Saul 
 ttat He had gone away from him". 
 
 M. Bouriant does not understand the structure of Bah6 ebol : saM 
 is here reflexive ; turn thou away from me is sahok ehol mmoi, cf. 
 Job vii. 16; xiv. 6; Isai. lix. 9; a very different construction 
 appearing of course where there is no mmo following, as ib. Ps. 
 xliii. 10, aksahon ebol, dircoo-o) 17/^59, "thou hast cast us off." 
 
 46. At [166, 6] it is told how God saw that David abandoned the 
 plaee to him (Saul), saying, ' I will not lay hands on God's anointed'; 
 but the phrase afka pma naf is thus rendered : Voccasion lui 
 itant offerte (!). 
 
 47. At [157, 8] he translates, ne veux-tu plus Hre ban powr moi 
 qui suis ton pere? But the text has : me nanwk nhwo eroi, '/i>^, 
 art thou better than I ', just as above, No. 36 ; 39. So, in the next 
 sentence: me akw6s e6nh nhwo eroi, " hast thou wished to live 
 longer than I", the misrepresentation is continued, ne veux-tu plus 
 vivre pour moi ? 
 
 48. Then he puts words into the mouth of Victor, which are not 
 so in the text, [158, ij, einaf w nshime, ' what shall Zt^o with a 
 wife ? ' But M. Bouriant edits wnshim e, rendering je n'ata-ai de 
 femme .... que comme man Seigneur. 
 
 49. It is curious how little insight he possesses into the Coptic 
 verbal system ! The verb to be is especially little known, so that 
 sope, o, and wn are confounded with each other in the wildest 
 way. Here, for example, is wn treated as a copula-verb : une 
 obiissanoe pernicieuse est pire que la dhobiissanoe. The moral is 
 probably identical, but that is certainly not what the Coptic says, 
 [158, 12] wn sotm efhow para mmntatsotin, " there is an 
 obedience which is worse than disobedience". "Wrong also, at [160, 3], 
 
 50. At [159, 3] he edits ntwost naf, rendering {le veau) qu\ils'] 
 adorer erent : one wonders what he took the tense and mood of ntwost 
 to be? Or how does he construe nsto, [159, 8]? sto ebol, or testo 
 ebol , he may have after mpe, but certainly not nsto ! 
 
 51. At [160, z] he renders ' laisse aller mon peuple, car il me rhere\ 
 butthetext: je euesmse nai, means "in order that iA«y may serve 
 me". 
 
 52. But the grammatical blunder is much greater, to edit and 
 render as he has done [161,5] eeje pjoeis was nfnajitn ehwn 
 erof, si Dieu le veut il nous y conduira. 
 
 Here was is the pronominal form of the verb ; it cannot stand 
 without a suflSx pronoun, in this case -5 ; add this, and then the 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 247 
 
 apodosis becomes intelligible, "if God loves us (wasn), He will take 
 us into it". Apart from tbe mistake in reference to was, what 
 analysis did he imagine was possible for 
 
 nfnajitn? 
 
 The LXX has et aipertfei ^/iSs Kvpio^, etcrafei ij/uSs cis ttjv yrjv, 
 Num. xiv. 8. 
 
 53. Surely the meaning of a^opjx'q is not so recondite a mystery, 
 as to justify the following [161, 13] : leur pere ne serait pas mort le 
 jow mime de leur tripas, which is supposed to be the equivalent of the 
 words, nte peukeeiot mw mpeihow nwot nteuaphorme ! 
 ' so that their father also died that very day on account of them, 
 
 54. What makes the matter more noticeable is, that in the very 
 next sentence, this word occurs and is equally misunderstood along 
 with another grievous blunder in grammar : auo nte pkelaos cotp 
 nteuaphorme hiS ppolymos, " so that the people also were 
 by cause of them defeated in the battle." The writer was speaking of 
 the evil conduct of EU's sons, but M. Bouriant has actually rendered 
 this clause as follows : et le peuple lui-mSme n'aurait pas causi leur 
 mort dans le combat [ ! ] It is plain that he thinks acftop/xi^ means 
 ' death' ! And he also thinks se ntba [161, 8] means 60,000 ! 
 
 55. The Biblical knowledge seems sadly wanting in even the 
 most familiar incidents, so that the grammatical deficiencies have no 
 chance of being supplied from that quarter. Here is a curiosity : 
 Si les Ninivites avaient icouti les proclamations de Jonas et quails se 
 
 fussent repentis, Dieu ne les aurait pas ditruits. 
 
 But, the Ninevites did repent, and they were not destroyed ! And 
 the Coptic text says so [162, i"] : 
 
 ene mpe nrome HUT. if the men of N. had not 
 
 sotm nsa pkeri^ma listened to the K^ipvy/ia 
 
 51. nsemetanoi of Jonas, so as to repent, 
 
 nere pJ. nako nau ebol an pe. God would not ha/i>e pardoned them, 
 
 For the word led ebol means "to pardon," and most assuredly not 
 "to destroy." 
 
 56. He perseveres, of course, in his misconception of the phrase 
 referred to above, by his version of [162, 3], pour te montrer que I'obeis- 
 sance est chose pricieuse ; where the words are : eitamo mmok epsotm 
 etsotp, "[I] pointing out to thee the good [kind of] obedience [as 
 opposed to the bad]." 
 
248 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 57. This is an unlucky page for M. Bouriant, who, on the next 
 line, has given the following perversion of a plain text : — 
 
 Be mime qu\l est honteux cfengendrer le peoM, comme le dit Salomon, 
 et qu'il y a certaines hontes qui sont glorieuses et henies, de meme il y a 
 eertaine oMissance qui conduit Vhomme au del et oertaine autre qui le 
 pricipiie dans I'enfer; see also No. 111. 
 
 The simple perusal of that sentence ought to have aroused mis- 
 givings in his mind : il est honteux d'engendrer le pecM. 
 
 The words are: wntesipe esafjpe pnobe, the whole passage 
 being simply a version of Prov. xxvi. 11, trrnv aia-^v-q iirdyova-a 
 afxapTiav n. t. \. He may settle the question of wnte with his- 
 papyrus ; but the meaning is as clear as possible : " There is a shame 
 that engenders sin, and there is another shame that is glorious." 
 
 58. It is incomprehensible to me out of what grammar some of 
 these South-Coptic editors have learnt, to be able to produce the sort 
 of text which deforms the pages of this magnificent-looking series 
 of Memoires. One can only glance amazed when one reads la blesstire 
 faite par un ami est plus sensible que celle faite par un ennemi, given as 
 the translation of [162, x], nanw ne polh nwsber ehwe mpi 
 nwjaje. 
 
 Here if we put the question to M. Bouriant, ' How do you parse 
 mpi' ? one wonders whether it would be a shook to him to find that 
 he could not parse it. Fancy rendering mpi ' than that ' ! It is the 
 plural of ^», 'a kiss'; "better are the wounds of a friend than the 
 kisses of an enemy", Prov. xxvii. 6. Even the second word of his 
 sentence, the little word ne, is intolerant of analysis in his trans- 
 lation : did he take it to be the copula ? 
 
 59. And his version of the next words in the line is quite wrong : 
 'parce que tu ne wis pas que la gloire qui entoure maintenant DiocUtien 
 est vaine.' But it is mpf nau : "do not look upon him, as he bears this 
 empty glory, so as to say in thy heart, ' his honour is great '." 
 
 60. On the next page the misconceptions continue : unj'our viendra 
 oil ceux qui seront nes maudiront lews parents is a bad rendering of 
 [163, 2], wn whow nasope nfshwer teunw ntaujpof epkosmos 
 nhets. The text says nothing whatever of the man cursing his 
 parents! It says, "he will curse the hour in which he was born into 
 the world." 
 
 61. Here is another perversion which is not luoiferous : "we sois 
 pas comme la poussiere que le vent disperse sur la terre et ne te live pa» 
 au {jour du)jugement; si tu te lives, tu te presenter as d la resurrection 
 pour itrejugi, et Bieu te dira void mes ennemis Sfo." 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 249 
 
 Fancy a preacher exhorting his auditor ' to be sure and not rise on 
 the judgment-day' ! 
 
 It is nonsense, of course ; nor has M. Bouriant perceived that it is 
 just an adaptation of Ps. i. 5 : "so that thou (like the ungodly) do not 
 rise in the judgment; (or) even «/thou do rise, thou rise to a resur- 
 rection of judgment, and God say to thee &c." The words are plain 
 [164, 7], ngtmtown; kan eksanto-wn on, ngtown euanastasis 
 Sgrisis, auo nte pjoeis joos nak. 
 
 62. It will he readily understood that errors of this kind must 
 involve hundreds of small errors of relatively little consequence 
 which must be passed over in print, but which go ' to make up the 
 main account '. 
 
 Thus, when' he says, je t'ai gagni d la parole du Seigneur, he is 
 ignoring that the words involve a reference to Matth. xviii. 15, seqq., 
 and that the Coptic says kata psaje [164, z], the meaning being, 
 " I have gained thee [my brother], accordiug to the word of 
 Christ ". 
 
 And when he renders [165, 2], en quoi la voie du pioheur est-elle 
 d/roite ? Tons ceux qui ont fait isuvre de perdition ont prosper^, he 
 assuredly does not express the miad of the speaker, nor the logic of 
 the accusation! It was a double question, used by Jeremiah xii. 1, rt 
 OTt oSos acre/Suiv evoSovTai ; ivd-^vrjaav ■jravres oi adiTOVVTes a.deT-^fx.aTa ; 
 
 So it is incorrect to say, qu'on fasse disparaitre I'impie, car il ne 
 voit pas la gloire de Dieu; for the Coptic says [165, 4] je nnefnau 
 epeow, "that he mag not look upon the glory ". 
 
 Nor does the translation, que leur route tinibreuse s'effondre sous 
 lew pas, express the meaning of the words ns-slaate nau, ' so that 
 it he slipperg to them', Ps. xxxiv. 6. But, in fact, his text does not 
 mean anything, for he has given [165, 8] 
 
 mare teuhi^ nkake Esslaate nau, 
 
 which is not Coptic; for where is the root to which mare refers? 
 He evidently took nkake to be an adjective, 'leur route tenehreuse'; 
 but then, how did he explain mare .... ns-slaate? It should 
 be f kake, or he must insert sope before nkake. 
 
 63. Of course, it is obvious that the exigencies of the Prench 
 language give an unsound translator many opportunities for turning 
 the point of a difficulty ; but then the Prench language is so trans- 
 cendently lucid that it leaves no doubt as to what the translator 
 means to convey as his meaning. And then this inexorable logic 
 comes in ! 
 
250 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 I wonder wtat would be the precise efEect on tlie mind of a dis- 
 passionate French reader, of this sentence [166, i] : "/^ remmlh 
 a un lion dans le desert et qui apergoit de loin toutes sortes de bonnes 
 chases ". The reader would probably conclude that that lion would 
 instantly ' make tracks ' for those good things, and that the latter 
 would soon cease to be perceived afar off. But the comparison was to 
 a perverse man, whose heart was far removed from God; and certainly 
 the form of the translation does not suggest that. This is in fact an 
 interesting passage, and a careful study of the words will pro- 
 bably lead to an acceptance of the conclusion that the writer 
 had here in mind the words of Jerem. xvii. 6 koI ea-rat As ^ 
 aypiO[ivpLK-i) Tj iv rg e/sij/ioi, ovk oxj/iTaL orav eXOy to. ayaOd. 
 Unfortunately the South-Coptic version of this passage is not published, 
 (if extant), so that we do not know how the Copts rendered 17 dypto- 
 //.vpiK-rj—not impossibly by p-nom— or by what paraphrase they 
 interpreted it, or even whether the mysterious 1^"lj[7 may have had 
 some other rendering in their copy of the LXX. But, in any case, 
 the 'seeing good things afar off' refers to the subject of the clause, 
 and not to the ' lion,' if the papyrus really have what M. Bouriant 
 has given: efesope nthe nwmwi hi pjaie, auo nfnau 
 ehenagathon euwSu. 
 
 But it is clear that it is no longer a question of form, 
 when the logic is contorted in the following fashion, as at [166, 3], 
 Romanus fut irriti, et ne voulant pas consentir A se justifier, il dit 
 A son fils Sfc. But the Coptic has no hint of saZf-justification ; the 
 words are, afposs ehrai ejn nef apologia, "he was amazed at 
 his [son's] airokoyia" . Now, how did the editor come by such a 
 version as 'not wishing to consent to justify himself^ 1 The root poss 
 is used to express the idea of eKo-Tao-ts, i^la-TrifiiL ; so that I suppose 
 him to have taken it as, he turned away pkom his [own] diroXoyta; 
 but then, how on earth could ehrai ejn, 'down upon', come to 
 mean from'i The root means, "to be amazed, mad"; cf. Dan. x. 7 ; 
 Job xii. 17 ; Isai. xiii. 8 ; xxviii. 7; xxxii. 11 ; Eccl. vii. 17. 
 
 Again, the notion is quite wrong in the lines following : je te 
 ripondrai done cette fois encore et je prowoerai ta folic, car tes paroles 
 ont bien montri que tu n^es pas sage. But the text said [167, ij je 
 nnekwonh ebol mauaak nsophos hm pentakjoof, "that 
 thou alone mayst not appear wise in what thou hast said" ; there is 
 no hint whatever of ' his words having proved his folly ! ' 
 
 64. Here is an old friend, [167, 7], Lieu n^a-t-il pas sembU impuis- 
 sant d chdtier Pharaon au moment meme oO, celui-oi disait, Je ne connais 
 
Atkinson— On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 251 
 
 pai le Seigneur. Tliat is not the meaning, but, ''was God powerless, 
 a single time [nwsop nwot], to smite Pharaoli"? 
 
 And in the next clause, \_Bieu] Va patiemment supporti jusqyH 
 (J ce quHl lui eAt manifesti ses prodiges, A lui si redoutdble pour les 
 autres, we have an equally flagrant perversion of the meaning, which 
 is : " till He showed forth his wonders in him, that he might become a 
 terror to the rest", santefwonh ebol nnefspere nhetf, nfs6pe 
 nhote mpkeseepe, [167,9]. 
 
 65. Again, the Coptic words, mere laau mpethow esei nahraf, 
 [167, z], do not mean, -aucun mal ne se commet sous son rkgne, but " no 
 evil shall be able to come nigh him". Surely the preposition 
 nahraf, 'hefore him,' ought to have been a guide to the real meaning, 
 if he did not know the reference, Ps. xo. 10. 
 
 66. It is extraordinary how an editor can have kept himself from 
 acquiring a knowledge of the construction of negative clauses in 
 Coptic. It seems incredible, but it is a fact that M. Bouriant eestj- 
 LAELT translates the phrase neiwos eje wmeese nsaje, hj Je ne 
 veux pas dire une foule de paroles, cf. 168, 2 ; 188, 1 ; 202, 1 1 ; 210, 10 ; 
 211, 8; 215, 2; 239, X. 
 
 That is, he takes nei-wol, "I was wishing", to be the negative 
 future 1 sg., nna-wos, " I won't " [! !]. I know that it sometimes 
 appears in the form nnei, cf. Job vii. 16; ix. 17; xvi. 5^; but this 
 does not mend matters one whit, for it is nei, not nnei. 
 
 67. And what could be farther from the meaning than to render 
 thus, le diahle a houcM tes yeux . . . . , de peur que si tes yeux voyaient 
 et tes oreilles entendaient, tu ne te detournes de lui qui te maintient dans 
 tes crimes, seeing that the text says, " lest thou hear His words, so 
 that thou turn to Sim, that He heal thee in thy sins" The Coptic 
 is quite clear, ngkotk erof , nf talcok, [168, 5]. 
 
 68. Nor is M. Bouriant to be congratulated on the success of his 
 attempt at rendering the meditations of the Jenitent Thief, in the 
 following words : Vun d^eux . . . . Jit de telles riflexicns quHl se mit A 
 dire, laissant echapper A lafois des paroles de benediction et de malediction; 
 ' Allans, je dirai une parole excellente A eet homme et ma langue le con- 
 solera, et pour moi qui n'ai point fait le bien, {il est juste) que le mal 
 retomhe sur moi plutdt que sur lui' 
 
 Now, here it is to he noted that what the Thief said is intro- 
 duced by je ene, as the sign of an 'indirect question' : "he began 
 to reflect, does he say that out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing 
 and cursing " ? The he is no doubt St. James iii. 10. Surely, the 
 Penitent Thief did not act in the way alleged, laissant echapper A la 
 
252 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 fois Sfc. ! The point is quite missed ; St. James was holding forth 
 about the tongue as an unmanageable member ; and the Thief reflected 
 that though he had in previous hours uttered curses, it was still in 
 his power to voice forth a blessing, which the editor calls ' une parole 
 excellente ' ; ' Come, let me utter a good word concerning this man'. 
 
 But further, what is the next clause ? I may here ' phrase ' the 
 words so as to show M. Bouriant's conception [169, 5] : — 
 and kan mpei et pour moi qui n'ai point 
 
 pathe mpetnan-wb fait U Men {il est juste), 
 
 mere pethow taboi teos, que le mal retomhe sur moi 
 
 Shwo epeti nhStf pluiot que sur lui. 
 
 And I cannot for the life of me make out how that translation 
 has been come by ! 
 
 (a) How can pathe' (Trao-xctv) be rendered, 'I havenot <?o»«good'? 
 
 (5) How can mere be ignored ? 
 
 (e) What meaning is given to kan, or to teos ? 
 
 {d) How can nhwo epeti Shetf mean plutdt que sur lui? 
 
 These queries will need satisfactory answers before M. Bouriant's 
 translation can be looked at in any other light than as a suggestion 
 of what the thief ought to have said ! 
 
 69. The Psalmist does not seem to have left a deep impression on 
 M. Bouriant's mind ; it is curious how the old words have taken upon 
 themselves new forms on being passed through the Editor's crucible ! 
 Here is a curiosity of the kind, [170, 9], mats je suivrai la hi de mon 
 Seigneur jour et nuit, [so far we feel on solid ground : it is evidently 
 Ps. I. 3 ; but the translator continues] et je ne serai pas comme I'arbre 
 planti dans un. lieu lattu par les flats. That has a plausibility about 
 it, and a ring of novelty, at least : he is to be firmly fixed, not like a 
 tree whose roots are having their earthy subsistence continually washed 
 away by the floods ! 
 
 But now the Psalmist had said, ws to $v\ov to ■jre^vTeu/Aevov 
 irapa rai Sie^oSovs Tm> iiSartov, which is exactly what the Coptic says : 
 nta r the mpsen etret hijn mmanhote nnemow, for the man- 
 bote are just the StefoSot of waters, the decursus aquarum; cf. hate, 
 'to flow', Job xxix. 6 ; Ezek. xxxii. 14; MingareUi, 119 a 1. And 
 nta f is ut sim; whence did he imagine y« »« ser«»j?a«? 
 
 1 'Without disputing that pathe may be used in Coptic as the stem for irda-xeii', 
 1 should like to see examples of its use as such. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 253 
 
 It is not of any consequence, but it -would be interesting to 
 know tbe species of insect which M. Bouriant had in view in 
 rendering cijif [171, 8] by ' insectes ' : anyhow it should be cajib, 
 'ants'.' 
 
 70. The page following contains some bad errors : il y a nomhre 
 de gens qui, si lew fits commettait quelque folie .... nHraient 
 pas le livrer pour cela au pouvoir public, is a translation which once 
 more exemplifies utter ignorance of the negative construction. The 
 Coptic words nseparadidw mmow [172, i] mean, "(if the sons 
 have committed some evil act), so that they are delivered up into the 
 hands of the authorities". 
 
 And when the Editor continues : la parole du Seigneur s'est 
 accomplie par toi : ' quelqu'un livrera son fils a la mort', we ask 
 naturally, on what occasion the Lord said this ? The Coptic text is 
 wrong at this point, for w5w6t [172, s] is absolutely unmeaning 
 here ; wot does not mean quelqu'un, iind in fact means nothing ! 
 
 It should be wH weiot naparadidw, "a father shall deliver 
 up his son to death ", referring to Matth. x. 21. 
 
 71. Nor is the reproof given to the king, in the words at [175, 5, J 
 rightly stated. The words mpfnau epiaxioma ettoe hiook 
 ngjoos je aijise emate mean " do not look upon the d^Ho/;ia with 
 which thou art invested, so as to say, I am raised on high &c.", 
 and it is incorrect to render, ne vois-tu pas I'orgueil qui t'enveloppe 
 quand tu dis &o. 
 
 72. Neither is it a fitting meaning when he gives, chaque hewre 
 nous rapproche du reglement veritable dont se charge la mort, as the 
 version of [175, 12]. He has here run together into one clause two 
 sentences, the first of which ends with saupoonen ebolnhetf, 'we 
 are driven away from it ', most assuredly not nous rapproche du ! In 
 fact it is a Coptic paraphrase of 2 Chron. xxix. 15, koI ovk IcttIv 
 viro/jLovrj. And the second sentence is whap mme petere pmw 
 eire mmaf, "a judgment of truth is what death does", "death 
 passes true judgment." 
 
 But the two sentences must not be mixed. 
 
 1 Apropos of tMs word, an amusing mistake of Mingarelli may here be corrected 
 [285, a 9 of text] : ' in this way we shall see all men who are on the earth, that they 
 are not different from ants,' nsesobe an [e]noajih. From the height of heaven 
 we shall look down upon men as ants; hut M. misconceived cajib (confounding 
 it with c6jb, indigens), and rendered doubtingly homines . . . con^picientw, pauper- 
 tatem (atque indigentiam) non disaimulantes. 
 
254 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 73. The errors continue :/« suis affligi pour toi, o roi, {voyant) quelle 
 fin V attend [176, z]. But the words are, knar htek ephae , ' thou wilt 
 repent at the end,' cf. Prov. xx. 25 ; xxv. 8 for the use of f -hte -f , 
 &c., which it is evident M. Bouriant does not know, for he renders 
 the next clause Vinutiliti de ta gloire , hut it is tek-mntreffhtef , 
 from the same root, meaning, " thy \repenter-ship-ness =] penitence". 
 
 74. The quotation from Ps. cxiii. 4 [12] sqq. is not rightly given 
 [174, x], neeidolon ne nhethnos hn hat hi nwb ne hnhbeue 
 ne ncij nrome, les idoles des gentils qui sont d'or et d'argent sont 
 I'oeuvre de la main des hommes. What is to be said of the three ne he 
 has edited ? Whence has he his qui"} The first ne should be joined 
 on with the following word, and the second ne is the copula, oblite- 
 rating his qui. 
 
 And then again: eueerteuhe nci pentautamiow, which 
 means, "they who have made them shall le like them", is thus 
 rendered, elles sont pareilles a ceux qui les ont faites [!1 
 
 And why are ne mmwng [175, 4] separated ? What does he 
 suppose ne is here? 
 
 76. The following lines are also wrong [176, g], for he renders 
 netko nteuha^ haeiatw nwoeis nim, by ceux qui passent leitr vie 
 d miditer constamment. M. Bouriant does not understand the words of 
 his text, which mean, " those who at all times keep their end in their 
 view", teu-hae ha eiat-w. He was not speaking of 'thinkers', 
 but of ' those whose thoughts ever dwell on death'. He must have 
 read teu - ahe , ' their life', in utter ignorance apparently that ahe , 
 'life', is masculine [ 
 
 76. It is a mere detail, but not without interest, to see how 
 M. Bouriant deals with the Coptic word for ' to make naked'. Thus 
 [17J, 5] he has etreu-kakf ahgu ; at [181, 4J he has ef-kek 
 ahgu; at[195z]mn wkok aheu ; from which we may infer that 
 aheu was an entity with him. But then, what were kakf and kek 
 supposed to be ? 
 
 77. But of course it is just the inattention to this kind of small 
 detail, which leads up to the grave defects which are so patent in 
 M. Bouriant's work. What would be thought of a historian, using 
 the foreign languages he has to study and is supposed to have 
 mastered, in anything like the following way? 
 
 Diocletien irriti voulait donner un dimenti & Victor, mats se souve- 
 nant de la compagnie dans laquelle il avail vdcu avee son pere, ou plutdt 
 de la sollicitude avee laquelle Bieu avail veilU sur lui, {il imagina) de 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 255 
 
 Venvoyer en Egypte pour que sa gloire s'y ripcmdit, et que Victor y 
 
 adordt les idoles. 
 
 Such a version is a complete perversion of the original : Diocletian, 
 
 recalling to mind the solicitude with which God had watched over 
 
 him, proposes to send Yictor to Egypt &c. [!] [178, z] : — 
 
 mallon de tepronea mpnwte or rather, the providence of God 
 
 tentashareh crof was what preserved him (Victor), 
 
 santwjitf ehrai ekeme till he was taken down to Egypt 
 
 nte pefsmw sope hn kSme and his fame grew in Egypt. 
 
 It was not Tiioa\et\sxii!& recollection of this circumstance ! Nor can the 
 two final clauses be brought into co-ordination : Victor was allowed 
 by God to be taken to Egypt, to get glory, but certainly not to adore 
 idols ! The phrase is ungrammatical, anyhow, for the text has : 
 auo nfsmse eidolon ethm pma etmmau, and eidolon et-hm 
 pma is an impossibility, for eidolon is indefinite. It is evident that 
 some words are omitted. The logic demands rather : " that his glory 
 should grow in Egypt, and [that he should overcome] the idol- 
 worshippers who are in that place," nrefsmse-eidolon. 
 
 78. And his translation becomes positively ludicrous, through the 
 want of all feeling for the language : it is a herbarium shuffling-about 
 of the dried plants of a dictionary, not the living knowledge of a 
 language recreated in his mind by a long and minute study of the 
 organisms to be seen at work in the extant literature. 
 Cf. the following sentence [180, 9] : — 
 
 neitontS mmo an je ne te rapporterai pas 
 
 tout ce d quoi 
 enentauosk Us se sont attardes 
 
 hn nenhoir ethoir dans leur malice perverse. 
 
 What did M. Bouriant mean precisely by that rendering ? The 
 young martyr Victor is urging his mother to listen to his words and 
 become a Christian : "Do not, he says, reject my counsel on the 
 ground of my youth, but remember how Daniel in spite of his youth 
 was enabled to deliver a woman from death." And then he adds the 
 words just quoted : " I am not comparing thee to those who have grown old 
 in their evil days, but I am teaching thee ... how thou mayst he to 
 me a mother in the kingdom of my Lord Jesus Christ &c." And now, 
 let the version of M. Bouriant be read : je ne te rapporterai pas tout ce 
 A quoi its se sont attardis dans leur malice perverse [!]. Even the next 
 clause is wrong, for he has : que ma mere soit avec moi, which most 
 assuredly is not a proper translation of ere sope nai mmaau. 
 
256 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 79. And how does lie come by kis rendering of mpf babe rome 
 [180, y]: 'n'exalte nonplus aucun homme'? But baberome^ bas a 
 different meaning. Cf. Sapient, v. 8, where tmntbaaberome is 
 used as the equivalent of AXa^ovda; or cf. Prov. xxi. 24, where 
 AXa^iv is rendered pbaberome ; so that the words of our text mean, 
 " be not boastful". 
 
 80. Nor has he entered into the mind of the writer [181, 2] when 
 he gives : la terre est & mon Seigneur, c'est lui qui I' a crMe, for papj oeis 
 pe pkah mn pef j ok ebol, which is a literal rendering of Ps. xxiv. 1, 
 " the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof". 
 
 81. And though the sense is not altered in his rendering, there is 
 little doubt that the Editor did not understand the construction at 
 [181,6], nftmoi nwoeik, which he has translated qui me donnera 
 
 He was probably thinking of the North Coptic imperative form 
 moi, as in moi nan 'mpaioik 'nseu niben, TravTo-re Sos ij/^iv tov 
 apTov TovTov, John vi. 34. But it is no such thing : it is the causative 
 root of worn, 'to eat,' viz. tmmo, 'to cause to eat', 'to feed, 
 nourish ' ; that he may " nourish me with a loaf " ; see also [209, x]. 
 
 82. So again, the grammar is utterly ignored in the following 
 clause, si tu nefais pas le lien dans le temps de trouble . . . ., {tu laisses 
 passer) la honne occasion donnde d tous de lien faire. He has not the 
 remotest conception of the structure of the passage, which runs thus 
 [181, z], eie pkairos etnanwf sare won nim erpagathon. 
 Here he has to insert tu laisses passer, as not being in the text, and 
 he renders donnie d, tous, in order to get some sort of a construction 
 that should enable him to bring in won nim; but his insight was 
 quite at fault, for he has left the subject pkairos without a verb, 
 and what was sare ? 
 
 And it is equally unsatisfactory to find Dieu a permis d tout 
 eela d^ arriver , as if anai terw s6pe[182,4] could possibly be rendered 
 ' d tout cela d'arriver ' ; did he take a [-nai] to be a dative ? 
 
 83. Then again, his very correction shows that he often does not 
 realize the full import of the connective particles ; thus after giving 
 le fits de Vhomme viendra et trouvera la foi sur la terre for the words 
 psere mprome neu nfhe etpistis ejm pkah, he corrects the latter 
 clause into trouvera-t-il ?, because the quotation is found so at Luke 
 xviii. 8. But, unfortunately, this is not the logic of the passage, nor 
 the grammar. The argument was different, viz. "the race of Chris- 
 tians is not extinct, and faith has not disappeared utterly, as the Lord 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 257 
 
 said [182, 7] : ' the Son of Man cometli that he may find [= and will 
 find] faith upon the earth '." It certainly is not a question here. 
 
 84. And on the same page [182, y], he has fallen into a very 
 objectionable mistake. As Victor's mother was expostulating with him, 
 she uses the argument, that she has got a bride for him ; to this he 
 replies, rudely enough, one might say, if M. Bouriant's version were 
 correct, " qu'est-ce qu'unefiancde " ? 
 
 Eut the young martyr did not say any such thing ; his words are, 
 according to M. Bouriant, 
 
 aseleet w eine, what's a hride? 
 
 I cannot divine how he ffot that meaning even ! 
 
 The Coptic text should be : a seleet weine, a tmntrro 
 ters parage nahrai, and means: "bride hath passed away, and 
 the kingdom hath passed away before me ". And then he con- 
 tinues in the same exalted strain, "aye, and the whole world with 
 its vain glory hath passed away before me, and this world with 
 all therein is a nothing". Here, too, the translation has a wrong 
 turn given to it by the hypothetical form of the clause, quand on 
 me donnerait tout Vempire &c., le Monde et ce quHl renferme ne sont 
 rien. 
 
 86. Occasionally on the other hand the dry prose of the Copt is 
 bedewed with a ' suspicion ' of sentimentality, as for instance, Venez, 
 femmes qui avez connu le doux haiser des enfants. That is charming, 
 but, the Copt did not say it. His words are [183, 10], ameitu 6 
 nehiome terw ntauji pira mpehloc nensere; and how did this 
 furnish le doux haiser ? "Was the literary reminiscence too strong, or 
 did the Editor really conceive the possibility of pi, 'a kiss', and 
 mpehloc, ' of sweetness ' ? I am afraid he &'(^, but thea what about 
 the syllable ra ? was this, too, JVorth Coptic ra = ' mouth ' ? It was 
 an unlucky word to stumble on, for neither was it pi 'kiss', nor ra 
 ' mouth ', nor was it Coptic at all, but the Greek irelpa, after the 
 Coptic ji "to take', "ye who have (ji-peira) experienced the sweet- 
 ness of children". Of course, but for the frequent errors in the 
 handling of the text, I should never have doubted that it was 
 simply a question of literary taste. 
 
 86. The following paragraphs contain matter for thought. The 
 words ay ant pris place d la tribune do not, of themselves, elucidate the 
 mystery of his text [185, 2] afhmoos eraf pro bematos. lean 
 only conjecture that he intended eraf, 'at', pro, 'the door', 
 bematos, ^-q/jLaroi (in genit.), but there my imagination fails me^.. 
 
 E.I.A. PEOC, SEK. ni., VOL. III. T 
 
258 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 Clearly, the Coptic language is not concerned -with this order of specu- 
 lation ! 
 
 And why should he render : Bieu a donne la langue d, VJiomme omee 
 deux murailles pour la proteger, when the Copt says [185, lo], ere 
 snau nsabt mpefbal, "with two walls outside it". 
 
 And cf. his rendering of [184, ic], il leur a Mti une ville, where 
 he has bati, because the Coptic word for "wall" is sobt, and the 
 text here has safsobte nau! But that means, "he prepareth for 
 them ". 
 
 Nor is his phrase, eomprends done cela aussi, a satisfactory version 
 of ksown hook mpai [185, x], which means, "thou thyself 
 knowest this ". 
 
 87. And I am smitten with amazement to see how little feeling for 
 the elements of Coptic grammar M. Bouriant must have when [185, 5] 
 he edits 6 p anhosios , and renders, 6 saint homme ! I do not dispute 
 of course the possibility of a word iravoo-tos; but, what about the case? 
 It is vocative case, and so must have the def. article, i. e. p - anhosios , 
 " oh, thou unholy" ! 
 
 And again [186, yj, he has exhibited the same want of knowledge 
 in rendering : il a dit aux rois de la terre, ' attachez-vous &c.' But the 
 text has pejaf nfrow, " lie saith, ye Icings Sec." 
 
 88. But obviously, these minor matters would have been justly 
 passed over with the mere mention, if they had been the only defects in 
 the work now under examination. They are emphasized here, because 
 they are of a piece with the whole of the work : when M. Bouriant is 
 right, it is certainly not owing to his familiarity with Coptic grammar 
 and structure. Therefore it is not surprising to read his ' version ' 
 of the Second Psalm. He subsequently corrected parts of this curiosity 
 of literature in his Corrigenda, but even so, it is not all correct. 
 
 When he renders {pourquoi) les nations s' attachent-elles a des 
 ckoses vaines, of which the Coptic is [186, 7], auo nlaos aumarw 
 nhnpetsweit, he is, one may feel quite certain, unaware that the 
 Greek verb /ieXe-rav is such a stumbling-block to the Egyptian, that 
 he always renders it iy itself [at all events cf . Job vi. 30 ; xxvii. 4 ; 
 Ps. i. 2 ; ii. 1 ; xxxvi. 30 ; xxxvii. 13 ; Ixii. 7 ; Ixx. 24 ; Ixxvi. 13 ; 
 Ixxxix. 9 ; Prov. viii. 7 ; xxiv. 2 ; Isai. xyi. 7] ; and one feels also 
 tolerably sure that he does not know the construction of mwr , 'to 
 bind', for aumorw n would mean "they girded themselves with 
 vanities ". 
 
 And further on, when he renders les liens dont ils veulent nous 
 cAflT^(sr (which he has »o^ corrected) [!], for the Coptic ntnnajw ebol 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 259 
 
 hi] on, "that we may fling them from us", his rendering is 
 utterly imsatisfactory. 
 
 89. And in continuation, cwr le Dieu du del montrera d, tons lew 
 petitesse et leur errev/r ; why does he so po/ra/phrase the plain peu- 
 thebbio , ' their humiliation'? And why does he continue : Et Von 
 a' est ri A'eux [^corrected into et I'on se rird] et le Seigneur les a ditruits, 
 when the Coptic has [186,12] Esesobe nsow auo 5te pjoeis 
 kamsw nftakow ; ignoring utterly the connexion with the previous 
 verse, and completely dropping out of account the word kamsw 
 [Job xxii. 19] ? 
 
 90. And how does he justify to himself his next lines, comme le 
 montre V instruotion qu'il a donn&e a David, when the Coptic just says, 
 "according to the way that he reiterated the statement immediately 
 after " ? He reads ntafweh mpsaje, "he hath given instruction ", 
 as if such a construction were possible, weh with a following 
 connexivel But it should be ntafwehm psaje, " he hath, repeated 
 the word". And what has he done with nsa tootf , an adverb 
 meaning "immediately after " ? He has rendered it as a yekb, qu'il 
 a donnee [! ] 
 
 91. Why render ntai-ei eporj, j'e viendrai separer [187, 14]? 
 It is the perfect tense. 
 
 Is it an intelligible phrase to say " (God will punish thee) ear tu 
 n'as produit aucun fruit quimirite leregret" ? The words are [188, 9], 
 ' any fruit worthy of repentance ', which at least have the merit of 
 being a Biblical reminiscence. 
 
 When the governor came to the capital, BajsYictor, pottr y chercher 
 mon pere et tu lui as parle ainsi: ' prie le roi en ma faveur &c., what 
 was the result? mon pere refusa tout net de parler pour toi, says 
 M. Bouriant ; but Victor says much more drastically, "my father did 
 not deem thee worthy even to tali with thee", mpe paeiot kataxiw 
 iiamok holos [= oXu)s] esaje nmmak, [190,4]. 
 
 92. Then the governor in despair appealed to Victor himself 
 to intervene with his father on his behalf, saying : fai dSjd pris la 
 peine de le supplier, mais il ne m'a pas du tout ecoute. Here again the 
 version fails to represent the original, mpefsp hrai ehwn holos, 
 [190, 8]. Of course, the sense could not be misrepresented, because the 
 governor's failure to persuade the father was the very point dwelt on, 
 but that M. Bouriant had not any notion of the construction is evident 
 from the form of his version, il ne m'a pas du tout ieoute. Here he 
 took hrai to mean ' my voice ', but it was a totally different word, 
 viz. hra, ' face ', for this phrase also is Biblical, cf . Gen. xxxii. 20, 
 
 T 2 
 
260 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 mesak gar efe-sep tra'i eliwn, "creos yap Trfyoa-Siierai to Trpo- 
 a-ioTTov fj.ov. There is no such idiom known to Coptic as sp hra, 'to 
 receive the voice ', ' to listen '. 
 
 And what was the young noble's reply to the appeal of the 
 governor ? j'e ne t'ai pas montre un visage hostile. That also is not 
 correct: mpiaak nho nsmmo [190,9] means, "I did not make 
 thee a stranger ", for the suffix -k is not a dative case. 
 
 93. In the subsequent conversation, the quotations are curiously 
 handled, and the Editor's embarrassment is only too plainly made 
 visible. He is quoting Job here, leurs peres ne valent pas les ehiens de 
 mes trowpeaux ; but why has he omitted the previous words which give 
 point to the quotation ? M. Bouriant gives only, j'e puis dire de toi ce 
 que Job disait d'autres gens : ' leurs peres' &c., and yet the Coptic has 
 netmmi opw je se mpsa nneuhoor nnaahe! The editor knew 
 it was from Job xxx. 1, yet he has not been able to follow the LXX, 
 ovs ov)^ fiyqadiL-qv a^lovs kvvZv rG>v ifiSiv vofjidSoiv, because he did not 
 understand netmmi opw [191, 6], which should be note mei-op-w, 
 'those whom I do not deem (them)', with aor. neg., or nete 
 m pi -opw with. per/, neg. 
 
 94. And now consider the next quotation! He translates, /« «ie 
 console avee Bavid qui dit, ' mes amis et ceux qui me connaissent m'ont 
 oublii '. That sounds rather Davidic, perhaps, but it is very bad all 
 the same. The Coptic has [191,9] anasbeerw mmoi, which he 
 has rendered mes amis. 
 
 na-sbeerw mmoij 'my friends' ["] 
 
 No doubt sber means 'acquaintance', but what form of the plural 
 could sbeerw be? and how could mmoi be used in connexion 
 therewith ? 
 
 The text is wrongly edited ; it should be : 
 a na-sbeer we mmoi, 
 
 "my companions have gone away far from me", /^ov S.'Trio-Trjaav, 
 cf. Job xix. 13. 
 
 95. And on the same page we have, ne te fie pas aux closes cor- 
 porelles, le corps est chose mine qui avant peu sera dissoute dans la terre; 
 but the Copt had in view a different idea [191, x], "do not rely on 
 the heauty of this body, which will become ugly after a while, and be 
 dissolved in the earth", mpftajrok ejm psa mpsoma pai 
 etnaroaie mnnsa wkwi nfbol ebol hm pkah. It was the 
 contrast between the sa and the caie, that the writer intended to 
 set forth, cf. cae, 'ugly', sa^, 'beautiful ', [175, y]. 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 261 
 
 96. And after rendering a quotation from Solomon by la louche de 
 VinsmsS est une troupe (?) et ses votes sont un piege, he corrects the 
 former clause rightly into est une ruine powr lui, but has left the latter 
 untouched. ITow the text has : ttapro mpathet whenaf te auo 
 wpas te nefhiowe [189, 13], where after correcting the impossible 
 whenaf into whe naf te , one ■would have thought that he could not 
 have failed to see that it balanced the latter clause : whe te . . . 
 wpas te [njnefh., " (his tongue) is a ruin to him, and is a snare to 
 Ms ways''', an adaptation of Prov. xviii. 7. How in the wide world 
 could ihefem. sg. copula te appear between the Coptic words for ses 
 voies and un piige ? 
 
 97. Nor is it allowable to glide over the difficulties as M. Bouriant 
 has done at [192,9], ^^ malista mpfro ndikaios sope en eh 
 nthe mpai. Here the writer had been speaking of David's inability 
 to secure the life of his child, and so the Editor renders, si un roi juste 
 a ite frappi ainsi, d plus forte raison le sera ce roi impie dans lequel tu 
 places ton espoir. Evidently therefore the argument was that ' as 
 David's child died, so tlie pagan king's child will die also '. But the 
 Copt does not say so; the words mpfro ndikaios sope eneh do 
 not convey the meaning of si un juste roi a eti frappi ainsi, nor any 
 other meaning of ant kind ! There was sope 'to become', and there 
 was eneh, 'for ever', and there was no regent for sope, and 
 the m before pfro 'the king' had no meaning, and therefore as 
 the Editor could make nothing out of it, he paraphrased it and so 
 slid over. It should have been mpe pfro ndikaios sope eneh, 
 "most assuredly the just king did not live for ever" , the Greek words 
 preceding, koX fidXia-Ta, being a strong asseveration, " just so assuredly, 
 the unjust king &c." 
 
 98. Sometimes even the plain Greek word is an insuperable diffi- 
 culty ; thus when the governor is said to have become angry because 
 Victor I'avait humilie in presence of his court, the translation is mere 
 guessing. The words are [193, i] 
 
 aftiatrSpei mmof. 
 
 Now he had had the word before at [151, 3], where he edits 
 
 mpfti atrepei mmoi 
 
 which this time he renders ne me desoheis pas ! 
 
 It is obvious that this procedure is constructed Kara a~vvea-Lv, but 
 certainly not ' according to knowledge ' : the word in question was 
 
262 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 SLarpi-irta, ' to dissuade, deter ', and had nothing to do with either 
 humiliation or disobedience] 
 
 99. The following sentence is no doubt easy of comprehension, tu 
 recevras unefoule de eouronnes et toutes sortes de louanges, but no human 
 being could get it out of his text as it stands ! The words are [193, yj, 
 
 knaji nwmeese nklom, auo knasope nswsw terw. 
 
 Let the Editor meditate on his later clause, 
 
 knasope nswsw terw 
 
 knasope 'thou wilt become', nswsw 'a boasting'; was that 
 the destiny of the martyr? A.nd what was terw? The text is 
 wrong: read knasop enswsw terw; and then the sentence is 
 not only easy of comprehension but of analysis. 
 
 100. And there is no point whatever in his version of [195, x], as 
 a quotation from St.Paul,ye Bv/pporte tout, la f aim, V alondanee, lamiskre, 
 tijont hn hob nim ehko erhwo esoot. Most people could 
 ' support ' abundance, but the Greek said (Iv iravTi koi Iv Trao-t) 
 lii,eii,vr]fiai, Philip, iv. 12, which is literally rendered by the Copt. 
 
 M. Bouriant did not know the word j out, which I shall therefore 
 exemplify. It means ' to test, try, prove, practise ' ; cf . Eccl. vii. 24, 
 nai terw aijontw hn tsophia, en-ctpao-a; ii. 1, amw tajontk 
 hn w-wnof, Treipao-io; Habak. i. 8, senajontw tn neuhtoor nci 
 neuhippeus; Zeohar. xi. IS'*, tajontf, ntaujont. 
 
 101. The Editor is not strong on theological points either, or he 
 would hardly have presented us with this passage as an utterance of 
 our Lord's, eelui qui viendra d, moi ne hair a point son pere, ni sa mire, 
 . . . ., autrement il ne pourrait itre tnon disciple. That is a curious 
 perversion, based upon grammatical ignorance, for the principal clause 
 is [199,5], iiiS com mmof efmath^tes nai, whereas nfmoste 
 an mpefeiot is the ' continuative ' form (of the conjunctive), and 
 the original is of course Luke xiv. 26. 
 
 Or cf . the following [200, x], V aeeomplissement de toutes ees chases 
 est suffisamment montri pan- la parole de Notre-Seigneur, where the 
 words really mean, "but as to the end of the whole matter [= but 
 finally], the word of our Lord suffices &c." 
 
 102. The clearest indications are often ignored; thus at [201, i], 
 Bieu ne cherche pas d rendre le fits odieux d. son phe, mais void ee qu'il 
 veut dire Sfc. This sounds natural enough, and of course I do not dis- 
 pute the statement, but it is not what the Coptic text says, me ere 
 pnwte moste neiot hi sere mmon, alia pai pe tefjo mmof 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 263 
 
 tlie meaning of -whiolL is, " doth. Grod hate father and son ? no ! but this 
 is what He saith [petef -jo] &o." M. Bouriant has totally ignored 
 mmon, which is merely the ' explicit' of the negative implicit in the 
 introductory /a?;. But the translator should have been kept from his 
 version by all the other indications : the meaning assigned to moste, 
 the function allotted to the preposition hi, the position of mmon in 
 the sentence, all concurred to warn him ofE a dangerous precipice, 
 — in vain. 
 
 103. The prepositions are like the small cog-wheels of a complicated 
 piece of machinery, the whole of which is often flung out of gear by 
 the wrong action of the little intermediators. Thus when he renders, 
 je sauverai mes hien-aimis en les pla^ant d, ma droite, he has given a 
 wholly wrong turn to the meaning, which is, " (I have come) to save 
 my beloved hy my right hand", auo ntanwhm nnamerit hii 
 tawnam [201,4], where it was his anxiety to render rightly the 
 preposition hn that led him into the error; but hn is just the 
 precise word to use in this connexion to express the instrument. 
 
 104. Surely one would have thought that the words kata tmeris 
 mpeujo [201,6], "according to the portion of their cii^", rj ft,e.p\<s 
 Tov iroT-qpiov avTwv, were sufficiently obvious to make error therein 
 impossible, but M. Bouriant renders, as if it were jo, 'to sow' {je 
 
 ferai tomher sur les pioheurs une pluie de feu et de soufre ) 
 
 suivant ce qu'ils ont seme ! It was only Ps. x. 7. 
 
 105. The misconception of the meaning of a term introduces curious 
 confusion, when he renders la separation d'une file de sa mire, d'une 
 
 fiancee de son fia/ncL But fancy such a mistake as this, 
 
 tes-some, son fiance] 
 
 tes used as masculine, and some, the characteristically /«»i«m«e form : 
 som, 'father-in-law'; some, 'mother-in-law'! This mistake occurs 
 at [201, i], and to make sure is repeated at [201, 13]. 
 
 106. At [202, 3] we find, je suis un Bieu bon qui n'ai de kaine pov/r 
 ■auoun de ceux qui viennent d, moi, where the text gives emeiste laau 
 nrome, which he took to be the verb meste, ' to hate' ! But it was 
 mei - ste eb ol, ' I do not cast out', ov /jltj eK/SdXw tfco, John vi. 37. 
 
 107. Immediately after, il ne me comient pas d^ avoir les preferences 
 pa/rmi ceux qui sont d moi, is given for the words, ouk exestei nai 
 «r petiwasf hn netenwi ne, "is it not lawful for me to do what 
 I will with those that are mine " [nete nwi], Matth. xx. 15. 
 
 108. And just below he gives rightly, si un de ceux qui m^appartien- 
 nent s'eloigne de moi pour ce meter aux gentils, though he has edited the 
 
264 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 impossible phrase nftohm nnenhethnos, [202, 7]. What in the 
 world is the prefix nnen? Besides, tohm means 'to invite' : it is 
 an old error, a wrong division, for toh mn nhethnos. 
 
 109. I fear he has not wholly succeeded in his account of the Bel 
 and Dragon story, for at [203, 8,] where the text says, af hotb nneto 
 Hhmhal naf etbe worn hi so, it will not bear the meaning 
 he has imposed, [il tua] les servitettrs qui leur servaient a hoire et 
 A manger ; for the etbe denotes the interested motives of their 
 attendance on the idol, and not the definite function they had to 
 perform. 
 
 And when he renders, just after, puis il tua le dragon vinere par 
 h roi, one would like to know how he compassed venerS, when the text 
 says, pedrakon ere prro synenei ninmaf. "What is syn^nei, 
 then? The preposition following, nmmaf, ' with laira', shows that 
 it probably is for ko luwv ei. 
 
 110. And Sirach's son would certainly not be content with the ver- 
 sion, Malheur d vous qui ave% perdu patience. SiDieu exauoe vos prieres, 
 que ferez-vous ? Now he gives a reference here to Ecclesiastious ii. 16,17, 
 so that it may be instructive to quote the Vulgate here, et quid facient, 
 cum inspioere coeperit Dominus. I infer that his reference to verses 
 16, 17 shows that it was the Latin in which he sought his quotations 
 — certainly a bad source for Coptic parallels, — for the LXX is ii. 14, 
 ovaL Vjuv Tot's diroA,o)XeKoo"t ttjv virojxovrjv, kol tl Iron^a-ere orav iTncrKiir- 
 rryrai 6 Kvpwi ; and what are the Coptic words ? An exactly literal 
 version, of course, ersan pjoeis cm petiisine etetnnaf w! Why, 
 this verb cm-psine is just the very expression for eTrio-KcjTTo/iai and 
 that order of ideas; he may compare Job ii. 11 ; vi. 14 ; xxxiv. 9; 
 Isai. xxix. 6 ; Jerem. ix. 9 ; xiii. 21. 
 
 But to render it, si Dieu exauce vos prikres ! 
 
 Another quotation is misrendered at [204, 13], auji sipe je 
 apnwte sosf w , ih seront honteux de I'ignominie que Dieu leur injligera, 
 Ps. lii. 6, KaTrja-)(yv6Ti(rav otl 6 ®eos i^ovSivwcriv airovs. 
 
 111. Here we have a mistake of his repeated, with additions, 
 though this time he prints it in italics to show that it is a quotation ! 
 The Coptic says, wnsipe esafjpo pnobe wnsipe on. ef sow hi 
 hmot nhetf , i.e. "there is a shame which doth engender sin, there 
 is a shame on the other hand in which there is glory with honour". 
 Instead of this, M. Bouriant writes, c'est la honte qui engendre le peche, 
 c'est une honte aussi d'en tirer gloire et fwveur [!] He took it to be e-f 
 'to make', eow 'glory', nhetf 'from it'; but it should be ere , the 
 present participial regent, and has nothing to do with the verb f , 'to 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 26& 
 
 do'! Tlie Coptic version in Ciasca may possibly have obscured his 
 perception, for it differs slightly in construction, with its e - u - eow , 
 'tending to glory', Prov. xxvi. 11, though Ciasca gives everything 
 rightly here, jpe, and "wn separately &c. 
 
 112. N'or can he defend his version at [205, 2], je n^ai jamais adore 
 les idoles, mais si Je voulais VoMir et f adorer en mime temps, je serais 
 pareil d ceux qui ont passi lew vie d les adorer. The lexicon and 
 the logic are opposed to such a rendering of the words: kan eije 
 mpismse eidolon eneh, alia eisanwos esotm nsok tawost nak 
 nwsop nwot, sauopt &c., " even though I never idolatrized, but 
 were I willing to listen to thee so as to worship them [nau , rather 
 than nak] a single time, I should he counted &a." It is obvious that 
 the logic demands this contrast of a single act of homage, and it is 
 certain that the words wsop nwot can only mean "a single 
 time," not en meme temps. 
 
 And similarly just after, [205, 12] there is a clause, eksaje w 
 on hn nai nkesop, tinatreusolp ebol mpeklas, which is 
 translated, que veux-tu encore dire cette foisf Je te ferai a/rracher la 
 langue. But nkesop could not mean cette fois ; it means 'another 
 time I will cut out thy tongue '. 
 
 113. A curious misconception is found in his version of [208, x], 
 tous ceux qui ont traite de la puissance de ce monde en ont parle en ora- 
 teurs ; but the Coptic has, won nim ntaumatheteue harats 
 ntexwsia mpeikosmos , which means, " all who have learnt under, 
 at the foot of, the authority of this world " ! 
 
 114. I doubt whether M. Bouriant understands the particle ahro . 
 Here is not the place to write an article on the word, but it must not 
 be treated as if it were simply the preposition nahrn, as he has 
 obviously done in the following passage! It is an interrogative 
 particle which takes a pronominal suffix indicating the agent affected 
 by the question. Ifow we find, at [209, z], fai des le commencement 
 rencontre en toi la franchise, aussije te croirai. Cependant tu me dis : 'je 
 suis etr anger '. That is certainly not the meaning of the Coptic text, 
 epide aiarkhei ncm parresia ahrok etbe pai tinapithe 
 mm ok, " since I have begun to get boldness of speech, why am I to 
 believe thee on this account (that thou hast declared thyself to be a 
 stranger)". It is utterly impossible to render ahrok, 'en toi'; it 
 means ahro-k, rt o-ot, 'why, in reference to thee'. He has made 
 another mistake at [186, 6], with ahrau ! 
 
 115. There is no force whatever in the reason alleged by Victor 
 for not giving the stranger bread, je ne puis pas sortir omertement a 
 
266 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 midi [210, 5]. For, if lie could not go openly at mid-day, could he 
 not go a little later, or a little earlier ? And wliere was the point of 
 such a mere mid-day limitation ? 
 But further, what is the text ? 
 
 meiesmoose mmeere hn wparresia. 
 
 And the problem is to get mid-day out of mmdere! The Coptic 
 expression for at mid-day is mpnau mmeere [cf. Gen. xviii. 1 ; Job 
 V. 14; Isai. xviii. 4; Amos viii. 9 &o.], for 'mid-day' is meere. 
 His text should be mmeene , " daily". 
 
 116. And there is no insight into the language shown in the words, 
 je n' ai pas regu de pain aujourd'hui, whereas the Copt said [211, 6], 
 
 mn oeik soop nai mpow, " \h.eie is "oat a, \oal remaining -over to 
 me to-day ". 
 
 What did he take socp to be? Did he think it was s6p, and 
 for the form s e p ? It was of course just i o j p, ' left over '. 
 
 117. And what could be poorer than this version, at [212,9], 
 mais nous nous offrons d, toi en sacrifice, where the original says, alia 
 hrai hn whrow ntobh hi exomologesis, tneine ehwn 
 nak ntnthysia, " but with a voice of supplication and confession we 
 bring to thee our sacrifices ", like [= in place of] that of rams. The 
 whole point is missed, the passage being simply from the Hymn of 
 the Three, vv. 15, 16. 
 
 His text is wrong, at [212, z], efsanwos efiot nmmai 
 etbe nentaiaau, \_sHl'\ veut examiner mes actions ; for fiot has no 
 meaning whatever, it is fi-6p nmmai, "to rechon with me about 
 my actions". 
 
 The passive is a perpetual stumbling-block : aucun homme ne pent 
 se dire juste devant toi, is the manner in which he tries to make up 
 for the proper grammatical knowledge, which should have taught 
 him that in the sentence [213,8], mn laau nrome natmaio 
 mpekmto ebol, the verb tmaio is passive. 
 
 And in continuation of this quotation, he adds : fen ai pow 
 temoin Moise. Such a version has no reference to the text, which 
 says, aufmntre haroi, 'they have given evidence concerning me'. 
 The point is, not that Moses is a witness in his (Victor's) favour, but 
 that he (Victor) also is naturally (as a soldier) accused of homicide, 
 and that Moses after death was charged by the devil with having 
 murdered the Egyptian. 
 
 What justification is there for rendering aifatrome hijm 
 pkah [213, 13], fai ete lache sur la terre? It is simply, " I have 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 267 
 
 become desolate on earth.", as lie continues, " every man has fled from 
 me on account ol my poverty". 
 
 118. And twice he has spoilt a quotation from'Eom. iii. 19 ; at 
 [213, lo], tapro nim natom nte pkosmos terf sope ha phap 
 mpnwte, toute louche sera muette, quand le monde entier paraitra au 
 tribunal de Dieu; and subsequently, at [241, 12], quand le monde 
 sntier sera juge par Dieu ; neither of which versions gives the force of 
 the Coptic, a literal rendering of the Greek, Iva ttSlv a-roiia. ^pdyg km 
 VTToStKos yivrjTai ttSs 6 KOirixos t£ ©eui. 
 
 119. Equally obvious is it that his translation of [214, z] is a 
 mere guess, je pre/ere aller entre les mains du Seigneur &c., for 
 his je prifere can certainly not be extracted out of his text smot 
 nnai! That combination of letters has not the slightest meaning; 
 it should be of course s-motn nai, for it has nothing to do with 
 smot, 'form'. There is here a play on the immediately preceding 
 phrase from Job, in which death is declared to be mton, ' a [transfor- 
 mation to] rest'; so here David says that the penalty rpets ■^/iepas 
 Odvarov iv r-rj yfj is motn, 'a state of rest ', to him : the prefixed 
 s- is the fem.-neuter of the impersonal subject. 
 
 120. M. Bouriant has introduced a very considerable variation 
 into the traditional story of this punishment of David for the enormity 
 of his offence in having a census of his people taken. His version is : 
 Ze troisieme chdtiment qu'injligea Dieu au roi David fut d'eloigner de 
 lui la mort. 
 
 That statement runs so differently from the tenor of the original 
 narrative that it at once arrests attention : it apparently means that 
 immortality is one of God's punishments, and that after having 
 inflicted two other punishments, He now hurls upon David the last 
 dire penalty, — of immortality ! 
 
 What says the Coptic text ? 
 
 kaigar prro Daueid ntere pjoeis horize ejof 
 nsomte nepitimia wei naf nsa pmw [213, z]. 
 
 And I confess to the utterest inability to extract M. Bouriant's version 
 out of these words : what is opl^nv, then? and how is nsomte an 
 ordinal? and what is naf? and what tense is wei? and what is its 
 regent? and what is nsa ? 
 
 And what words of his MS. has he omitted? 
 
 121. The next sentence is again mere guessing, voici trois ehoses 
 auxquellesje veux comparer {mes souffrances). The parenthesis again ! 
 there is no mes souffrances, and no reason for their mention. The text 
 
268 Proceedings of the Boyal Irish Academy. 
 
 has [214, 4], aikatanta erow, " I have met them ", " three things- 
 have befallen me ". The editor could not handle the verb KaravTav, 
 but had some notion of KaravTiov, '[setting] over against', and so 
 ' comparison ' ! 
 
 122. On the same page we have, dis-moi quelque chose de ta vie etje 
 te consoler ai ; but the words are [215, 12] ta-solsl, 'that I may he 
 consoled ' ! 
 
 123. Thencf. [215, z]: 
 
 me naaak ntok enapostolos. 
 
 This he analysed into me, the categorical negative (!) ; na-aa-k 
 ntok, ' shalt not compare thyself' (!!). The words are quite diffe- 
 rent : it is m^ naa-k e-n-apostolos, "art thou greater than the 
 apostles?" And this was the very point of the previous clause, lest 
 thou appewr, fancy thyself, superexeellent. 
 
 Here is his version : pensais-tu que je t'avais oublie ? Non, ear 
 [! iXKa eZ/t^Ti] tu fes montri semllable a un elu. Mais maintenant je 
 veux te eonvainore, et tu ne te compareras plus a mes Apdtres. 
 
 124. Ou [217, 5] we read, ma divinite s'est affulUe d^un cceur 
 charnel, the Coptic being: ere tamntnwte weh nhet somatikos. 
 
 That is to say : 
 
 ■weh affuhUe 
 
 nbet d'un cceur 
 
 somatikos charnel [as an adj. (!)] 
 
 Every word is wrong : weh means ' is dwelling ' ; nhet, ' in me', 
 hut he took it to be het, 'heart' ; and the last word is necessarily 
 the ado. cro/AaTiKus ! It is a reminiscence from Coloss. ii. 9, kv avriS 
 KaroiKei irciv to 7r\iypa)|U,a T'^s OeorrjTOi (rwfi,aTiKu>s. 
 
 [These Greek words are often a trouble to him ; cf . eependant il 
 est juste qu'ils te soient rendus dans son royaume. That is not the idea : 
 " (I ara perplexed and give it up), but Se is sufficient to repay thee 
 them in His kingdom", plen whikanos pe ntoobw nak hn 
 tefmntero, [240, 3]. Here M. Bouriant has violently made Iko.vo's 
 Taean juste, has overlooked the ending in tKavos, and has completely 
 misconceived the function of the connexive n before toobw !] 
 
 Again [217, y] the point is missed in his rendering: ilm'aparU 
 avec insolence et on lui a donne pouvoir contre moi, for what the speaker 
 said was, "he spake haughtily with me saying that power over me had 
 been given to Mm". 
 
 125. I do not know whether the following version has ever been 
 utilised in any Dictionary of the Bible, as an example of the manners 
 and customs of the Jews, but it sounds strangely enough to suggest a 
 
Atkinson— 0» a South-Coptic Text ofM. Bouriant. 269 
 
 note of the kind ! Moi amsi, pour une pa/role quefavais dite, le servi- 
 teur du grand pritre m^afrappe au visage, car c'est ainsi que oMtiait le 
 grand pretre. I do not know of any authority for the statement in the 
 last clause; the Coptic says, (218, 7] tai te the nwosf mparkhie- 
 reus, and wosf means 'to answer', cf. Gen. xxxi. 43; it was the 
 high-priest's mode of answering, hut the text says nothing of its being 
 his method of chastisement. 
 
 126. Of course there are multitudes of small errors here and there 
 which I am not attempting to catalogue: haroi [217, x] rendered 
 ' speaking to me ', instead of ' on my behalf' ; aurokh [218, 8] which 
 is wrong and unintelligible without the suffix -/, ' they burnt him ' ; 
 ores invariably rendered da/ns le Sud [259, 5], au Sud, though it is 
 often only the adverb 'up'; afrbol eneucij, [219, 10] il/M tomhi 
 aux mains de ceux qui &c., whereas it means, "[and so] he escaped 
 out 0/ their hands"; [219, z] tout cela est ecrit avec d'autres choses 
 encore, mn netwotb enai, " along with things that swr^ass these 
 things " 
 
 And why does he put his parenthesis marks, d. un {de mes) disciples, 
 when the text has plainly [220,3] nwmathet^s ntai? What 
 did he think ntai meant? Or how does efkeb 'duplex' come to 
 mean centuple [220, 3] ? And where is the justification for his au 
 lanquet des milliers d'annSes, as the translation of hmpdipnon mpso 
 nrompe, [220, 12]? This was of course the SeWov of a thousand 
 years, the Millennium of Eev. xix. 17 ; xx. 4. 
 
 But these are only provocative of a little discomfort, and would 
 call for no mention at all, save that it is difficult to say precisely where 
 the line is to be drawn between the venial and the mortal sin where 
 the offences are perpetually recurring ; to which category does this 
 belong? [220, i] mprmeeue je eitauo nnai eico je ebol 
 nnekhise ajn bykS, ne va pas croire quefai dit tout cela powr 
 laisser tes souffrances sans ricompense. Here his words pour laisser 
 show that he read co! But what was the next word je? The 
 text should have read eicoje ebol, 'I cut off'. 
 
 127. Nor is it permissible to ignore so utterly the laws of the 
 language as to render, as at [220, 10], en ichange des Mens de ce monde 
 . . .je fen donnerai que les yeux ne pewoent voir. The text says diffe- 
 rently, tinati nak nnetmpebal nau erow, 'I will give thee 
 things that eye hath not seen ' ; for it is most assuredly not any com- 
 bination with tm and \he. present tense, but the^«r/ee< negative, mpe 
 JfflZ nau . But M. Bouriant repeats this present iu the following clause, 
 ' que les hommes ne peuvent imaginer ', although the words are plainly, 
 
270 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 ^^ they heme never ascended upon the heart of men", mpwale ehrai 
 ehrai ejm phet nnrome, koX iwl KapSiav avOpixnrov ovk ave^rj, 
 1 Cor. ii. 9 ; of. the same error [245, 5 ; 248, 3]. 
 
 128. I do not see what meaning M. Bouriant intends to convey in 
 the last clause of this passage, on n'a pas coutume de louer le lahoureur 
 quand iljette son grain a la terre et le laisse Id simplement, mais quand, 
 apres Vavoir convert d'un fumier suffisant, il le serre pa/rmi ses tresors. 
 The Coptic says, [222,9], nsafapolaue mmof hn nefagathon, 
 "he enjoys A«»«««^ with his goods". What did the Editor think the 
 Greek word airoXav^iv could mean? And whence has he the adj. 
 suffisant"^ The words are: eusantsof nsetimehro naf, "when 
 they water it and give dung to it". It seems hardly credible, but he 
 must have thought that tso, 'to water', was identical with tsio, 
 ' to satisfy ' ! 
 
 Here is another Greek word shorn of its natural rights, " le 
 hasard voulut que S. vint . . ., et qu'on lui prisentdt Victor ; but the 
 text says, [224,5] ^^° audiabale mmof naf, "and so they sZaw- 
 dered him to him ". "Was ^la^aXXuv riva. vpos riva such an utterly 
 unknown expression ? 
 
 Why does he render mef jiho [224, z], " it accepts not the person 
 of", by elle n' attend point ? So again, his version of [226, 3] elle n'a 
 pita ni du petit enfant ni de la jeunesse, is quite wrong ; it should be, 
 " death pities not a little one on account o/his youth ". 
 
 At [225, 5] aujourd'hui nous mangeons et nous nous usons des liens 
 de la terre, is incorrect; for mmene does not mean 'to-day', but 
 ' daily' ; and the verb TTipia-Trdu} is inadequately represented by s'user 
 de, in any legitimate use of this phrase. This ' Ecclesiastes ' word 
 was so thoroughly unmanageable to the Egyptian, that he is obliged to 
 render it by itseK; thus he always has Trcpio-Tracr/xds, Eccl. 1, 13; 
 ii. 23, 26; iii. 10; iv. 8; v. 13; viii. 16; and the verb is used iii. 
 10; V. 19. Only in i. 13 has he attempted an Egyptian rendering, 
 '7repto"ira(rfjiov Trovyjpov cowKev o @eos rots uiots Toir dvOptinrtav Tov 
 irepKriratrOaL iv avrw, wperispasmos mponeron a pnwte taaf 
 nnseere nnrome etreuji hrau nhetf hn whedone; a ver- 
 sion in which the periphrasis ji-hrau hn whedonfi shows clearly 
 in what sense the Copt took the word, "to amuse themselves with 
 r/hovT^ ". The Greek word occurs once in N. Test., Luke x. 40, where 
 it has the same rendering ji-hrau ; but there is no doubt that this 
 Coptic word involved the idea of ' play, sport ', for we have it in Habak. 
 i. 10 for iralyvia; but also Ps. Ixviii. 12 Kar' e/ioB ^SoXia-)(ovv, 
 neujiiihraau hioot; [cf. also Ps. Ixxvi. 4, 7, 13; Lam. iii. 20, 
 
Atkinson— 0« a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 271 
 
 KaTaSoXco-x^o-ct ; ahoXitryia was a difficult idea to express]. It is 
 alternated with eusobe in. Mingarelli, p. 116 as, "laughing or 
 
 So it is bad to say n'es-tu pas diaore . . ., pottr savoir ou trouver 
 tant de sagessef For the text has, eksown ton nteinoc nsophia, 
 " whence knowest thou this great wisdom ? Art thou a deacon &o. ?" 
 
 It is not il y a une autre mart qui s'abat sur les idoldtres, for ke 
 ehrai means "is appointed for" [226, lo] ; cf. 246, w ; 252, 4. 
 
 Again [226, 13], aihise eitiso erok means, " I have become tired 
 of sparing thee"; not, fai supports et souffert tes paroles (!) 
 
 And it is wrong to render sij'e m'l/ suis re/usS for the text [226, z} 
 esje mpiarna mmof , which means, 'if I have not denied Him.' 
 
 129. Here again, it is impossible to understand the grammatical 
 system by means of which he has contrived to extract the following 
 translation : Jiisqu' oil persisteras-tu dans tafoUe? Tu mourras en pleine 
 j'eunesse. The sense is correct enough, but it is equally certain that 
 the Editor has no notion whatever of the grammatical relations of the 
 passage! How on earth could sante w sope ekmen ebol mean 
 " how long wilt thou persist ?" He has missed the point, for the text 
 should be punctuated diSerently [228, 5]; sante w ce sope being the 
 expression for the LXX ews ttote, " how long is this to go on ?" cf. 
 Ps. vi. 3 Kol a-v Kvpie eus Trore, ntok de pjoeis sante w sope; 
 Jerem. xiii. 27 Icos rtVos eri, sante w ce sope, i.e. "until what 
 happens?" "What did M. Bouriant take sante to be? A preposition, 
 governing w [! !], "until when"; in fact satnau! Then the 
 remainder of the passage is clear; ekmen ebol hn teimntsoc 
 knamw hn tekmntseresem, " if thou persist in this folly, thou 
 wilt die in thy youth". 
 
 130. And his grammar is bad at [229, 5], where he reads eaf tamie 
 hethnos nim ebol hn wa , lui qui d'un seul {homme) a forme tons les 
 peuples. His text would rather mean, "who has formed all nations 
 out of somehody"; cf. Gen. xiii. 16 esje wn soom n- wa eop mpso 
 mpkah , el SvvaraC Tts. His text should probably be hn w - af , ' out 
 of one flesh', ii ivos atjaaros. His translation would have needed wa 
 n- w6t . 
 
 So again, the grammar is quite wrong [231, 10], jro nteomcom, 
 is assuredly not affermis ta force; for cmcom is not a noun 'force', 
 and te does not mean 'thy'! The words are a representation of 
 Ps. xxvi. 14, avSpi^ov /cat Kparaiova-Oio 17 KapSca (Tov, nte cmcom, 
 'that thou mayst prevail'. 
 
 131. And at [231, 11] we have another Biblical reference, to 
 
272 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 Matth. XX. 3, 6, -which is missed, when he renders : ne reste pas i 
 repos, instead of 'be not idh\ mpfsope erwosf, for wosf is the 
 very word for "idleness", cf. Prov. xxviii. 19, petpet de nsa w6sf 
 fnasei mmntheke . And in the same passage, recevoir la recompense 
 de tes fatigues, is, no version of jekas ere ji mpwbyke mn nefhise, 
 for the last words certainly do not mean " of thy fatigues"; they were 
 intended as a text meaning, ' along with those who labour ', nete . 
 
 132. On the other side, he does not Jcnow at times when he is 
 right ; for what can he the meaning of his [227, y] putting a (?) after 
 his version, alors le Seigneur viendra, son van d la main, nettoyer son 
 aire{f). Of course the Coptic word means aire (Matth. iii. 12) ; the 
 form it appears here under, jnaau, just exemplifies the dialectal 
 use of a for o, common in this MS., jnow being the normal South 
 Coptic, cf. 1 Eeg. xxiii. 1 ; Job v. 26 ; Agg. ii. 19. But he certainly 
 was justified in putting (?) at [227, lo] where tek-rjnau is not so 
 explicable ! 
 
 The text here is: ohs mpasoma . . . auo nghi hn tekf jnau, 
 which he has rendered, moissonne mon corps . . . et hats-le sur ton aire (?) 
 But how does hn come to mean ' upon ' ? That is just about the 
 most improbable meaning that could be assigned to this preposition ! 
 Here it certainly denotes ' instrumentality ' ; [if one were inclined to 
 ^uess the meaning of the feminine word rjnau, it would be to explain 
 it as 'flail', "smite with thy flail". Butthere is no good in guessing:] 
 perhaps an emendation may be suggestive ; certainly the fern, word 
 arcnah, ' oraticula', would come very near to the letters of his text. 
 
 133. Then we have a Biblical passage disfigured beyond recognition 
 in the version of [229, 3], qui ne se trouve pas dans un temple d'idoles et 
 qui ne contraint personne d, I'adorer par V intermidiaire de la force 
 humaine. I doubt whether the most accomplished theologian would 
 be able to divine that this is the form which Acts xvii. 24, 25 has 
 been made to assume ! The Coptic text, wde nf saat nlaau an, 
 means, " he does not need at all" (to be served by men's hands). The 
 verb saat is so commonly used in this sense, 'stand in need of, 
 SeofiaL, evSeiys, va-Tepr]fM, (cf. Job vi. 22 ; xvii. 2 ; Prov. vii. 7 • ix. 4 • 
 xxi. 17; xxviii. 16; Eccl. i. 15 &c.), that I am at a loss to account 
 for the failure to comprehend the word. 
 
 134. The next page contains a curious misconception, at [230, z], 
 where the young virgin martyr in her bold speech cries, si doneje 
 suis capable de faire quelque chose pour mon pays, void mon corps qui 
 retournera, comme il le doit, a la terre &c. The Editor here seems to 
 have been misled by memories of his country's heroine, Joan of Arc 
 
Atkinson— 0« a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 273 
 
 [or Jeanne Bare, as the case may be], "if I can do aught for my 
 country". But the Coptic words, tmaserhob epakah ete pasoma 
 pe, mean " (if) I shall be able to till my soil, that is, my body". 
 The phrase, rhob epkah means 'to cultivate, till land', as the 
 following example will show; Prov. xxviii. 19 o epya^o/ievos t^v 
 kavTov y^v, TrXrifr&riu-erai apTwv, petrhob epefkah fnasei Eoeik. 
 
 It is quite a common conception in this order of writing ; thus the 
 martyr said [178, ii] "here is my body as a field in the hand of a 
 husbandman ; plough [tibi] in it as thou wilt, and reap it [tibi] as it 
 may please thee". 
 
 135. But, as if to make up for not translating by c'est d Aire when 
 he ought to do so, he at times employs it when he ought not, as in 
 the following : " heureux eeux quiieoutent la parole de Dieu", e'est-d-dire 
 la sienne. There is not the slightest justification for such an 
 addition, for the words are, [232, I], naiatw nhwo nnetsotm 
 epsaje mpnwte eteire mmof, which is the Coptic rendering given 
 for Luke xi. 28 iJ.e.vovvye [nhwo] /xaKapiot oi dKovovTei rbv \6yov tov 
 ®fov Koi (jjvXda-o'ovTe's avTov. ^nt e' est-a-dire la sienne (I) 
 
 137. If the word be a somewhat uncommon one, we have no 
 expectation that M. Bouriant will meet the emergency. Thus he 
 says, pourquoi f informer de jowrs dijd ioouUs et trompeit/rs — a phrase 
 which has much more of the savour of Lamartine's style than that of 
 a Coptic homily -writer — where the Coptic has, etbe w ksine nsa 
 hnhow eunasrofref 5se parage [233,4]. Here criticism is at 
 once to hand with the objections, that eunasrofref certainly does 
 wo^mean dejd icoules, and nse parage does not Taewa.trompeurs\ Nor 
 will it mend matters to alternate the meanings; the words mean: "days 
 which will fall like leaves and pass away"; for nseparage is the 
 ' oontinuative ' use of the conjunctive, and the verb srofref may be 
 examined in situ, at Job xiv. 2 ; xv. 30 ; Ps. xxxvi. 2 ; Ixxxix. 6 ; 
 Prov. xi. 14; Isai. Ixiv. 6; Mingarelli, 146, a; 322, a. 
 
 138. Surely it would be nonsense for a blind man to have appealed 
 to the saint in the words which are put into his mouth, si tu as pitii 
 de moi, je suis miserable [!!] The words are, [236, i], ekesanhtek 
 haroi anok peitalaiporos, "thou sJialt have compassion on me, 
 this wretched me ". Where did the hypothetical particle come from ? 
 Did M. Bouriant read eke - san - htek ? 
 
 139. And all the sense is washed out of the words by such a 
 version as, nous ne te laisserons pas I'Egypte qui ne te suffit pas. The 
 words [236, x] wkwn mpenko nak ebol iikeme, auoinpefrose 
 erokmean, "well then, (?tiw«wo^leavetheeEgypt,anditAfl««o^ sufficed 
 
 E.I.A. PEOC, SEE. m., TOI. in. V 
 
274 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 thee". All througt this passage he has ignored the function of the 
 perfect regent mpe . 
 
 140. It is exasperating to see how persistently disobedience to 
 definite grammatical rule is exhibited in this translation! But at 
 times the feeling of wonder predominates ; what other feeling could be 
 roused by such a translation as, tandis que les pauvres restent en dehors 
 gemhlahles d des chiens qui sont d la porte et que Von ne voit pas, when 
 the text has, [237, 13], ere neh^ke how mpekbol eutnton 
 eneuhoor nahrok euhirm pekro ngnanau an. 
 
 Consider the words : — 
 
 ngnanau an et que Von ne wit pas. 
 
 But where is the olject (erow) of nan in that case? For he 
 evidently read it as nau, 'to see.' The words are quite different, 
 ng-na nau an, "thou art not merciful to them"; for nau is the 
 pronoun, and the verb is the preceding word na, 'to be merciful'! 
 
 But there is more to find fault with. For consider the previous 
 clause, "the poor rest outside like dogs that are at the door" ; here 
 the verb is ' rest', and how is that obtained? Why, of course, he will 
 reply, is there not na-hrok? Certainly, the text has nahrok, but 
 it is merely dialectic spelling for nahrak, apud te, ' in thine eyes ' ; • 
 for most assuredly the laws of Coptic structure do not admit of such 
 an arrangement of words as ere neh^ke how mpekbol eut5t6n 
 eneuhoor na-hrok euhirm pro ! 
 
 It is quite impossible; the predicate was mpekbol, being fol- 
 lowed by two subordinate clauses, eu-tnt6n &c., and eu-hirm &e. 
 
 This was the construction : — 
 
 ere neheke how mpekbol, 
 
 eutnton eneuhoor nahrak, 
 euhirm pekro 
 ngna nau an. 
 
 Then the sentence is: "while the poor are outside of thy house, 
 being like dogs in thy sight ; though at thy door thou hast no mercy 
 on them ". 
 
 In the continuation of the discourse much is wrong ; s6wh [238 i"| 
 certainly does not mean se rSunir ; and the paraphrase of [238, 3], 
 mais, me direz-vous, quefaut-il done faire pour fiter le martyr, is certainly 
 not a satisfactory rendering, for the words au6 as pe pkeh6b ajis 
 eroi, ntai an te tcinfsa mpmartyros, mean "and what is 
 even this, tell me, [probably meaning, and even this sin of calum- 
 
Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 275 
 
 niators is nothing to other sins you practise] ; this is not the com- 
 memoration of the martyr". 
 
 141. Again, [238, lo], que sera-ce alofs povr un disciple qui aura 
 versS son sang pour le saint nom. But the text means : if a cup of 
 cold water given in the name of a disciple is rewarded, then evidently 
 any gift to the holy martyr will not fail of reward. It does not 
 mean, if a cup of water is rewarded, then much more the shedding of 
 one's blood ! The words are : " who else is a disciple other than the 
 man who has shed his blood for His holy name?", as pe 
 pkemathetes nsa pentafpoht ebol mpefsnof ejm pefran 
 etwaab; see No. 31. 
 
 142. And at [238, zj, au lieu de vous rendre d {sa chapelle), repente%- 
 vous de vos piches, comme ces hommes impurs qui comme vous se tiennent 
 avec des femmes dihauchies. There is no sense ia that, and the Coptic 
 words are quite wrongly rendered: epma etre tekcinpot eratf 
 sope nhie mmetanea nneknobe . The meaning of the passage is 
 this : " it is no celebration of a martyr's feast-day, to be like that 
 Mnd of impure men who make assignations on the way to church, in- 
 stead of letting thy journey thither become apath of repentance for thy sins" . 
 
 And again, [238, y] vous restez avec elle jusqu^d ee que vous soye% 
 pris pow elle de desirs mawvais is certainly not what the homijist 
 meant to convey by his words: ngsmn tootk nmmas santekcn 
 nekpathos ethow nmmas, " so that thou covenant with her tiU 
 thou gratify thy evil passions with her". 
 
 143. And immediately after he distorts the meaning : comme ces hom- 
 mes impurs qui se tiennent avee des femmes delaucMes ; quelle fete en effet 
 et de quel martyr que celle dont lejour est venu ! " Yiens d moi des avant 
 le soir ; je viendrai Id et nous irons coucher dans tel lieu". But the words 
 mean, "they covenant with iropvai, saying, ' lo, such and such a feast 
 of such and such a martyr has drawn near ; come to me at eventide ; 
 see, I shall go there that I may sleep in such and such a place'." 
 
 Here is the text [239, 2] :— 
 
 eis as nsa nte as mmartyros afhon ehwn, ame nai 
 njin harwhe, eishe^te tinapot mmau ntankotk hn as mm a. 
 
 What could be the meaning of the ejaculation in his version, qv:elle 
 fite &c. And why se tiennent avec, as a rendering of smn tootw 
 mn? And why le jour est venu for afh6n ehwn? And why dh 
 avant le soir, for njin ha-rwhe [of. North Coptic hanameri, 
 hanarwhi, hanatowi: see Schwa/rt%e, Matth. xx. 1, and his refe- 
 rences ; the North Coptic spelling with hori, not hai is significant 
 
276 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 enough.] ? And wty je viendrai for tinapot ? And why nous 
 irons couoher for 5ta-5kotk, which he must absolutely have read 
 ntan-kotk 1 pi., and then rendered as & future ! 
 
 144. Here again is a sentence in which the real meaning of the 
 writer is distorted by the translator's endeavour to round off his 
 period before he had sufficiently considered the grammatical struc- 
 ture : "J/o» iisir est de vous parler asses sur ce sujet, mais je crois 
 que la mesure est suffisante pour chacun et que le poids suffit pour chaque 
 chose". 
 
 That seems nicely balanced : the two final clauses are co-ordinate 
 and identical, then ? Do they represent a general, abstract proposition, 
 or do they refer to the particular concrete case ? 
 
 The Coptic text is misrepresented [239, x] : neiwos men pe eje 
 prose nets etbe nai, alia timeeue je a psi sope nsa sa nim, 
 auo wsi petsoop hn hob nim. The translator has completely 
 ignored the distinction between the perfect a . . . sope, and the 
 present etsoop: "I wanted indeed to say 'the sufficient' to you 
 about these things, but I think that the measure has talcen place on 
 every side [= is completely filled up], and further a measure does exist 
 in everything". 
 
 145. His text at [239, 8] is quite wrong: me mn tetnei mmau 
 ewom, which should be me mntetn ei, 'have ye not a house &c.'; 
 and his translation of both tense and preposition is wrong on the next 
 line, ne cherchez pas un lieu pour V accomplissement de vos disirs pervers 
 dans la sainte chapelle du saint; for the Coptic has mpekcn, and 
 nsa, " thou hast not found a place .... except the martyr's chapel" ; 
 nor is dit en d^autres circonstances a correct rendering of afjoos 
 nhenkowe, "he said it to other persons" ; nor do the words of 
 240, 2 refer to a banquet better than any previous banquet, as would 
 be inferred from his version, tel que nous ne nous sommes jamais rassasiis 
 a un pareil festin, but to a banquet, at which the viands are so excel- 
 lent that we have not yet got satiated therewith, tai te the ete 
 mpensi sa tenw; see ITo. 13. 
 
 146. And the next clause is a complete misconception, pwr Id 
 j'entends les Mens que tu as regus pour le Christ et que j'abandonne d 
 
 regret. This latter clause is quite unmeaning, and bears no relation 
 to the Coptic words, [240,2] esaimeeue ebol etbe nentaksopw 
 etbe peXS, iaifhba taka toot ebol, "when I think on aU 
 that thou hast suffered for Christ, I am perplexed and have to give 
 up (the calculation) ". If M. Bouriant should object that the sop-w 
 refers to the feasts the martyr has received, still rhba is not rightly 
 
Atkinson — On a South- Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 277 
 
 rendered ; for wlieii the LXX describes Jacob's agitation at the prospect 
 of encountering Esau, e^o/J^flj? Se IokmjS cr<ji6Spa, /cat ^iropetTo, 
 Gren. xxxii. 7, the Coptic gives precisely this word aferhba to express 
 
 ■^TTOpeiTO. 
 
 The meaning «w»^MS, eoaetus, found in Parthey for hba, is based 
 on Mingarelli's guess, p. 236, who adds in his note: Nam y^^i. 
 memphitis est viohntia, vis. But the South-Coptic word has nothing 
 to do with khba, which becomes kba, of course. The speculation, 
 therefore, invitus, coactus, must fall ; and in fact it was quite out of 
 place, for the passage in Mingarelli is petmmau de afwahf 5s6f 
 efo nhba eflypei je w petnas6pe, 'he followed him, in per- 
 plexity and grief, as to what would happen.' 
 
 147. On the same page he has rendered mpekwes tmntrmmao 
 [240, ii] hj tu ne t'es pas prosterni devant la richesse, showing that 
 he did not understand his own text : it is "thou didst not love riches", 
 wes ; whereas he translates as if he read west, 'to pay worship to', 
 which could not be so used. 
 
 148. How could the Coptic writer have brought himself to indite 
 so unorthodox a proposition as this which M. Bouriant has credited 
 him with ? quel saint parmi les saints, si je te compare d, lui, n'est 
 a. o6te de toi miprisable] Of course each community preferred its 
 own particular saint, whose biography naturally was the letterpress 
 description of the museum-relics preserved by each monastery, but 
 they were not wont to speak of the character of a rival saint as being 
 meprisahle ! And as a matter of fact, it is not said so here, for the 
 text has, [241,6] nim hn netwaab petmatntong erof ngtmsos 
 nmmaf, where the root sos, '■ to 'be equal' , is not to be confounded 
 with SOS, 'reproach, contumely', for the sos which does mean 
 ' reproach &o.' is a JSforth Coptic root ! The writer only meant to say 
 that Ms saint was as good as any other. 
 
 [An instructive example occurs at Levit. xxvi. 24, where the 
 expression^v/AWTrXayiMof the LXX is rendered by hnwthemos auo 
 hn w-s6s an, 'not on a level, equal, straight &c.' and so = irXayiai.] 
 
 149. And M. Bouriant does not hold the balance fairly in the 
 discussion between the respective merits of the saints and martyrs ; 
 for he states the case as follows : no doubt the saints are good, but 
 the martyrs are better, mais les martyrs awront le coeur et I'dme/ermes, 
 eux quipourront dire, ' Seigneur, tu as verse ton sang pour nous, mais 
 nous aussi nous avons versi le ndtre pour toi'. That reads very per- 
 suasively, but it is quite wrong ! 
 
 The text urges just the opposite side : it is not the martyrs but 
 
278 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 the saints who are urged to be of good cheer, even though they cannot 
 say, 'we have shed our blood &c.', for the words are [241, x], kan 
 esje meu-s-iaje hn wparresia; for, it is subsequently added, 
 God has taken care that the martyrs are not to take precedency of 
 everybody in heaven. 
 
 150. The last page of this Homily is deformed by errors in the 
 concluding lines. Ainsi le Dieu de I' Univers .... nous a rendus 
 dignes d'etre reunis dans ce saint lieu aujourd'hui pour la, commemoration 
 du . . . . martyr A. Victor; qu\l Mnisse notre reunion. But that 
 does not express the text, which says, " as he hath made us worthy 
 to gather here to-day, .... so he will bless every reunion of us &c." 
 
 And finally, whatever fitness there might be in a religieux of the 
 time of Louis XIV. adding a prayer for the political welfare of le 
 Grand Monarque, there does not seem the slightest appropriateness 
 here in a valedictory peroration like this : — 
 
 quHl Mnisse notre reunion, qu'il garde notre roi ami de Dieu afin 
 qu'il accomplisse sa carriere sans trouble ni emeute, qu\ls nous henisse 
 tous, petits ou grands &c. 
 
 I rather think that their " God-loving king" was not a political 
 one, for the prayer is : " that he may complete his narration without 
 any confusion or trouble"! nfjek tefdiekesis [= Si'^yrja-Ls'] ebol 
 ajn laau nstortr hi tarakhe. 
 
 [ III. ] 
 
 The subsequent portion of Coptic text given in this Fasciculus 
 (pp. 243-265) is another IHoge on the same martyr, St. Victor. It is 
 not necessary to go in detail through this second article. 
 
 But indeed it is throughout of a piece with the previous portion : 
 in the space of its 22 pages, I have noted upwards of 100 errors. 
 Many of these are of course trivial, and involve no grave misunder- 
 standing in situ, because the general sense secures tbe passage from 
 the calamities which would result from the legitimate process of 
 translation ; but in order to work this oracle properly, a translator 
 must have come to terms with the sibyl, and secured a knowledge of 
 the drift of the clause before attempting its grammatical analysis ! 
 But this is not always possible. 
 
 I have not- space to set forth everything : my aim in this paper is 
 to urge on Coptic students the necessity of learning the grammar 
 before venturiag into the dangerous post of editor. Errors will occur 
 
Atkinson — On a 8outh-0optic Text of M. Bouriant. 279 
 
 in the very test work. But the work I have here criticised is not the 
 best : it is not even good. 
 
 Even in the Greek words there is an extraordinary want of 
 critical treatment shown hy M. Bouriant. Cf. e. gr. his rendering 
 of irpcDToairoXoyia [248,7], <^^* la premiere parole ; [246, 3] thyr6n , 
 des insignes, but it is Ovpeov, ' shield', of. Ps. xlv. 10 ; what is KOiXa- 
 jcevc [249,9]? ^ow does iTTiOvnii. [251, i] become 'choleric'? or 
 what is a^oTO's [258, z] ? 
 
 And why render [245, 4], les armes pirusables de ce monde, when 
 the text has nhnhnaau nte peikosmos, i.e. 'vessels of this world'; 
 for the word does not mean ' arms, weapons,' it means vessel, vase, 
 howl, hashet, ayyos, dyyeiov, Kparrjp, <tk£i)os ; cf . 2 Reg. xvii. 28 ; Prov. 
 ix. 23; Ps. XXX. 13; Jerem.xiv. 3; Amos viii. 1 ; generally 'implement.' 
 To make it mean ' weapons,' it would have to be determined by some 
 following word; e.ffr. hnaau n-ka sote is ' an implement for keep- 
 ing arrows,' a quiver, (Ps. x. 3; Job xxx. 11; Ezek. xxvii. 11), just as 
 hnaau n-shai, 'implement for writing,' is used for ypacjitg, Ezek. 
 xxiii. 14. Just so hnaau mmise may be used for 'fighting imple- 
 ments'; but the Greek word ottXov is regularly itself used in both 
 South and North Coptic; cf. Ps. v. 13; xxxiv. 2; xlv. 10; Ivi. 5; 
 xc. 4 ; Ezek. xxxii. 27. Then m the Coptic, why edit solp [246, 3], 
 "qui nous attend", when it is plainly Eom. viii. 18, and should be 
 ■colp ? why translate wi-ongly [246, 7], instead of " so that I do not 
 find thee equal to him" ? what is [246, y] ji sojp e, in a passage 
 obviously from Hebr. xi. 7 (KareVpive, ji sojne?)? and the last hue, 
 which means : " it was testified, ' I have not found &c."' ? why render 
 nhboos, pour te eacher [249, 8], when it is plainly only hboos, 
 ' garment ', (the previous x^«M^s (^io) being perhaps only a mistake 
 for lakm) ? why omit " (cannot take it) from him", [249, 12]? 
 why edit mn twepe for mntw epe [260,5]? ^^^ '^^7 <"** ^^^ 
 samees, for t\B future [247, 6] ? why ignore the particle j e [254, 10], 
 "in heaven they call his name viz. The Greatest" ? what is tinasent 
 [266, s]? why glide over c6, " J« still that I may see them", 
 [266, 14] ? why omit ntaka as [268, 10]? why ignore naa [258, 3] ; 
 [259, 10]? or why edit wrongly [258, 12J mpe woeis, for it is 
 m-pe-woeis? what is ntafei ntho [260, i] ? and what is wam- 
 ame [260, 5] ? &c. &c. 
 
 "Words of a quite definite meaning are tortured or twisted into 
 something quite foreign to their real drift. Thus he takes the 
 common preposition nwes n, which simply means ' without ', and 
 makes of it a compound of the verb wos 'to desire', to which he 
 
280 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 prefixes a perfectly inexplicable sans\ Thus he translates [249, 3] 
 Daniel a passe 25 jours dans la fosse aux lions sans desirer manger ni 
 loire. Where did he learn that Danieljdid not desire to eat or drink 
 during that period ? But he evidently thinks that is the analysis of 
 the word, for he repeats it immediately below, sans vouloir manger ni 
 hoire ! 
 
 He does this even with the simplest words. Thus [252, z] he 
 has ta tete a He coupde, where there was no decapitation at all, 
 euhook mmok, meaning' merely, zvhile torturing {ser aping thee) I 
 And what has possessed him to give such a turn to the phrase as he 
 has done in (twice) rendering tpolis mpmerit, la ville d'amour^ 
 St. Victor had been exalted to "the city of The Beloved", [253, i ; 
 254, 7]. And what is gained by describing Victor as ceint d'une epee 
 d'or, when the text [256, iz] has majh, dialectic for mojh, 
 " girdle " ? Neither is there any advantage in rendering saje erok, 
 a toi que je parte [252, 11 J, instead of, "while I am speaking con- 
 cerning thee". And [253, 13] it leur acoorde la guerison, et s'ils se 
 rendent a sa chapelle, lew cceur trouve le repos, is the version given of 
 the text: nsebok epeuei ere peuhet matn; but these words 
 mean, " so that they go to their house, with their heart light ". 
 
 And agaiu, cf. [258,6] tesomnt mmahe, iu the sentence which 
 he has rendered il saisit le magon a trois coudSes du sol. The mason 
 had fallen from the wall, but St. Victor suddenly appeared, and held 
 him up, mpatefpoh epkah sa tesomnt mmahe, "before he 
 had gone to the ground except [= more than] three cubits ". According 
 to his text, te- would be the article before mahe, which is masc, as 
 his own text somnt shows, or he may cf. Deut. iii. IP; Ezek. xl. 
 1, 9. It was the prep., sate (somnt mmahe); but how did he 
 come to the meaning a trois eoudees du sol? 
 
 Once more, [258, x] mais sije ne puis les redire tous . . . . du mains 
 fen conterai quelques-uns dontfai ete temoin. The last words are quite 
 impossible: tinataue henkwi ntaho eroi; here too, the verb 
 taho, 'to overtake,' must have flitted before him, but lam absolutely 
 incapable of guessing how he proposed to handle it. The words meant, 
 "so that I may content myself", nta-ho eroi; cf. Eccl. v. 9 nim 
 pentaf-ho erof, tis ^^yairr/o-ev ; Gen. xxxiii. 13 ho eroi, " it suf- 
 fices for me ": cf. his own text 263, lo. 
 
 The next section has some strange misconceptions. The translator 
 begins thus : 11 y aniait, dans cette ville, un homme de qualite qui n^avait 
 pense pendant toute sa vie qu'd hoire et a manger. On looking to see 
 the Coptic for un homme de qualite qui n'amait pensi, we find [258, z] 
 
Atkinson— Ow a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 281 
 
 pai de ne w-axotos pe nreftiswmbwle ; and the desire grows- 
 strong to discover the precise relations between text and translation ! 
 Wiat was the word axotos? There is no Greek word corresponding 
 to that, and there is just as little critical handling ol swmbwle . 
 Ajiyhow this is what we have to discuss : 
 
 w-a|oTos tm liomnie de qualite 
 
 5 refti-(roii|ji.pov\i) qui n'mait pense &c. 
 
 Now, I do not think any Greek scholar will be able to tolerate 
 such a version of Greek vocables ; but it is still less tolerable considered 
 in the light of Coptic structure! Tor the word refti s. can only 
 mean " a man who gives a-viJi,fiovXy", and if it were so taken, it might 
 have to mean, that this person was one who used to give advice at his 
 meals ! The version pense is qiiite out of the question : it was (Tvft.lioX.ri, 
 " a man who gives a-vfi^oXas ". But what about the aforos ? It was 
 probably only acreoTos, ' a profligate ' ; but I shall be willing to accept 
 any better emendation. 
 
 Then [259, 8] we get a quotation which is not satisfactory, toute 
 imprudence irriflechie est en aiomination a Dieu. The Coptic has : 
 tbote mpnwte pe jar bal nim natsbo, where there is certainly 
 no reference to imprudence. For the jar bal was a person who 
 stiffened his eye, the passage being simply a memory quotation from 
 Prov. xxvii. 20, a-TrjpL^wv 6(fi6aX/x.6v. The words mean, "the abomi- 
 nation of the Lord is every stiff-eyed person, [and] the iadooile who do 
 not restrain their tongue ". But here is the version presented : car il 
 est e'crit, " Toute imprudence irreflechie est en abomination i, Dieu ", 
 a propos de eeux qui ne savent retenir leur langue. But the Coptic text 
 is wrong; for the LXX has koX, auo natsbo ete meu-a., "the 
 stiff-eyed and the indocile who do not &c." 
 
 Nor does there seem to be any good in renderiag il eM Hi ineapable 
 de distinguer, for the words ns-wonh ebol an mean, "it does not 
 appear", [262,4]. 
 
 I rather think that some very instructive criticism is possible on 
 such a line as he presents at [263, i], 
 
 tinawaje hm pitak mpat"Io. 
 
 Here he renders : si tu veux queje te guSrisse, j'e perce cette masse (?) 
 avant de te guerir. He saw that this was unmeaning ; hence his (?). 
 Whence came masse ? The dictionary gave it, not under tak, but under 
 tac! Then whence has he je perce, for tina-waje? For as the 
 verb must have an object, or be passive, it is clear that waje must 
 
282 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 include the object, and tterefore that the object is the 2 sg. fem. : " I 
 will eut thee with this raior." The implement -was expressed in hm 
 pei-tak ; tak beiag merely dialectic for tok , " a razor ", Ps. li. 4 ; 
 Ezek. V. 1. 
 
 So, too, Coptic scholars might also bestow a little thought on the 
 words just below, hnse mmehtop, rendered les dents dPun peigne. 
 
 Then also the final words [260,4] migM be deemed worthy of 
 a note: o nah, si mmof hm prase, which are rendered: Vie\ 
 rassasii%-h de lajoie &c. 
 
 Undoubtedly the worst feature of this kind of editing is that one 
 loses the sense of trust in the data furnished : is the text correctly 
 given, and is the rendering legitimately attained, become very serious 
 questions when the words are not common words. How indeed can 
 one trust the treatment of uncommon words, when the common words 
 are treated as follows ? 
 
 Cf . the translation of [260, 1 2] (il) vint le visiter sur sapriere ; where 
 is s«r sapriere? for the words are af-ei sarof ecmpefsine, "he 
 came to him to visit him ", with not a hint of sur sa priere ! How 
 did he come by it ? thus : — 
 
 eciii = ^m = upon 
 pef-sine = his prayer [! !] 
 
 But the words mean simply e-cm, "to find, get", pef-sine, 
 "his visiting "- 
 
 Orel [258,13]: 
 
 nim g^ap nru men tahe peto nbikanos &c. 
 
 This he renders, quel homme se recontrera qui sera capable &c., which 
 we may iatuit better as follows : 
 
 nim Bro quel homme 
 
 •nen (not rendered, niv) 
 
 tahe ae rencontrera. 
 
 Everything is wrong : it should be 
 
 nim nrome what man 
 
 nta-he 
 
 like me [can ^c] 
 
 It was the expression n-ta-he, ' of my kind,' that he failed to 
 understand; then ro, 'mouth', was paraphrased into 'man', and 
 the particle /aeV was edited — and igaored. 
 
 The Old Testament story does not warrant anything like the 
 
Atkinson— Om a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 283 
 
 following statement, Isaac regut de son propre p^re I'ordre de s'ofrir en 
 viotime d Dieu ; tte Coptic text simply says that Isaac's own father 
 took him, to sacrifice him, pefeiot mmin mmaf pentafbitf je 
 efnatalaf ehrai, 247, 13. 
 
 And the Ifew Testament is equally unheeded, when he renders, 
 6 artisan qui rCas point eu d te repentir de Idbov/rer la vigne de ton 
 Seignew, et qui de ton corps as fait un champ pur powr le Seignev/r 
 ton Dieu ; for it will hardly be maiatained that qui n'as point eu d te 
 repentir is a good version of ete mef ji sipe, [248, 8], 'who is not 
 wont to be ashamed'', the ipyaTrjv avsTraia-xwrov of Tim. ii. 15. But 
 the phrasing is quite wrong, for he has made two independent clauses : 
 {a) V. has not had to repent of tilling God's vineyard ; 
 (J) he has made of his body a pure field ; 
 whereas the Coptic is careful to weld together these two clauses by 
 its admirable particles : efcre mpma neloole mpefjoeis, ete 
 pefsoma pe, ntafaaf Siohe ntatharos mpjoeis pefnwte, of 
 the epyarijs, "who by digging up the vineyard of the Lord, i.e. his 
 body, has made it a pure field &c." ; cf. No. [134]. 
 
 Finally here are three instructive examples : — 
 
 At [249, 7] efsasm does not mean expose d la chalewr, but 'worn 
 out, wearied ', cf . 2 Eeg. xvii. 29 ; Ps. Ixxxix. 7 ; Ezek. xxiii. 32 ; 
 Jonah ii. 8 &c. He plainly does not realize the force of this word, 
 for at [251, 11], he renders, absurdly, Saint Victor est mort effami, 
 altire, hriili de disirs [!]. Surely it was no merit on the part of a 
 saint to die hr&U de disirs ! ! 
 
 And to render hnkowe nref skoptei, at [250, y] by les autret 
 sont mefiants is to exhibit a very unsteady hold of the realities of the 
 Greek language, for a-Kioirreiv means ' to jeer ', and the Copt was 
 referring to ' jeerers ', and not to ' mistrustful ', ' suspicious ' persons. 
 Did M. Bouriant take it to be the verb <r/ce7rToyu.at ? Why, then his 
 translation is still equally uncritical ; for the Greek word does not 
 involve the idea of ' sinful distrust ' ! 
 
 This same list of sinful persons is taken by M. Bouriant to 
 include a set of men described generically in these terms : les -autres 
 violent les his, which I am again constrained to indict as an act of 
 high treason against Coptic lexicography, because neither are laws 
 mentioned, nor is their violation -ceierredi to, in the phrase, nrefpeene 
 tos ebol, at [251,5]! It means, "men who remove landma/rlcs"- 
 Perhaps a quotation will clinch the matter : Prov. xxii. 28 mpf peene 
 ntos ebol sa eneh nta nekeiote smntw, jn^ fi.iTai.pc opia almia 
 &. eOeVTO ot Trarepes (tov. 
 
284 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
 
 It is not too much, to say that the most hopeful prospect of pene- 
 trating into the mysteries enshrined in the older stage of a forgotten 
 language, which has left a lineal descendant with a grammar and 
 vocabulary at our disposal, lies in the thorough study of this modern 
 form. It may be that the Book of the Dead will never be made 
 intelligible, that Old-Egyptian grammar in its totality will never be 
 brought within the sphere of modern science ; but at any rate the 
 piinial condition of effective efiort towards a successful solution of the 
 problem is the absolute mastery of the Coptic language, " the tongue 
 of the folk of Egypt". 
 
 But to attain this, attention will have to be paid to the words of 
 the masters : Coptic Grammar is not now a matter of personal specu- 
 lation, but of formulated statement.