« VorigeDoorgaan »
indices sous la XXIe dynastie, est allé en se multipliant jusqu'à l'époque romaine; et si Bocchoris proclama, entre temps, la liberté des contrats et protégea la propriété individuelle, c'est, comme le laisse supposer notre stèle, qu'il ne créa pas un droit nouveau, mais qu'il se contenta de codifier un usage précédemment établi.
DIOSCORUS AND SHENOUTE,
In the year 1916 M. Henri Munier in his volume of Manuscrits Coptes (Cat. gen. des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire) published under no 9285 two leaves of vellum from Achmim. The second leaf has no connection in the subject it treats of with the first leaf , and it is with the latter only that I am concerned here (1). That leaf, numbered ob-or, is part of a volume which it is safe to say was originally written at and belonged to the famous White Monastery which lay on the West side of the Nile, a few miles from the river and from the city of Panopolis (the modern Achmim, known to the Copts as Shmin) which was situated on the opposite bank. The volume seems to have contained the correspondence of Shenoute, the abbot of that house for a period of some sixty or more years till his death about A. D. 451, with the Archbishops of Alexandria. These letters were collected and arranged no doubt soon after his death by one of his followers. The volume of which these few stray leaves have survived was written in the vith or vnith century, say, about A.D. 700. The style of the writing can be judged from the plate here published, and, as M. Munier remarks, it is very similar to that of pl. V in the Album de Paléographie copte of M. le Prof. Hyvernat. For the date we have lo depend mainly on the hand of the headings. The hand of the text with its square forms is evidently a traditional
(1) The second Cairo leaf is really the first and was conjunct with its fellow in the same Museum. It immediately preceded my first leaf, and therefore its pagination, now lost, was ž6-31.
hand copied from an earlier period, and we must not be misled by it into attributing a too early date to the manuscript. The round forms of A, M, Y and particularly the
a Y laterally compressed € and o point to a date in my opinion not earlier than the eighth century. There are a few accents on Greek names and words by the original scribe; three is no sign of
any corrector. Among some manuscripts acquired by Prof. Hyvernat in Egypt a few years ago, which are certainly derived ultimately from the White Monastery and are now in my possession, are two pairs of conjunct vellum leaves from the same volume as the Cairo leaves. That this is so is proved by the fact that the text fits exactly and by the correspondence of the pagination as well as the size of the page and column. These pages measure in height 245 mm. by 200 mm. in width; the text is in two columns and the written space covers 165 mm. by 134 mm.; they are numbered consecutively A to oa, each
page having a separate number. They are therefore the interior leaves of a quire; none of them bear any quire-numbers, so we may assume that the quires consisted of four or more pairs of leaves, probably gatherings of six, to judge from the page-numbers. Pages 614, 65 contain the end of a fragmentary document, probably by Shenoute. The text dealt with here covers pages 66-71, the text in Cairo covers pages 72-73. It is unnecessary to reprint the latter, but a translation of the whole is given. It is unfortunate that the second document is still incomplete.
The whole text consists of a letter addressed to Shenoute by Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria, enclosing a second document. The original language employed was Greek and, as the contents show, was translated into Coptic either by Shenonte himself or under his immediate direction. Dioscorus succeeded Cyril in 4/4 and was deposed by the Council of Chalcedon in October 451 : the date of our documents lies therefore within the limits of these few years, and belongs perhaps more likely to the earlier part before the violent controversies and struggles
which began at Ephesus in 4/1g and ended at Chalcedon.
The letter of Dioscorus relates to a priest named Helias who had been condemned and degraded from the priesthood for heresy mainly on the worn-out subject of Origen - a question hotly debated at the beginning of the century, but soon to disappear in the far more burning questions associated with the names of Nestorius and Eutyches. Nothing more is known, I believe, of Helias. of the bishops addressed in the Hypomnesticon little is known. Though M. Munier casts some doubt on the identification of Sabinus with the recorded Bishop of Shmin of that name (1), who was present at the Council of Ephesus in 431, some fifteen years or so before the date of this letter, still the name is not a common one in Egypt, and the fact that the trouble arose in this diocese makes the identification a very likely one, as it seems to me. It is true that the bishop of Shmin is referred to in the third person as if he were distinct from the three persons to whom it is addressed; but as it is not a private communication, but is really addressed to the public to whom it is to be read out in Church, this is not a serious objection. Gennadius is no doubt, as M. Munier says,
the bishop of Hermopolis magna, who is known to have been present with Dioscorus at the latrocinium of Ephesus in 449 (2). In 431 one Andreas had been bishop of Hermopolis.
As to Hermogenes we can only guess that he is the same as a rather well-known bishop of that name who held the see of Rhinocorura on the borders of Egypt and Palestine, who is mentioned by Pope Sixtus III (4321140) (3) and was held in high esteem by Isidore of Pelusium. He was present at Ephesus in 431, but would seem to have died before 449 when we find his sce represented at Ephesus by Zeno (4). No bishop of Panopolis or Hermo
(1) Mansi, IV, 1128; KRAAtz, Texte u. Unters, XXVI, 65.
(9) Mansi, VI, 924. There is bishop Gennadius named in a fragment al Turin (Rossi I, II, 7'), but it is impossible to say whether it is the same.
(1) Dict. Christ. Biogr., III, 4. (1) Mansi, VI, 926.
polis magna seems to haße been present there, nor was any of the three bishoprics represented at Chalcedon in 451. Panopolis was, of course, in the Thebaid, which at this time was divided into an upper and lower province, at any rate for administrative and military purposes (1). The civil government however was very feeble in Egypt in comparison with the Church during the reign of the second Theodosius (408-450). There were probably about 20 to 25 bishoprics in the Thebais at this time, but we have no complete list.
The monastery at Shmin called the Parembole seems not to be mentioned elsewhere. It must have taken its name from some fortified camp or enclosure of an earlier date. But though there was a xáotpov near the city where Nestorius died and which von Lemm (2) has identified with nceNBA.X.€ (s), there is probably no connection between them, as Nestorius, who died within three or four years of this letter, was more likely guarded by soldiers in a military fort than allowed to live in a monastery, even if the monks would have tolerated his
(36) NAЇNє нєпистолооүє мАрхієскопос (sic) PAKOTE EntA4c2aïcoy: Mneneiwr' axo'. Ayw naïne NEYANTirpapon ENTAYC2Aïcoy NAY nici NIENEIWT ETOYAAB :
Доскорос п€тселі псіNoүөioc ПРЄсвүTepoc NWT'ÑMONAXOc namepitayw etoyAWG 2Mnxoeic
XAIPE ANEMAINOY MniKwa' Ernanoyu' MYENOAHCIOC nenPECBYTEPOC
MIMMOnaxoC ETUIMMAY ' eayt rap21wOy Mne10 OYPWN THUCTIC' Ayw NETMOCTE MONOyre
AYMECTWOY' Ayonu eyaaay et oyBEZENXAXE•
(1) M. Gelzer, Stud. zur byz. Verwaltung Aegyptens, p. 10; Wilcken, Papyruskunde, I, 75.
(?) Kl. Kopt. Stud., No. V.