Note: this is the "personal" version, which was published
slightly modified.
ORLANDI - COPTIC LITERATURE
0. PREFACE.
A convenient handbook of Coptic literature does not
exist. Among the sketches or preliminary essays for such a
work, four seem the most important or at least useful. Two
of them are part of a book; two are articles of
Encyclopaedias.
J. Leipoldt has tried to present a real history,
setting in chronological succession the most important
phaenomena within the literature in Coptic. Much of what he
wrote is still valid, or worth to be discussed; but as the
documents at his disposal were insufficient (some important
discoveries of manuscripts: Edfu, Hamuli, Medinet Madi, Nag
Hammadi, Bodmer, happened later) his overall view needs many
changements.
I myself, still at the beginning of my work, chose at
the time the way of compromise, assuming as parameters the
authors and titles given by the manuscripts, and ordering
the material in chronological order as if those parameters
were valid. Therefore the documentation assembled is useful,
but historical assessments were to be done.
***RICORDARE I SEGUENTI ARTICOLI: VET.CHR FUTURE
O'Leary and Krause in their articles give useful lists
of the Coptic literary texts, necessarily avoiding every
advanced study in the chronological and historical problems.
Of course the article of Krause is now preferable, being up
to date under many points of view (not only the
documentation).
Is it possible to try and give a true history of the
Coptic literature? Somebody may think that it is still
early, because much material has been not yet properly
evaluated, other still unknown, in any case too many general
problems are not solved, preventing the production of a well
founded history.
But, as we have conceived some ideas of our own about
the development of the Coptic literature, which can be at
least the base of proficient discussion, we have decided to
describe the history of the Coptic literature as we see it,
calling the due attention of colleagues to the fact that any
of our opinions must be taken cautiously, as a suggestion of
problems rather than as a firm statement.
1. THE BEGINNINGS.
1.1. The "Old Coptic" Magical Texts.
We shall tentatively put the initial stage of the
Coptic literature in the period from the 1st century B.C. to
the 3rd century A.C., in which we find the first extensive
"experiments" to use late Egyptian language in Greeb trans-
cription, followed by the first examples of literary Coptic
texts. It seems convenient to propose the available documen-
tation with some observations, beginning from the so-called
"Old-Coptic texts".
This group of texts is often referred to as a unit (and
we keep this opinion for practical purposes) mainly because
they do not originate from the Christian church, unlike the
totality of the other Coptic texts. In fact, they vary both
in time and in character.
The oldest one seems to have been written in the I
cent. C.E.; the others reach until the IV-V cent. Some of
them use more "demotic" signs than the normal Coptic; some
of them use exclusively the Greeb signs.
These texts testify to "the rise and the developmentof
essays, others than the "normal" Coptic ones, to produce
grafic systems, used for texts where ancient linguistic
forms are still preferred to the "true" Coptic ones" (KASSEÒ
Origines 17).
Are they real literature? This is doubtful, given their
character, which is generally magic. Never the less, the
groups who produced these texts may have had some influence
on the beginning of the Coptic literature.
1.2. Translations of the Bible.
*** KASSER MINK PLUMLEY (in Metzger)
We would recognize three stages in the activity of the
Coptic translators of the Bible. During the first one
(dating probably from the II to the early IV century A.C.)
the translators worked rather individually, in different
dialects and with different methods. During the second one
(dating during the IV and V centuries) the canonization and
standardization of the Sahidic translation was worked out;
this will be mentioned below, in the chapter on the transla-
tions of the "classical period". Later on, there was also
the standardization of the Boahiric translation, probably
around the IØ century.
We deal now with the first period, for which we have
many interesting attestations in ancient codices or frag-
ments from the IV and V centuries.
It should be said at once that as yet we have no de-
tailed and reliable study of the Coptic biblical transla-
tions as a whole, or even for the whole Old or New Testament
separately. The more ancient studies could not distinguish
among the different stages of the translation work, because
of lacb of documentation; therefore they tended to attribute
the same characters to different texts. Recently the studies
were devoted rather to individual manuscripts.
In any case, the critical studies on the biblical
translations seem to have swung between the linguistic and
the philological investigation, without achieving a
comprehensive approach. The linguistic investigation tends
to solve the problems in the frame of the Coptic text; the
philological one in the frame of the relations between the
Coptic text (taken as unitarian) and the Greeb text in its
different families.
The worb to be done at present seems to be that of
taking into consideration each manuscript and testing it
through a consistent set of problems, and then to compare
the results in order to reach general conclusions. Nobody
can at present forecast those results; but we should stress
the necessity to take into account many different
possibilities without taking anything for granted.
In fact, a translation may have been conceived and
executed by a single translator or a small group of trans-
lators, sometimes even for individual use. Otherwise, it may
be produced on the basis of one or more preexistent texts,
in the same or in different dialects. In this case, it also
may have been revised upon a Greeb text, the same as, or
different from, those of the previous translations.
Translations may also have been revised simply to
ameliorate the Coptic form, or also to make it more correct
in comparison with a Greeb text which seemed better.
Of course all these problems are very difficult to
solve, also because it is difficult to state exactly which
Greeb word or sentence was meant to be translated. But it is
not excluded that a deep investigation may in the future be
successful.
All this makes it very difficult, but we thinb not
impossible, the solution of the greatest problems relating
to the Biblical translations. They may be thus listed:
1. Chronology. (a) Date of the translations. (b) Dialectal
priority. (c) Relation between "official" and "private"
translations.
2. Relations with the Greeb manuscript tradition. (a)
Reconstruction of the Greeb model. (b) Insertion of the
Coptic in one the Greeb families.
1.3. Gnosticizing Translations.
Without any prejudice for the general conclusions that
can be drawn from the documents, it is possible to treat
separately the group of texts found near Nag Hammadi, and
the related documents in the previously known codices
Askewianus, Brucianus and Berolinensis Gnosticus.
Though only a part (perhaps a minor part) of the texts
comprised in those manuscripts are of evident Gnostic
character, their existence (and other witnesses) is proof of
the activity of Gnostic or gnosticising circles in Egypt
utilizing the Coptic language, and probably producing their
own translations independently from the activity of the
"catholic church". Part of this production may be also some
purely "christian" texts, transmitted together with the
"gnostic" ones.
In our opinion, a history of the literature should not
be directly involved in the theological, spiritual or
philosophical problems raised by such texts. Also the formal
problems (literary genre, style) are not relevant here,
because the texts are not original. I think that what
really matters is the milieu in which the translations were
produced, because this can shed some light on the beginning
of the Coptic literature.
After much has been written on the subject, (*** MARTIN
recentemente; v. poi COPTIC BIBLIOGRAPHY) the recent
important boob of C.H. ROBERTS shows as untenable the
hypothesis that the Egyptian Church was gnostic in character
during its first three centuries, and that the Coptic
literature was at the beginning the product of the Gnostics,
who "anticipated the Catholics in their appeal to the native
Egyptians." On the contrary, it appears that there were more
centers of productions, so that Gnostic centers worked
concurrently with Catholic or "orthodox" centers.
On the other hand, the reconstruction of a long worb of
Shenute Against the Origenists has shown that such texts as
those from Nag Hammadi were widely read by the monks in
Upper Egypt.
We note also that the more "orthodox" production (the
biblical codices, the apocrypha, some homilies; see above
and below) seems very accurate in all respects: language,
orthography, material construction, and this in all dialects
in the range from Sahidic to Bohairic, with a few
exceptions; while, by contrast, the "gnostic" production is
on the whole much less "professional," with frequent
inconsistencies in orthography, personal notes of the
scribes, inconsistent placement of titles, etc.
It is especially the translation technique, both for
the language itself and the syntactical and semantic ways of
rendering the thought of the exemplar, that displays the
greatest difference between the two categories, as every
translator of the Nag Hammadi texts knows.
This can be explained in two ways: either the orthodoø
circles were the first creators of Coptic, and the Gnostics
followed the path just as they could, without paying atten-
tion to all the very specialized rules which had been deve-
loped in order to write clearly; or the Gnostics toob the
first steps, necessarily imperfect, and the "orthodox" con-
solidated and perfected the procedures.
1.4. Manichaean Translations.
It is probable that the Manichaean translations were
somewhat later than the other translations treated in this
part. The codices, found in only one place (Medinet Madi in
the Fayum, but they come probably from the region of Siout ½
Lykopolis), are attributed for palaeographical reasons to
the IV-V century; therefore the translations may date to the
early IV century, to allow some time for the development of
the manuscript tradition.
But we prefer to put them in this context, because they
reflect a rather peculiar milieu, probably influenced by the
first experiments or productions of the Christian church,
and which could not carry on its worb after the IV century
and remained an isolated phenomenon in the Coptic lit-
erature. Their features should give some light to better
understand the complicated situation in which the beginnings
of the Coptic literature toob place.
What is especially interesting is the fact that the
Manichaeans produced Coptic translations of their more or
less sacred books immediately after their expansion in E-
gypt. That expansion cannot be dated (for obvious reasons)
before the end of the III century, so that only a few de-
cades passed before the production of Coptic transla-
tions.
Another point is that some of the texts appear to have
been translated not from an (intermediate) Greeb version,
but directly from an Aramaic (or perhaps Syriac) original.
As we see that the Greeb language and culture appear to be
at the basis of the "normal" (so to speak) production in
Coptic during this period, the worb of the Manichaeans is an
important example of a center of production less interested
in the Greeb cultural influence, or even hostile to it. The
only center, which in our own opinion showed perhaps the
same feelings, is the Pachomian one, but of course the line
of its production followed a very different pattern.
As in the case of the gnosticizing production, we are
not interested in the theological and religio-historical
problems. From the formal point of view, the dialect of
these texts is interesting. The use of the Lykopolitan
dialect confirms the possibility that the region of Siout
was the main center of the Manichaeans, as also of other
heresies. Also some Gnosticising texts use the same dialect.
And it is not to be forgotten that the Melitian schism
originated also in Siout-Lykopolis, and had partly a
nationalistic-Egyptian character.
1.5. The First Patristic Translations.
That some Patristic translations were produced at about
the same time as the Biblical translations, is proved by the
date of some of their manuscripts (***CROSBÙ CODEX). It is
also true that most of the others were produced in the
"classical" period of the translations. The distinction
between the two is very important, if we want to find some
particular characters of the first ones; but is made
difficult by the obvious fact that late manuscripts can
include ancient translations.
In our opinion it is anyway possible to proceed by
joining the criterion of the relative antiquity of the
manuscripts to the following other ones. Some of the texts
found in early manuscripts are not found in the later
tradition: this would point at least to a process of
selection in the V-VI century. The texts found in the later
manuscripts are generally congruent with the "normal"
patristic production, and it is probable that their
translation was executed together with such texts in the IV-
V century.
(a) Apocrypha. - We have on the one hand two Old Tes-
tament Apocrypha (Apocalypsis Heliae; Visio Isaiae) orig-
inally written in a milieu characterised by the mixture of
Judaic and Christian elements, in the presence of some kind
of national Egyptian connotation. This character is just
that of the milieu where we can imagine that Coptic litera-
ture had its beginnings. On the other hand, the New Testa-
ment Apocrypha appear to be imported from Asia (Acta Pauli;
Epistula Apostolorum; Acta Petri), thus indicating a connec-
tion with that environment; not a connection between Asia
and Alexandrian Christianity (cp. below), but between Asia
and some centers in the Nile Valley.
(b) Homilies. - At least one homily, among those
transmitted to us, has been translated very early (II-III
cent.): Melito of Sardis, De Pascha. But it is very probable
that two others were translated in the same period (given
also some theological characters): Melito of Sardis De anima
et corpore (later attributed to Athanasius), and Ps.
Basilius of Caesarea De templo Salomonis. This last homily
has in common with those of Melito the Asiatic cultural
background.
So far as we know, it has never been remarked the
peculiarity of the fact that Melito, one of the greatest
authorities of Asian theology, should have enjoyed such
diffusion of his works in Egypt, where the Alexandrian
school never concealed its dislike for such a simple, naive,
and in some respects dangerously materialistic exegetical
school.
In fact, we see once more a connection between the
Asiatic culture and some centers of the Nile valley, which
do not share the Alexandrian reaction against that culture.
They are probably monastic centers different from the Nitria
and Sketis ones, and also from the Pachomians. Some later
documents produced by them may be: the Life of Aphou of
Oxyrhynchus; the Life of Apollo (of Bawit); the works of
Paul of Tamma.
1.6 General Observations.
We are not yet in the conditions to draw some positive
conclusions from the evidence at our disposal. However, we
may try to present some general observations.
The rise of Coptic literature was a very complicated
process, the result of the worb of many different centers,
the relations between which are still obscure.
One of these centers was in the Catholic Church of
Egypt, possibly not in Alexandria, but in some cultural
center of the Nile valley (Siout; Shmun; ...), in close
contact with Alexandria. To it we probably owe the
translation of the Bible.
Another center inside the Catholic Church was on the
contrary opposed to a certain extent to the Alexandrian
theology, and was interested in receiving and
"Egyptianizing" the texts of the Asian Christianity, with
their more simple exegesis of the Bible. (***SIMONETTI
Crist. ant. - Dizionario Patr.)
Other centers were of "heretical" character, some
Gnosticizing and some Manichaeans. At last, some "pagan"
centers remained, which went on producing Egyptian texts
(mainly magical) in the Greeb alphabet, of the kind which
had been the first example of Coptic language or writing.
The study of these centers should be one of the tasks
of the scholars in Coptic literature for the future.
2. THE FIRST ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.
2.1. Hierakas.
We shall briefly mention Hierakas here, because accor-
ding to Epiphanius he wrote commentaries and treatises also
in "Egyptian" (to be understood "Coptic") and as he is
generally assumed to have lived in the IIIrd cent., he may
have been the first original author in the Coptic
literature.
In fact, Epiphanius is the only witness to his literary
activity in Coptic; and though he is rather well informed
about Egypt, what he says is not sufficient to know whether
and how Epiphanius may have inaugurated Coptic literature.
Also it must be said that the chronology of his life is
far from sure, so that he remains an open problem. And one
text attributed to him is far from sure.
2.2. The Pachomian Literature.
Very different is the case of Pachomius and his succes-
sors, of whom we have extensive material at our disposal.
But that material should not be used without discernment.
Part of it was known after rather long time, and has
been published in the comprehensive boob of Lefort. It comes
from manuscripts of the IX-XI cent. (with some exceptions).
Part was on the contrary discovered more recently, both
in Greeb and in Coptic, in earlier manuscripts (IV-VI sec.),
often manufactured in a way unusual for the Coptic
tradition (rolls instead of codices).
Also in this case we find the division between an
ancient and a recent tradition (cp. above), which, though
with caution, should permit us to solve some literary prob-
lems. Here too we cannot enter into details; but taking into
account the testimony of Jerome and Gennadius, who knew
only few works of Pachomius, Horsiesi and Theodore; and also
the paucity of the testimonies in the other Oriental
languages and in Greek, which seem almost to ignore a real
Pachomian literature, we shall mention the works which we
consider genuine,giving their main characteristics.
(a) Pachomius. Rules: the discussion on their genuinity is
far from concluded;in any case they should represent a very
old example of original Coptic. Their character is far from
literary: Nagel has found traces of the Roman army commands
style, and in any case they served practical purposes,
without even having a definite literary structure.
Epistles: they also lacb literary character and con-
struction. Most of them are a sylloge of biblical quota-
tions, all are very difficult to understand, especially when
the "alphabeticum spiritale" is used.
All other texts under the name of Pachomius are spur-
ious, in our opinion, also the famous Catechesis.
(b) Theodore. Epistles for the general assemblies of the
Pachomians (one in Latin and one in Coptic). Both are very
brief and difficult to understand, and similar in style to
those of Pachomius.
(c) Horsiesi. Liber: the style is similar to that of Pacho-
mius§ letters, full of biblical quotations and sometimes
utilizing the "alphabeticum spiritale". But the original
sentences are more developed, and above all the text is very
long and has a certain internal structure.
Epistles: here also the style recalls that of Pacho-
mius, but longer personal interventions and some kind of
internal structure are observable.
Rules: They are more in the catechetical style than the
rules of Pachomius; but the name of "rules" has been given
by the editor. As catechetical worb they in fact are far
from the normal rhetorical style, so they also can be
considered a witness to the little concern for literature in
the Pachomian circles.
(d) Apocalypse of Kjarur: To this interesting text little
attention has been paid. Surely it belongs to a later period
than those mentioned above, but it follows the patterns of
the preceding Pachomian texts, only emphasizing the
apocalyptic character. Also its meaning is very difficult to
grasp, so that the translation is far from sure.
It is divided into two parts: the first might be called
"hermeneiai", being constituted of brief sentences followed
by an explanation. In fact, both the sentences and the
explanation are far from clear. The second part is in the
form of an "erotapokrisis" on various themes between one
Besarion (probably the same as the monb Besarion of the
times of Pachomius) and one Victor.
The first part recalls the style of the epistles of
Pachomius, while the second may be compared with the fol-
lowing text on Horsiesi.
(e) The visit of Horsiesi in Alexandria: This text is half
historical and half moral in character. The historical part
deals with the relations between the archbishop Theophilus
and Horsiesi. Theophilus sends two deacons, Faustus and
Timotheus, to Horsiesi with a letter summoning him to
Alexandria. Horsiesi comes to Alexandria, where he has a
colloquium with Theophilus on moral questions. On returning
Faustus and Timotheus propose some arguments to Horsiesi,
who expresses his opinion on them. - This text may have been
written in Greek.
2.2.2. General Character.
As we have seen, the works preserved in the ancient
manuscripts are of a special literary character; in fact, it
seems that literature as such, and also the literary forms
presupposed by the catechetical and pastoral activity, are
beyond the scope of the first Pachomian generations.
Of course we do not affirm that the superiors of the
Pachomian monasteries did not exert cathechetical activity,
though in any case much less than the later tradition would
like us to believe. Only, the cathechetical activity was not
bound to a literary production, whether in Greeb or in
Coptic, comparable to that in use in the "international"
centers of Asia and (probably) in Alexandria.
It is possible to note a cautious shift toward litera-
ture from Pachomius to Horsiesi (the later texts as Kjarur
and the Visit of Horsiesi have been mentioned at this point
only for completeness). So the Liber of Horsiesi, probably
his last work, is nearer than the others to the normal
homiletical form; and his letters are slightly more literary
than those of his predecessors.
Nonetheless, if our suggestions are acceptable, one can
affirm that the first manifestations of the original Coptic
literature consist in a refuse of the literature as such, or
better in the use of some external materialities (paper,
scripture, some original sentence) only to oppose the
literature as it was conceived in the circles accepting the
Greeb rhetorical culture.
The only real literary works which were admitted were
the Sacred Books, the Bible. They were the basis and the
horizon of the Pachomian culture. From this point of view,
the problem of the eventual diffusion of the Gnosticizing
("Nag Hammadi") texts among the Pachomians should be recon-
sidered. It is possible that some of them were considered as
sacred books; the diffusion of the others would require an
explanation.
Certainly, such an attitude did not originate in a
presumed cultural incapacity on the part of Pachomius and
his immediate successors. It is not conceivable that these
great leaders would not use the verbal exhortation together
with the personal example. But it seems that the exhortation
in view of the correction and edification of the monks,
requiring personal involvement, was kept separate from the
cultural activity, which necessarily carried within itself
the Greek, pagan, and therefore refused origin.
The few documents preserved in scripture are probably
due to practical occasional purpose, always presupposing an
oral explanation of what was actually written.
2.3. Antony.
The case of Antony is even more delicate. Of the seven
letters attributed to him, known to us mainly through a
Georgian and an Arabic version and a humanistic Latin ver-
sion made from the Greek, we have also some fragments of a
Coptic version.
Did Antony himself write these letters (provided they
are authentic, as it is probable)? Did he write them in
Coptic? Is the version that we have coincident with the
possible Coptic original, or is it (re)translated from the
Greek?
All these problems have not yet been adequately
debated. If they are solved in one way, Antony may have been
the first real Coptic author, very important also for the
fact that his letters testify to a good theological culture
of Alexandrian provenience (origenistic).
Otherwise, he may well have been a good theologian, but
he may have dictated the letters, which were materially
written in Greeb by someone of his circle. We prefer to
leave all this open to future research.
3. SHENUTE AND BESA.
3.1. Shenoute.
3.1.1. History of the Studies.
It is known that no Greeb source, whether historical or
literary, mentions Shenoute (as on the contrary does the
Coptic Historia Ecclesiastica; but was it in this place
dependent on Greeb sources?). This remains, in our opinion,
one of the great misteries of the Greeb Christian tradition
on Egypt, which at present must simply be accepted as such.
So Shenoute remained little more than a name from the
time of the arrival in the West of the Boahiric translations
of his Life written by Besa to the time of the first exten-
sive publications of some of his works, done almost contem-
porarily by Leipoldt-Crum and Am]lineau.
But the peculiar status of the manuscript tradition of
his works, which are found almost only in the manuscripts of
the White Monastery, and therefore dismembered and scattered
piece by piece throughout the world, prevented the correct
evaluation of his historical and literary personality. The
famous monography of Leipoldt, still the only reliable com-
prehensive study, appears today as vitiated by a total
incomprehension, but has not yet been replaced.
Before Leipoldt, Am]lineau and Ladeuze had written on
Shenoute. Am]lineau was not a sound historian, and his
contributions are rightly neglected. Different is the case
of Ladeuze, but his interests were too restricted.
It is important to keep in mind that the main interest
of Leipoldt, in writing his book, was historical, and not
literary. He analyzes in some way also the literary aspects
of Shenoute, but only as a help in making an historical
evaluation; and therefore the literary assessment reflects
the prejudices of Leipoldt in the historical treatment.
Those prejudices were:(a) Liberalism. Leipoldt was too
eager to bring forth the dogmatic and violent sides of the
personality and of the behaviour of Shenoute. Therefore he
was also prone to emphasize his normally (for his time)
redundant literary style. (b) Nationalism. Shenoute is seen
as a representant of the national Egyptian culture, but
Leipoldt does not distinguish among an eventual plurality of
Egyptian cultural currents and attitudes. The vital struggle
of this period, whether or not to accept the Greeb
rhetorical norms, and to produce original works according to
them, was won by Shenoute, as the supporter of the first
option. All this is neglected by Leipoldt, both in his boob
and in the brief History of the Coptic Literature which he
wrote later. NOTA: BENÅ INVECÅ MULLEÒ IÎ WORT.OR.
The revalutation of the worb of Shenoute, for
literature as for the history of (Egyptian) Christianity, is
still to be completed, though some steps have been done in
that sense. We can mention the articles of Lefort and Weiss
about the Christological Catechesis; that of Muller on the
style of Shenute (to be considered a first approach); some
considerations of Shisha Halevy.
3.1.2. The Major Works of Shenoute.
The works of Shenute were conserved almost exclusively
in the library of the monastery founded by him, today known
as the White Monastery. For this reason, they have become
known only by way of the fragments which reached Europe from
the codices of this library, from about 1759 to about 1900.
The worb of editing was undertaken relatively quickly, first
as part of the publication of catalogues (Zoega, Mingarel-
li), then in more comprehensive editions.
That of Am]lineau, concentrated on the Borgia collec-
tion, dates from 1907-14; that of Leipoldt-Crum, concen-
trated on the Paris collection, dates from 1908-13. Both
were not finished. Also the transcription of Wessely of the
Vienna fragments is to be mentioned here, dating from about
1905. Other minor publications, but also important (Guerin;
Lefort) should be taken into consideration; and recently the
worb still in progress of D. Young.
There exist still some codices, complete or semi-
complete, which may give at least an idea of how Shenute's
works were transmitted. The first to be known is conserved
at the Louvre, but Guerin's edition was so far out of the
way that it remains almost unknown. Later, two codices
arrived at the IFAÏ in Cairo largely intact; while the first
has been published in transcription by Chassinat and Du
Bourguet (and recently others) worked on some of the texts,
the second still remains unpublished.
The worb to be done on what remains of the Shenute
codices rests on the general problem of the reconstruction
of the White Monastery codices (see ORLANDI). We have begun
it and brought it to a certain point, mainly with the pur-
pose to recognize the most important sermons and catecheses.
But of course much has still to be done.
Besides the "normal" methodology employed to recon-
struct the codices of the White Monastery, two elements help
in dealing with the codices of Shenute, but they must be
carefully treated. The first element is the existence of
"indexes", one of which we possess in part, in one fragment
from Vienna. The second is constituted by the notes and
general titles added by the scribes at the beginning or the
end of some codices.
Both these elements testify to the existence of some-
thing like an "authoritative" edition of the Shenutean
works, existing in the White Monastery, from which our
codices ultimately derive. But one must be very careful, and
take into account the fact that the scribes of the IX-XI
century did not understand well the system of that edition,
and could attribute titles and notes to the wrong part of
the material. So some sermons could have been copied as part
of a boob of letters, etc.
What we shall say now is to be considered a first
attempt at evaluating the literary worb of Shenute, but a
more thoroughly study must be undertaken, before reaching a
satisfactory evaluation. We also want to give an idea of the
content of the most extensive works of Shenute. (N.B.: × ½
Index of Vienna; Chas. = Index of Cairo codex).
It seems expedient to distinguish the major sermons of
Shenute in categories, according to their content. One first
category, probably the most rich, is that of the moral
sermons.
(W49 ?) Everybody must be worthy of his position. Judas
is a good example of the contrast, and also Adam and
Eve. If the clerics sin, what the laics will do? The
wrath of God. There are some who are esteemed in the
earth but are cursed in heaven.
De disoboedientia ad clericos (W4´ ?) We clerics are
sinners even in the sanctuary of God. Biblical examples
of sinners punished. We must be faithful and especially
obedient. The personification of the obedience is
called in the middle. Against sodomites and heretics.
De castitate et Nativitate. On the free will. The monks
and the chastity, with citation from Athanasius. Some
teachings come from God, even if they are told by a
man: John the Baptist. On Christmas and glorification
of Christ.
Another category of sermons is directed against the
pagans. This subject is certainly important in Shenute, but
it was largely overvalued.
(Ch.1) The pagans are worse than the demons, because
these have at least once recognized Christ. The pagans
fight against the christians, as once the hebrews
fighted the prophets. Against the heretics. The chris-
tians rightly destroy the pagan idols. Also the Chris-
tians sin; they should come bacb on the right way. On
the resurrection of the dead and the final punishments.
The christians should not be afraid of the pagans and
the heretics.
Adversus Saturnum (Ch.5) Against a pagan (perhaps a
magistrate) who importuned the monks.
Contra idolatras, de spatio vitae (W69). The idolatrae
say that each has a fixed time for life, fixed by the
fate. On the contrary, nothing happens without the will
of God. God is like a king, who sends his representants
in the distant provinces, and lets his orders known
each time. If the time of life was fixed in advance,
the homicide would not be a crime.
Another category of sermons is against the heretics.
Contra Origenistas et gnosticos. This is a very long
work, in form of a homily, but probably conceived to be
read rather than heard. Its aim is to oppose heretics
(especially horigenists, but also arians, melitians and
nestorians, and the gnostics in general) and the
apocryphal books which they used and circulated. The
subjects touched are: the plurality of the worlds; the
position and worb of the Saviour; the meaning of
Pascha; the relations between Father and Son; the
origin of the souls; Christ's conception; the
Eucharist; the resurrection of the body; the four
elements.
Contra Melitianos (W58.59). The Melitians participate
in the Eucharist many times a day, especially in the
cemeteries, likening it to the carnal meals. Also they
maintain that one should communicate on Sunday.
De Vetere Testamento contra Manichaeos (W81). The value
of the Old Testament, besides the New, is affirmed
against the opinion of the Manichaeans. Exegesis of Mt
11.13 and Lc 17.16.
De praeexistentia Christi. Exegesis of Biblical
passages related to the Christ, in order to demonstrate
that he was there even before His birth from Maria.
Also against Nestorius.
An interesting group of sermons is based on Shenute's
interviews with the magistrates who visited him because of
his fame and his great authority, and sometimes put
questions to him. The "Chassinat" codeø contains a group of
four of these works, and the magistrates in question are
Chosroe, Flavianus and Heraklammon. Shenute touches the
following arguments: the licence for him to correct also the
generals in spiritual matters; the dimensions of the sky and
of the earth (!); the devil and the free will; the
punishment of the sinners; the duties of the judges; the
duties of the important personages: bishops, rich people;
generals.
3.1.3. Character.
Taking into consideration the works listed above, two
aspects of the literary activity of Shenute especially come
out, which have been neglected so far.
First of all, the great variety of subjects especially
of subjects which Shenute was not supposed to treat more
than in some allusions. This will lead to a different asses-
sment and evaluation of his theological personality (only
incohated by Lefort and Weiss) and also of his spirituality
and of his moral and political behaviour.
Second, his real position in front of the literary
problems. Shenutehas been sometimes regarded as rejecting
the Greeb culture, and also being personally not very much
acquainted with rhetoric. The contrary seems true, for two
main reasons.
The step he did in the development of Coptic literature
is precisely that of accepting the literary activity in the
religious fiels, like the international Greeb christianity
of the great Fathers, against what seems to have been the
position of the Pachomians.
Furthermore, his style, which could not have any speci-
fic example in the original Coptic works (which practically
did not exist), is clearly based on a careful study of the
scholastical rhetoric of his times, that is, the Greeb
rhetoric of the "second Sophistic".
On other sides of Shenute's style, already well known,
it is not necessary to dwell here.
3.2. BESA.
We prefer to deal with Besa at this point, because of
his very strict connection with Shenoute, but in fact he is
an author belonging to the period of the the post-Chalcedo-
nian literature, the general characters of which will be
described in one of the next chapters.
The worb of Besa can be known much better than that of
his predecessor, Shenute, because we have the beautiful and
extensive edition done by KUHN. Kuhn has also examined its
content in a series of articles, but from the point of view
of the spirituality and history rather than that of
literature and style.
Therefore the literary character of the worb of Besa is
still to be examined. We can only say now that he followed
also in this respect the way prepared by Shenute, whose
acceptance of the Greeb rhetorical rules (both in the form
and in the content) he fully inherited.
So he also wrote catecheses, mainly of moral character,
and letters, for the monks of whom he had the responsibili-
ty, perhaps in a lower tone, but with the same mastership of
the Coptic language. The stormy times in which he had to
live did not leave a clear sign in the style of his work.
4. THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE "CLASSICAL" PERIOD.
If our idea is accepted, of the pivotal function of the
worb of Shenoute to accept the Greeb literary traditions
already in use in the Christian literature of the Patristic
age in the great international centers (Antiochia, Caesarea,
Alexandria...), then the hypothesis already proposed by
Leipoldt that most of the translations from Greeb into
Coptic were produced in the White Monastery under his
supervision, also becomes more acceptable. In this case we
may have some guidelines in evaluating the characters of
those translations.
But before speaking of the true translations (viz.
those of the texts of the Patristic literature), we have to
mention the worb done to produce the standardized text of
the Bible, which has become the normal one found in the
manuscript tradition of the VIII-XII centuries, in Sahidic.
This standard text was produced, as it seems, starting
from one or more previous translation(s). This is evident
when some very old manuscript (III or IV cent.) presents the
same redaction that we also find later. But also when the
standardized text is so different that we must speab of
different redactions, it generally presents parts of the
text so similar, that an old model, like one of those ar-
rived to us, must have been at the base of it.
As for the Patristic translations, one of the main
problems concerns the false attributions that we find in the
late manuscript tradition. Not only do we find the name of
some great Father of the Church as the author of works
originally written in Coptic in the VII or VIII century; but
often we find an incorrect attribution also of texts really
translated from Greeb originals of the IV or V century.
Our previous contributions on Coptic literature are
mainly concerned with the distinction between real transla-
tions and late forgeries. We presume here that a valid
conclusion is that in any case we can exclude those seemin-
gly late texts from the study of the Coptic translations. Of
the others, the Greeb text is generally known, so that we
can leave aside the remaining problematic texts (possible
translations, but without a known Greeb model), without
prejudice for the characterization of the translation worb
in general.
The characters of the Coptic translations are:
(1) For the homiletical genre, we find almost exclusively
single texts, translated for liturgical use, and not syste-
matic translations of the corpora of the most important
authors (like Basilios, Gregory of Nazianzion, even Athana-
sius). The most relevant exceptions are a corpus of a few
homilies of Basilius; a corpus with extracts from the
homilies of John Chrysostome on the Epistles of Paul; per-
haps the rest of a corpus of Severus of Antioch, dispersed
in several manuscripts.
(2) As for theology, the fundamental works of the Fathers
were not translated; and also homilies of specific
theological relevance were not taken into consideration.
Only a little corpus of works of Gregory of Nissa can be
shown to be an exception. But not even the Alexandrian
bishops (Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril) received different
treatment.
(3) The choice of the texts seems dictated by the adherence
to the necessities of moral catechesis and monastic spiri-
tuality. We cannot say for certain whether the translations
were intended for reading during public services, or also
for individual meditation. Later, at least, the first use
prevailed in the manuscript transmission. In any case, the
exigencies of the audience or the readers were of the char-
acter stated above.
(4) The texts were inserted in the Coptic culture without
much or any attention to their authorship or the their real
provenance, but only to the fitness of the contents. They
seem to derive from the "minor" Greeb manuscript tradition,
gathering into anthologies works directed to the special
kind of public which had moral and practical interests
rather than intellectual.
(5) This "minor" tradition must be at the origin of the
widespread phenomenon of the pseudepigrapha, which both in
Greeb and in Coptic is due to two factors, only apparently
contradictory: the convenience of attributing to famous
authors the works of less known authors whom one wished to
circulate; and the indifference to the authorship of the
works in comparison with their content.
As to the Hagiographic Translations, we find on one
side the same shift from the translation of Greeb texts to
the later production of similar texts originally in Coptic,
which pretended to come from the same sources. On the other
side, the cultural interaction between the two languages is
even more strict, because it seems that in a certain time
the Greeb texts were produced in Egypt, according to the
same patterns and with about the same aims as the later
Coptic original constructions.
Therefore, to have a clear view of the literary evolu-
tion of this genre, it is necessary to investigate together
the Greeb and the Egyptian hagiographic tradition, and then
to try to separate the texts according to their origin
(Greeb or Coptic) in order to show the peculiar characters
of each. Here also the worb is only at the beginning, and we
shall limit ourselves to some indications.
It is possible, in our opinion, to unify the
conclusions of two fundamental works, one by Delehaye (the
Egyptian source of the "epic genre") and the other by
Baumeister (the rising of the "koptischer-Konsens-genre"),
and to individuate a path, leading from the historical
genuine passions derived from processual acts, to the epic
genre and then to the "koptischer Konsens". In the first two
stages the Coptic texts are probably translations from the
Greeb (when we have the Greeb text, of course this is sure)
while the Coptic texts belonging to the last stage are
probably original. They will be treated in a later chapter.
We have only two texts of the first type: the Passio
Colluthi and the Passio Psotae. It is possible to add the
Passio Petri Alexandrini, which, though not deriving
directly from official acts, may be attributed to the same
period and school.
In the period of the "epic genre" it is possible to
note a tendency to the creation of cycles, which would be
the main feature of the later, original Coptic school. One
of the cycles is constructed around the prefect Arianus;
another one is that of the Julian martyrs, therefore dating
surely after 362, connected also with the rise of legend of
the birth of Constantine and of the discovery of the Cross
(Passio Iudae Cyriaci, Passio Eusignii, Excerptum de
Mercurio).
We have also individual Passions, of the epic genre,
built around saints of various provenances, each with his
own peculiarities: Epimachus, Menas, James the Persian,
Leontius of Tripolis, Mercurius, Pantoleon, Eustathius,
Cyrus and John, Philotheos, the 49 Martyrs of Sebaste. Some
other Passions of this same genre had typical Egyptian
connotations of a strictly internal nature and are preserved
only in Coptic, but very probably are translated from a
Greeb original: Passio Coore, Herai, Dios.
The Passions of the martyr-monks deserve a special
consideration, because of the union of the influence of the
hagiographic school with the influence of the monastic envi-
ronment: Passio Paphnuthii, Pamin, Pamun et Sarmatae, Panine
et Paneu.
5. THE HISTORICO-POLEMIC LITERATURE AFTER CHALCEDON.
If until now the development of Coptic literature was
marked by spiritual and cultural events, after the council
of Chalcedon historical and political events tend to become
essential in determining its characteristics.
Therefore the period between Chalcedon and the Araâ
invasion may be divided in two stages: 1. Before Justinian
each of the two ecclesiastical parties hoped to prevail both
in Egypt and elsewhere - and therefore the literary
production was mainly apologetic, but remained in the frame
of the "international" culture (probably: Historia
ecclesiastica; Vita Iohannis de Lykopoli; Vita Longini;
Plerophoriae; Memoriae Dioscori).
2. Between Justinian and the bishop Damianus, the
Coptic church was overcome by the "catholic" party,
sustained by the imperial power. Therefore the works, when
they could be produced, were directed mainly to the internal
and monastic public (probably: Vitae Apollinis, Abraham,
Moses, Zenobii).
It was in this time, as it seems, that Greeb began to
be felt as the language of foreign and oppressing people;
but once again, the formal question of the language must not
have been immediately central. The documentation seems to
testify a natural historical process, in which the will to
produce different works from the Byzantine culture, led
first to the closing in front of the new Byzantine
production, then to the language itself.
This process involves only the literary aspect of the
use of the two languages, because not only the administra-
tive matters, but also the ecclesiastical relations with the
other non-Chalcedonian churches were kept in Greek.
So we have for some time, after Chalcedon, the concur-
rent production, in the Coptic church, of works in Greeb and
in Coptic. The choice in this period depended probably not
so much on a cultural, rather on a geographical base. The
works conceived near Alexandria, and in the communities
gravitating around it, were probably written in Greek. Down
in the South the Sahidic Coptic was probably already in
common use also for literature, on the example of Shenoute.
For all these reasons, it is difficult to say for
certain which was the original language of the works which
we shall mention in this chapter, when the eventual Greeb
original is not known. In any case, we believe that the
choice of the language has been on the whole of secundary
importance, and that in any case the Coptic translation was
in most cases immediately executed.
6. THE PERIOD OF DAMIANUS AND THE FIRST TIME OF THE ARAB
CONQUEST.
It was G. Garitte who first drew attention on a
sentence in the History of the Patriarch by Severus of
Ashmunein, in a chapter on Damianus. In this sentence it is
possible to see the celebration of a particular period in
the history of the Coptic church:
Et il y eut de son temps des eveques qui le
remplissaient d'admiration pour leur purete et leur
merite, et parmi euø Jean de Burlus, et Jean son
disciple, et Constantin l'eveque, et Jean le bienheureuø
reclus, et beaucoup d'autres (p. 298).
Severus alluded probably only to the ecclesiastical
achievments of such bishops, but Garitte pointed out that
each of them had a place also in the history of Coptic
literature.
So it is possible to see a special connection, in this
time, between the life of the Coptic church and its lit-
erature. Indeed the Coptic church sorted from a very diffi-
cult period, dating from the time of Justinian, when not
only the political power of Byzntium had successfully sUffo-
cated much of its activity, but also the tritheistic and
other polemics had damaged its relations with the Syrian
anti-Chalcedonian community.
The bishop Damianus had succeeded in giving order and
life to the church, though the problems both with the court
and with the Syrians were not solved. This new life of the
Coptic church is probably also that of a renewed literary
activity, different from the mainly polemic literature of
the previous age, and resuming the worb of Shenute, and of
his successor Besa, for the daily liturgical activity of the
church, this time also outside the monasteries.
It is almost natural, in this frame, the nationalism
which pervades almost all the texts. It is a particular kind
of nationalism, whose aim is especially to put Egypt in
first line, in the good as in the bad achievements. This is
probably the sign of the proud isolation in which the Coptic
church was closing itself. Moreover, one notices the effort
to individuate the old leading personalities, especially
that of Athanasius, as the founders of the Coptic church,
now identificating itself as the Egyptian church altogether.
Another important feature is the defence of the liceity
to produce new works in Coptic, instead of simply
translating or in any case utilizing the sermons of the old
Fathers, available in Greek. From some passages in the
sermons that we have, it is possible to understand that in
the literary circles of the Church this was the subject of
extensive debate.
The style of all these writers is rather similar, and
recalls the typical canons of the "second sophistic," the
Greeb literary movement of the II-IVth centuries, which was
also the accepted style of the great preachers of the Golden
Age of Patristic.
Butwe appreciate the hability of all of them to write
and speab in a Coptic perfectly capable of expressing the
desired concepts. This was obtained in full for the first
time now. Neither the translations of the Bible, nor those
of the homilies and martyrdoms, are written in a language,
like this, which has at last become so independent from the
Greeb model and sufficient in its syntactical and stylistic
elements. Only Shenute approached this (and Besa after him),
but he is rather a precursor of the Coptic style of this
period.
Among the authors of this period, Damianus himself has
left to us two of his works, certainly written in Greek, but
immediately translated in Coptic. One is a synodal letter,
sent to the Syrian church after his consecration, and known
also in Syriac. The other is a homily on the Nativity, of
which we have only some fragments.
The other writers surely produced works originally in
Coptic. The first to be mentioned is Constantine of Siout,
because his personality seems to be the most remarkable. Of
him we have two Encomia of Athanasius, two of the martyr
Claudius, and some other minor homilies, partly preserved
only in Arabic.
Rufus of Shotep wrote some Commentaries on the Gospels:
we have fragments of one on Matthew and of one on Luke. The
texts have not yet been published, so an evaluation is
difficult. But it seems that they are a good late witness of
the exegetical school of Alexandrian origin. The exegesis is
in fact the allegorical one, though it does not rule out a
kind of philological attention for the text itself.
The main characteristic of John of Shmun seems to have
been his nationalism. His two main works preserved for us
are panegyrics of two figures representing the most
important figures and phases of Egyptian Christianity as he
saw it: Mark, the Evangelist and founder of the Egyptian
Church; and Anthony, the founder of the (anachoretic)
monasticism. Egypt is often foremost in his thoughts when he
writes. Also he defends the position his own and that of his
fellow men of letters, who produced works in Coptic, even
when ancient Greeb models were available.
Another John, Bishop of Paralos in the Delta region,
wrote an important treatise against the apocryphal and
heretical books which still survived in the Egyptian Church
of his day. Like the worb of Shenute mentioned above, this
is an important witness as to the role and survival in the
Coptic Church of works like those found at Nag Hammadi.
The group of authors active in the period of Damianus
lived in the age just before the Araâ invasion, and probably
even witnessed the Persian invasion, and possibly some of
them also the Araâ invasion. In any case, they could estab-
lish a tradition to write extensive works in Coptic for the
everyday life of the Coptic Church, which continued also in
the first century after the Araâ invasion.
It seems that the attitude of the Arabs before the
Coptic culture, as before all the cultures of the Christian
Orient, was at first respectful. So the most important
personalities in the Egyptian Church were still able to
produce their works more or less overtly. Later, as we shall
see, the situation will radically change.
From this period we have a long homily of Benjamin of
Alexandria on the wedding of Cana, which is important not
only for some theological remarks, but also for its autobio-
graphical content. Benjamin also wrote a panegyric of She-
nute, of which only a short passage is extant.
Also we have a homily by Benjamin's successor, the
Patriarch Agathon, who narrated episodes related to the
consecration of a church in honour of Macarius at Scetis at
the hands of the same Benjamin. The same Agathon is probably
the author of a panegyric of Benjamin, of which only some
fragments remain.
Another patriarch, John III, wrote a panegyric of St.
Menas, whose sanctuary in Mareotis still attracted masses of
pilgrims, and he also composed a theological treatise in the
form of erotapokriseis, which was finally redacted by one of
his presbyters.
At the same time, Menas, Bishop of Pshati (Nikius),
wrote the life of the Patriarch Isaac, an important histori-
cal document, and a panegyric of the martyr Macrobius of
Pshati. And Zacharias, Bishop of Shkow, wrote two homilies
of exegetical content and possibly a life of John Kolobos.
7. THE CYCLES.
We have already expressed our opinion concerning the
credit to be given to the titles in the Coptic manuscripts
of the IX-XIIth centuries. In this chapter we assume that
many of the texts recognized as false in regard to the
titles which they bear in the manuscripts, come from a
single late period and were produced by a homogeneous
literary school.
Briefly speking, the reasons for this are mainly: 1.
That those texts can be reassembled in different groups, by
paying attention to certain episodes and certain personages
that go together and appear in about the same form in each
group of texts. 2. That the content and form of these texts
presuppose a kind of cultural sedimentation and literary
style which are typical of Damianus§ period. But we cannot
see any reason during Damianus§ era for anyone to produce
false texts rather than true ones. Therefore it seems
reasonable to place such texts somewhat later than Damianus§
era, when there were possible reasons to create them (see
below).
One of the most typical examples of the cycles is
represented by the texts which gravitate around the figure
of Athanasius. These might be works attributed to him, or
else works which tell of his life. So we have an anonymous
Vita; a panegyric attributed to Cyril of Alexandria; and
several homilies attributed to Athanasius himself, in which
he relates the same unhistorical episodes which we find in
the Vita and the Panegyric.
Another good example of a cycle is the one which has as
its subject the life of John Chrysostom. An acephalous
homily, which was probably one of his encomia, tells of an
exile of John on the island of Thrace, where he converted
the people to Christianity. Another homily, attributed to
some Eustathius, Bishop of Thrace, also recounts the conver-
sion of the place through the worb of Chrysostom, beside
telling a tipically late romance-story. A third homily,
attributed to Proclus of Cyzicus, tells of the Christiani-
zing of a certain city of Ariphorus, in Thrace, still
through the worb of Chrysostom.
Still dealing with John Chrysostom, Coptic literature
recognizes a strange tradition concerning his consecration
as a priest, at Antioch, by a bishop of Antioch named Deme-
trius, which is a purely fantastic figure. This tradition is
adopted in an encomium of the martyr Victor, attributed to
the same Chrysostom, where he speaks autobiographically. To
this Demetrius, then, are attributed no less than three
homilies, upon whose inscriptio the fact is expressly men-
tioned that it was he who consecrated Chrysostom as priest.
Another typical production of this genre is the cycle
of Theophilus, whose homilies allude to the construction of
churches upon the ruins of pagan temples, and to the exploi-
ting of riches found in the pagan temples closed by Constan-
tine and Theodosius. The source of the legend seems to be a
passage of the Coptic History of the Church:
"Theophilus appropriated many riches because the
emperor had commanded that he be given the keys to the
temples; and he had assembled great riches".
In this line we have: a homily on the construction of
the Church of the Holy Family on Mount Coscam. A homily on
the Three Saints of Babylon, in which Theophilus tells of
having sent the monb John Colobos to Babylon in order to
take and bring bacb to Alexandria the relics of the Three
Saints. Finally, a homily in honour of the Archalgel
Raphael, in which Theophilus celebrates in front of Theodo-
sius II the construction of a church in the island of Pa-
tres, at whose construction the great Theodosius I had
collaborated.
A last example (among others which could be mentioned)
is the cycle of Cyril of Jerusalem, to whom some homilies
were attributed, so as to form a kind of appendiø to the
collection of the authentic Catecheses. There is a homily on
the Passion and the Resurrection, which contains a
commentary on the appropriate passages of the Gospels; a
homily on the Cross, which contains, among other things, the
legend of the rediscovery of the Cross; a homily On the
Virgin, which tells the life and dormitio of Mary, including
some apocryphal recites.
Finally, we must remember that in this period, and the
with the same "cyclical" characteristic, the last Coptic
hagiographers produced their works. The study of Th. Bau-
meister carefully describes the "cliches" on which they were
based. The cycles produced were that of the family of Basi-
lides the General and that of Julius of Kbehs, the witness
to the martyrdoms.
With these cyclic texts we have the possibility to
penetrate into the Coptic culture of the late period. The
authors worked for general ecclesiastical and political
motives. It seems that we might perceive in these authors,
whose names will forever remain unknown, the desire to form
a Coptic ecclesiastical society limited to definite
horizons, and thus independent and self-sufficient in res-
pect to what had been till then the dominant cultural socie-
ty (the Greek).
The aims for which the texts were compiled were, forst
of all, propagandist, but on various levels. At the internal
level, i.e., for those within the Church, the purpose was to
strengthen the people's faith in the tradition of the Coptic
Church, to reinforce and elevate the moral sentiments and
customs.
On the external level, i.e., for those outside the
Church, the purpose was to affirm the direct of succession
as to the existence, antiquity, and orthodoxy of the doc-
trine of the Coptic Church in comparison with those sepa-
rated from it.
8. THE SYNAXARIAL SYSTEMATIZATION.
After the anonymous and even clandestine flourishing of
the production of the cycles, the final decline begins for
literature written in the Coptic language during the IX-XIth
centuries. In this period the only literary activity that we
can see is a reassembling and rearranging of old material
which could still be useful for some special purposes, but
almost no original production is traceable any longer.
The Arabic language slowly but consistently was submer-
ging Coptic, both as a vehicle of Christian culture and as
the administrative and everyday language. Also the political
troubles and the ever difficult relations between the two
communities recommended the use of a common language to
avoid an isolation which could only damage the conquered
community.
In the full Egyptian Middle Ages, Christian life was
essentially centred around the monasteries, which tended to
arrange all extant, and still valid, or vital texts availa-
ble according to their specific use and mentality.
The texts had to be read during the synaxeis, and
therefore had to be copied on books set aside for that use,
with clear titles for their identification but expecially
for the identification of the proper occasions in which they
were to be read.
These werethe so-called synaxaria (according to the
denomination valid for the the Eastern Chruch), or homilia-
ries, in which all kinds of old texts assumed a similar
shape: that of a homily, or of the life of a saint. Texts
which originally differed from that genre were simply and
often naively rearranged in order to fit the general dispo-
sition; a new title and a few lines of introduction were
enough to achieve that aim.
We should bear in mind that this kind of systematiza-
tion is the principal cause for the very low esteem which
the texts of Coptic literature have always been accorded.
They appeared at first glance as something boringly uniform,
without those differentiations in character and age which
can form the guidelines for the historical appreciation of
any literature.