i 



Atkinson — On a South- Coptic I'ext of M. Bouriant. 233 



" to let us stir the unguent that our heart may rejoice in its sweet 

 scent " ; which translation, if it have less of '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 excellents, qui different les uns des autres si hien que 

 chacun d'eux se trouve au gout de quelqu!un. The Copt has not said, in 

 the last clause, that " each one of these ' mets ' is according to the taste 

 of somehody", 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, 

 lecause tJiey 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 nohodij could get full ! Hence, he adds, 

 aussi aujourd'hui ne pouvons-nous nous rassasier &c. 



14. At [1 96, 1 ], ' (?A quoi^ celui-la aussi me f era subirplus de tourments 

 encore que mon corps {ii^en a sujpportesy ! 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 gi'eater 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 quHl suffit de 

 faire passer Vor une ou deux fois par le feu? Why, that is just what 

 the writer did wo^ say ! He says, mere wsop nwot rose epnwb 

 etreupastf, e snau, "a single time does not suffice to refine gold, 

 nor twice, but they refine it many times ". 



15. AndM. Bouriant continues, suivant ce qu!a dit le sage Salomon, 

 '■ qu^onlb frappe suivant sa valeur afin qii' 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 lefrappe 



ha 















suivant 



tef-sotp 















sa 



valeur. 



EVEHY WORD 



IS WRONG. 



















Correct 



re 



ht 



w 



ha 



t 



efs 



Dtp 





into 



re 



ht 



w 



■ ha 



t 



ef. 



sotp 



i.e. " beat [even] a piece of chosen silver ! " 



