250 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



I wonder what would be the precise effect on the mind of a dis- 

 passionate French reader, of this sentence [166, i]: '■'■II ressemhle 

 a un lion dans le desert et qui apergoit de loin toutes sortes de bonnes 

 choses''\ 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/orm 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 eo-rat ws 17 

 dypLOfLvpLKT] rj Iv T-fj kprjjxiji, ovk oij/eTat OTav i-XOrj ra dyaOd, 

 Unfortunately the South-Coptic version of this passage is not published, 

 (if extant), so that we do not know how the Copts rendered 17 dypio- 

 /jLvpiKT] — not impossibly by p-nom — or by what paraphrase they 

 interpreted it, or even whether the mysterious "l^"lj/ may have had 



T '• ' 



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 iifnau 

 ehenagathon euweu. 



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 irrite, et ne mutant pas consentir d se justifier, il dit 

 d, son fits Sfc. But the Coptic has no hint of se?/'-justification; the 

 words are, afposs ehrai ejn nef apologia, "he was amazed at 

 his [son's] aTroAoyta". ]S"ow, how did the editor come by such a 

 version as '■not wishing to consent to justify himself^ ? The root poss 

 is used to express the idea of eKo-rao-t?, i^LorrrjiJH ; so that I suppose 

 him to have taken it as, he turned atvay from his [own] aTroAoyta; 

 but then, how on earth could ehrai ejn, 'down upon', come to 

 mean from ? 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 

 repondrai done cette fois encore et je prouverai ta folic, car tes paroles 

 ont bien montre que tu n''es pas sage. But the text said [167, i] je 

 nnekwonh ebol mauaak lisophos hm pentakjoof, "that 

 thou alone mayst not appear wise in what thou hast said"; there is 

 no liint whatever of ' his words having proved his folly ! ' 



64. Here is an old friend, [167, 7], Lieu 71'a-t-il pas sembU impuis- 

 sant a chdtier Pharaon au moment meme oil celui-ci disait, Je ne connnis 



