We may sura up these results as follows ; — Sahidic = Dialect of Southern (or Upper) Egypt ; sometimes called ' Thebaic'
« Quatremfere, op. eit. p. 22.
0 lb. p. 147 ff.
y See Y&kOt, i. «S4.
i (^uatrem^re, op. cit. p. 214.
1 lb. p. 217.
C Sometimes It very closely resemblefl Bohalrio. See the dialect of the Fragment of the Song of Moses given by Crum, Coptic MSS brought from the Faymtrn, p. 12 ff.
r CI. the dialect of the Favflm (racment published by Quatre- m^re, op. cit. p. 248 fl.. with the dialect of those edited bj Revilloul, Paptrrua Copies (Paris, 1870), p. 101 ft.
6 See Krall, Mittheiiungen aut der Sammtung dtr Papyna Brzherzog Rainer (Vienna, 18^7), i. p. 66.
I ZeiUchrtft fur AgyptiKhe Spraeht, 1886, p. 1208.
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS
669
Kiddie Egyptian = Dialect of (a) Memphis and neighbourhood, and (t) the Fayflm.
Bohairic= Dialectuf districtsouth of Alexandria : sometimes called 'Memphitic' (or 'Coptic').
2. Relative Dates of Dialects.— The Arabic historian Macrizi, who flourished at the beginning of the 15th century, speaks of Sahidic as ' the primitive source of the Coptic language, and tliat from which is derived the Bobairic dialect.' a Such evidence as there is conlirms his statement as to the late date of Bohairic. Bobairic (wliich was originally confined to the district south of Alex- andria) is the most literary and artificial of Coptic dialects. The form of many of its words, when compared with the corresponding Saliidic, points to a later stage of development. Its frequent use of connecting particles, reminding us of Greek rather than Egyptian, seems also to point in the same direction. It was most probably developed from Middle Egyptian, which at one time may possibly have been spoken in the neighbourhood of Alex- andria itself.^ To what extent it was used for other than ecclesiastical purposes we have at present no means of ascertaining.7 But if it was in the main a literary ratlier than a popular language, this fact would explain why it died out, except for ecclesiastical purposes, earlier than Middle Egyptian and Sahidic. S There is, on the contrary, no doubt that the last-named dialects were tne language of the people. We have numerous fragments of letters m Middle Egyptian and remains of school-books in Sahidic.t The line of demarcation between the two dialects was not sharp, and sometimes pieces of writing are found in which single sentences are almost entirely \*Tittcn in Sahidic, whilst others are almost entirely in Middle Egyptian. f Thus, whilst we find Saliidic forms in use in documents written in the neighbourhood of Hermopolis Magna and A-tinoe,ij we have evidence that as far south as Thobes pure Saliidic was not always written. 9 AVhen Aliddle Egyptian and Sahidic began to be written we do not know. As far as the evidence
s Quatrerafere, op. cit. p. 42,
fi See the interesting,' fra^ient published by Rrall, at the end of an art. " iiber die Anfimf^e der Koptischen Sclirift," op. cit. i. p. 112. where an Alexandrian in sitjrninjf his name makes use of the FayOinic dialect. Too much streas, however, must not be laid on this passajfe ; for, as Moinmscn points out, ' the belon^'inL' to ' an Eu'yptian district * was itidcpenflentof dwcllinif-place, and hereditJtr>'. The Ki^yjitian from the Chemmitic nome beion(;ed to it with his dependents. Just as much \s')icn he hiul his abode in Alexandria as the Alexandrian dwelliiii; in Chemniis belonged to the bur^ess-ljody of Alexandria ' (.Monniisen, The Promncei o» the Roman Empire, c. xii. Kng. trans, p. Has), The ftrfoimentfl put forward in that article in favour of an early date for the Bohairic dialect (see also llcadlam in Scrivener's Intro- diu-tion to XT*, ii. 126f., and llyvirnat, Ilemu Itihlique, 1897, Ko. 1, p. 67) ore valueless. (1) The abbreviations found in Coptic MSS for • Oofi ' and ' Lord * need not have oricfinated in Bohairic. If they occurred (and they never do, as far a.s I know) in MSS written in pure S.ahidic, they mi{;ht as easily have been taken from M.E. as from Bohairic. Indeed an abbreviation of ' Lord,' which is almost exactly the same oa the one in common use in Bohairic, is fotmd in a M.K. .MS, which ' In it« writintf,* says Krall (p. llOf.), ' reminds us of the Codex Sinaiticus.' {2) Even if Krall's iiypothesis of the orit^dn of the Ual letter of the Coptic alphabet were satisfactory, it does not prove hia point. The contraction mi^ht have arisen in M.E. OS easily as in Bohairic. But most iirot>ably his liypntliesis is wronij, and the letter is derived from Demotic (see StcindorlT, KoptiKche (rraininatik, 9 -1).
V Attempts to use Iluhairic for letter-writing, usln^ throujrh- out Orcek characters, are ^fiven by Kntll, op. ctt. ii.-iii. p. 50, v. 41; Crum, op. cit. n. 69f. Unfortunately, as Krall says, 'the ir?ojfrapbicjil and climatic conditions of the Delta are not favour- able to the preservation of papyrus,' We cannot therefore be certain of the exact dialect which the hermitA near Lake Men- SAleh spoke, when Oasslan visited them at the end of the 4th c«ntury. It may have been a form of .M.E. or Bohairic. We leather from Cossian {CoU. xi. .3, xvi. 1 ; .Migno, P.L. xlix. 850, 1011) that some of them did not know Oreek.