4th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF COPTIC STUDIES
Louvain-la-Neuve, 5-10 September 1988
Tito ORLANDI
The Study of Coptic Literature, 1976-1988.
My 1976 Report.
During the 1st International Congress of Coptic
Studies (Cairo, Dec. 1976), I had the honor to read a
paper on 'The Future of Studies in Coptic Biblical and
Ecclesiastical Literature' (Orlandi 0006). Let me
briefly review the main points of that paper, as a way
to introduce the observations which I am going to make
now on the progress of the study of Coptic literature
in the period 1976-1988.
(a) The mere existence of a real literature in the
Coptic language had been called into question by some
scholars; and in any case it seemed difficult to define
the boundaries of this literarture. Fortunately, it
seems that this kind of question has now been settled
in a positive way. But there remains a somewhat dis-
torted approach to the study of Coptic literature,
which I shall try to describe in the first part of the
present paper.
(b) A satisfactory history of Coptic literature was
still a desideratum. I made some suggestions regarding
the problems of the periodization and the character of
the texts. The situation has not changed much since
1976, and also my suggestions (later developed in a se-
ries of articles) have not been discussed. In this pa-
per I shall try to explain the reasons for this lack of
progress and to propose new ways to fill this gap.
(c) I emphasized the necessity to produce editions
of texts, and to facilitate access to the manuscript
collections. I made a list of the collections for
which there existed catalogues, and of those for which
there did not; and I made some proposals on the best
way to produce editions. The problems still exist,
though they are rather different, and therefore I shall
return to them in a later part of this paper.
The general history of the Coptic Literature.
I shall begin with a preliminary consideration, in
that -- so far as the subject of the present paper
within the organization of this congress is concerned
-- Coptic literature is defined rather by exclusion
than by the linguistic and formal character of what is
included. Obviously it is agreed that Coptic literature
includes written texts in the Coptic language; but
within this very broad definition, one excludes the
following: the Gnostic texts, the Manichaean texts, the
biblical texts, the monastic texts, the liturgical
texts, which are the subject of other papers at this
congress, because these texts are considered as some-
thing apart; and of course the texts written for non-
literary purposes are also excluded, with magical texts
as borderline material.
These exclusions are not simply the result of the
practical organization of the reports solicited for
this congress, but rather they reflect the conventional
scholarly assumption with regard to this subject. As a
consequence of this assumption, the scholars who deal
with biblical or Gnostic or Manichaean texts do not
generally feel obliged to link their investigations
with the problems raised inside other fields, or inside
the study of Coptic literature as a whole. Another con-
sequence of this assumption is that such investigations
generally lack historical soundness, but this is not my
concern at the moment.
My concern is rather, what is left to define Coptic
literature (without further qualifications) after the
exclusions mentioned above? And does what is left have
some interesting character which makes it worthwhile
studying in depth, and not just for the language, or
worthwhile publishing for something more than mere doc-
umentation? I pose this question because this seems to
be the trend in studies in Coptic literature: as soon
as a part of the texts reveals some individual charac-
ter of its own -- generally a link between that part
and literary documents in other languages -- it is made
the subject of a particular discipline or sub-disci-
pline, and lost forever for the appreciation of Coptic
literature as a unitary phenomenon with a consistent
historical development that is peculiarly its own.
This is today the main reason why no general history
of Coptic literature has yet been written, and indeed
nobody seems really to care. It is true that during the
Rome Congress of IACS in 1980, two scholars promised to
publish such a history, C. D. G. Muller and myself. In
fact none has yet been published, though I should men-
tion here the excellent article of M. Krause 1891 for
the Lexikon der Aegyptologie, and a contribution of M.
Roncaglia 0807.
For my part, I have had a change of heart, in the
sense that I now believe a conventional history of lit-
erature is not a good choice today, because new tech-
nologies for storing and disseminating information (no-
tably data base management systems and desktop publish-
ing) seem to offer more convenient ways of giving to
scholars the equivalent of a history of Coptic litera-
ture. Of course, the general ideas about the birth, de-
velopment, character, value, and death of Coptic liter-
ature are and will remain important matters. I have
published some articles on these subjects, but I have
left the enormous quantity of details and all the rele-
vant documentary evidence for electronic processing.
But one point must be clear: it is often assumed
that the time is not ripe for the conception of a his-
tory of Coptic literature, because many texts which are
in fragments not yet identified, or in inaccessible
codices, are not yet known. In my opinion this is far
from true. We know a lot of Coptic literary texts, and
they are sufficient to indicate at least the main lines
of development of the literature, if they are properly
studied and evaluated. One often forgets that the clas-
sical literatures too are known to us only from a small
quantity of texts, in comparison to those which have
existed and are now lost, but nobody thinks that this
prevents us from having ideas about their historical
development.
In this regard, it is also worth mentioning some ar-
ticles which, though centered upon collateral subjects,
touch on some questions of great relevance for under-
standing Coptic literature, its beginning and its de-
velopment. Alexander Bohlig 1638 treats -- with his
well known competence and discernment -- the national
consciousness of the Christian Egyptians, which is es-
sential to an understanding of the character of Coptic
literature. The studies of E. A. E. Reymond 2025 on De-
motic literature, and of Lichtheim 2147, are a starting
point for the difficult problems of the relation of
Coptic with Demotic literature. The completion of the
Clavis Patrum Graecorum of M. Geerard 2088, an instru-
ment of great importance also for Coptologists (it con-
sistently reports on Coptic documents), reminds us how
tight are the connections of Coptic literature with
Greek Patrology.
Scholars and the media.
Turning now to studies on specific subjects, I have
assembled a list of circa 300 titles relating to Coptic
literature between 1976 and 1988. Their number may
seem considerable at first glance, but considering that
they are distributed across a period of twelve years,
and that our choice has been intentionally large (in-
cluding marginal subjects), they represent a very un-
satisfactory situation, being mostly the sparse result
of incidental studies of many people whose main inter-
ests are elsewhere. It is possible (but I warn against
errors contained in all such statistics) to make some
calculations, and to state that only nine scholars have
produced five titles or more during the past twelve
years (Aranda 5, Browne 11, Coquin 14, Devos 12, Kuhn
5, Lafontaine 7, Lucchesi 25, Orlandi 19, Shisha-Halevy
7), though seven other scholars have produced at least
one book (Alcock, Poirier, Horn, Pietersma, Buchler,
Gawdat Gabra).
Of these scholars, those who come nearest to being
full-time students of Coptic literature (I do not say
Coptology at large), or in any case have diversified
interests in that field, are Coquin, Kuhn, Lafontaine,
Lucchesi, and Orlandi. This situation needs no comment.
It may also be convenient, at this point, to make a
survey of the 'media' in which most of the work of
those who study Coptic literature is published. First
of all, there are the series, many of which have been
established for long time and therefore are presti-
gious; though generally not devoted specially to the
edition of Coptic texts, they have at least a specific
section for it. The Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium has published two books (Johnson 1284, in
1980; and Kuhn 0583, in 1978). The Subsidia Hagio-
graphica of the Soci]t] des Bollandistes and the Texts
and Translations of Scholars Press have published one
book each (Poirier-Lucchesi 2163, of 1984; Pietersma
1524, of 1979). Patrologia Orientalis, the Bilioth}que
d'Etudes Coptes of the IFAO, and the Textes et Docu-
ments of the Soci]t] d'Arch]ologie Copte have published
no texts or monographs on Coptic literature at all.
The only very active series have been those more re-
cently established: that of the Corpus dei Manoscritti
Copti Letterari (formerly Testi e Documenti per lo Stu-
dio dell'Antichit{) with five books; Papyrologica Cas-
troctaviana, with one book (Browne 1390, of 1979; but
also others relating to the New Testament and Nubian
texts); the Cahiers d'Orientalisme with one book (Luc-
chesi 4640; but also a facsimile edition of Manichaean
codices). The Series Apocryphorum of the Corpus Chris-
tianorum will include the relevant Coptic texts, and
has already published those of the Acts of John (Junod
2059, of 1983).
Then there are the journals. Given the character of
the contributions relating to Coptic literature (brief
and narrowly focused), journals are the most frequent
vehicle for publication. They are numerous, well estab-
lished, and prestigious; there are also some of more
recent birth like Enchoria, Orientalia Lovaniensia Pe-
riodica, and Vetera Christianorum. Most are devoted to
Orientalism at large (Mus]on, Orientalia, Palestinski
Sbornik, Oriens Christianus), others to Egyptology
(Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache, Enchoria, Bul-
letin de l'IFAO), others to Patrology (Analecta Bollan-
diana, Augustinianum, Vetera Christianorum, Vigiliae
Christianae). The most active journals in this decade
were Analecta Bollandiana (30 articles) and Orientalia
Lovaniensia Periodica (7 articles). One hopes that the
birth of an 'ad hoc' journal may concentrate Coptic
publications, though on the other hand it would be a
pity to see the journals mentioned above deprived of
Coptic material.
Congresses are occasions for presenting (and then
publishing) studies on various subjects in Coptic lit-
erature. Three relevant congresses are periodic, and
are centered on Coptic Studies: that of the IACS, the
Koptologische Arbeitskonferenz of Halle, and the
Journ]e d'Etudes Coptes of Strasbourg. Others are pe-
riodic, but only collaterally treat Coptic Studies:
that of the Society of Egyptologists, that of the Soci-
ety of Nubian Studies, the Patristic Conference of Ox-
ford, and the Incontro di studiosi dell'antichit{ cris-
tiana of Rome. Among special congresses relevant to our
subject, I shall mention that on the Roots of Egyptian
Christianity (Claremont, 1983), and that in honor of
Mirrit Boutros Ghali (Cairo, 1979).
The ongoing encyclopedias should provide occasions
to cover subjects previously neglected, and to modify
old opinions. Unfortunately, this is often not the
case: many articles on patristic authors systematically
neglect the oriental translations. But I can mention
also some fundamental contributions, like that of
Krause 1891 in the Lexikon fur Aegyptologie.
The collections of manuscripts.
The irreplaceable source for all study of Coptic
literature remains the collections of manuscripts, be-
cause many of them are not published, and their con-
tents can be known only through direct access. There-
fore it is important that this paper give some indica-
tion as to the situation of the studies and organiza-
tion relating to them.
We all know the numerous important contributions
published in the first decades of this century, in the
form of huge and very detailed catalogues, which were
the descendants of such pioneering works as Zoega's or
Mingarelli's masterworks at the end of the eighteenth
century. Their main feature is that they are centered
upon individual modern collections, though the necessi-
ty to link the manuscripts in one collection to others
of the same origin but kept in different collections
was generally acknowledged.
One question concerning similar undertakings, when
they are renewed today, is whether it is advisable,
given today's facilities of technique (i.e., photogra-
phy) and of personal mobility, to center one's study
upon modern rather then ancient (original) 'bibliologi-
cal units'. During the period covered by the present
contribution, the rare studies dedicated to this sub-
ject have followed the traditional scheme, in two dif-
ferent ways: the more extensive, intentionally exhaus-
tive one (Layton 2336), and the simple list with a few
remarks (Beltz 4632, Orlandi 0718, 4713, Lucchesi 4640,
Coquin 4716). But I may note that in some comparable
cases, like the Nag Hammadi Codices (Robinson 5037) and
also the Bodmer papyri (Robinson 2411), the method of
focusing on the ancient 'bibliological units' has been
followed.
Many points should be considered and discussed:
whether codicology, paleography, contents, history of
acquisition, bibliography, should really form the scope
of a single work; whether the often changing conditions
of a collection can be the subject of immobile (print-
ed) descriptions; whether the attention of scholars
should rather be drawn to the ancient libraries from
which the manuscripts ultimately derive, even with all
the uncertainties that this approach involves.
On the one hand, I think that we are rather well
equipped to know the contents of collections that still
lack catalogues (contrary to my own opinion of 1976;
cf. Paris, New York, etc., which have no catalogues,
but for which there are useful lists of various kinds).
On the other hand, I think that it is possible, and ad-
visable, to identify the ancient 'bibliological units'
and for scholarly efforts to concentrate on them. Let
me briefly review the most important ones.
The ancient library of the White Monastery is the
richest treasurer of Coptic literary (also biblical and
liturgical) works, dispersed in a multitude of modern
collections, and has been investigated for a long time,
though we are far from a final settlement. The CMCL now
has a complete list of the identified fragments and re-
constructed codices, and photographs of almost all the
manuscripts, therefore a good basis on which to contin-
ue the work.
The ancient library of the monastery of St. Michael
at Sopehes (Hamuli) is on the whole well preserved
(mainly in New York, Cairo, and London), and the task
is simply that of publishing the texts that are still
unpublished.
The intact codices of the ancient library of the
monastery of St. Macarius are already published more or
less satisfactorily; but the work on the fragments
(similar to that of the White Monastery) remains to be
done.
Other 'bibliological units' are also entirely or
mostly published, but in such a way that a new publica-
tion is desirable. These are: the library of the
monastery of St. Mercurius near Edfu (London and New
York); the library of the monastery of St. John
(Turin); the fragments of the collection Des Rivi}res
(London); the fragments of the Amherst collection (New
York: see the wonderful work by Pearson 0983 on one of
the items).
Editions of texts.
I come now to the actual work of the scholars who
have treated different parts of Coptic literature, and
I shall try to give an idea of the main trends which
their articles or monographs form. Fortunately, an im-
portant part of these articles is devoted to the publi-
cation of texts, because one great necessity in the
field of Coptic literature is that of giving scholars
easy ways to know the content and main peculiarities of
the texts, many of which still lie unpublished.
For this reason, and because it was clear that speed
in publishing the manuscripts was necessary if an as-
sessment of the history of Coptic literature was to be
attained, an enterprise (which later took the name of
Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari, at the Univer-
sity of Rome) was started, and produced the publication
of many manuscripts, in a relatively short time (Orlan-
di 0106, 0112, 1393, 2248; Campagnano 0111, 0113).
The quality of these publications originated a more
or less open controversy, which is worth reviewing
here, because it may shed some light on many method-
ological questions, which are often ignored. The speed
in publication is obtained at the cost of the quality
of printing: the possibility of more misprints than
usual; incompleteness of apparatus and indexes; a cer-
tain freedom in translating (attention to the general
sense rather than to the peculiarities of the lan-
guage).
All this was readily understood by the scholars who
studied these publications, but they had different re-
actions. The substantially favorable judgments of Devos
(AB 94, 1976, p. 194-5; p. 425-8), Quecke (who stated
the matter best, in Orientalia 46, 1977, p. 489: Es
sollen in einfachen und billigen Ausgaben moglichst
schnell koptische Texte zuganglich gemacht werden die
sonst allzu lange unbekannt oder unerreichbar in un-
seren Bibliotheken und Museen schlummern wurden.... Ich
kann das Unternehmen nur uneingeschrankt begrussen, was
zunachst das Grudsatzliche betrifft. Aber auch die
konkrete Durchfuhrung bei den beiden schon vorliegenden
Banden kann in meinen Augen bestehen, obwohl man einige
Wunsche, besonders fur grossere Genauigkeit in den
Ubersetzung, vorbringen konnte), Coquin (BO 34, 1977,
p. 322-5), and others, was matched by the punctilious
(and in some cases, I feel obliged to say, superfluous
and also erroneous) remarks and the adverse judgments
of others, notably Brunsch (Enchoria 6, 1976, 143-9;
8.2, 1978, 83-90), Godron 1944, and Lucchesi (RHR 200,
1983, p. 202-4, though reviewing a book of a different
kind).
It is obvious that an edition without errors and
definitive will never exist; but the problem is to find
the point at which the imperfections of a quick publi-
cation do not prevent it from being useful. This prob-
lem is worth discussing, and I shall try here to clari-
fy some parts of it. The idea of a definitively accu-
rate edition is that of a masterwork which should rep-
resent the obvious means through which the study of the
text in question and also of the manuscripts is subse-
quently done by scholars in related fields. Such an
edition should reproduce exactly and completely the
manuscript (when there are more than one manuscript,
they should be separately printed or written in paral-
lel lines or columns); the contents of the text should
be understood and translated in all details; the lan-
guage should be described; etc., etc. Aiming at this
ideal of what an edition should be are, e.g., those of
Kuhn 0583, Johnson 1284, and Alcock 1965.
It seems to me that there really exists no scholar
equally specialized in paleography, linguistics, histo-
ry of literature, etc. Classical philology adopted a
long time ago a degree of specialization, and conse-
quently a distribution of tasks. No editor would note
different or wrong accents, breathings, and other signs
in the manuscripts, unless they are of special rele-
vance. The editor is rarely also the translator. Fur-
thermore, the possibility to reproduce the manuscript
in facsimile should lead the editor to treat the text
with more attention to the contents and less to the
form.
The result of the actual situation in Coptic litera-
ture is that nobody really studies the published texts,
because what one needs first is a general idea of the
existing documents, not just a few examples which can-
not be historically placed. But no general idea can be
given, because there is almost no full-time scholar in
this field -- given the slight reputation of Coptology
-- and even those few who do work in this field cannot
produce enough accurate editions. But conversely, the
inaccurate editions of Budge and Am]lineau have been as
useful as the accurate editions of Crum and Lefort.
And the same is true for the problem of how best to
construct a critical apparatus: I know now that in Cop-
tic it is a question of revisions of texts, not of me-
chanical transmission; to see this, it is not necessary
to have a complete apparatus, but something like what I
give in my editions. It is wrong to assume that one
should be able to reconstruct every codex from the ap-
paratus of one edition.
What really matters is the honesty and the clarity
of an edition. The editor should make clear which
problems he has tried to solve, and which he has devot-
ed less attention to, and the edition should be used
according to such declarations. The other problems must
certainly not be neglected, but they will assume a mi-
nor importance, and be left for further study. If,
e.g., an edition is prepared for the sake of the study
of Coptic literature, not of the Coptic language, what
is important is (a) that the text is copied directly
from the manuscript, with a certain degree of accuracy
(if some mistakes are left -- say, one per page -- this
will not prevent the reader from having a generally
correct idea of the content and also of the literary
form); and (b) that the translation gives a fairly ac-
curate idea of the text; here it is important that the
sense of the sentences is exactly reproduced, but if
the translation does not reproduce some of the grammat-
ical or structural peculiarities of Coptic, this should
not be considered to be a serious darwback.
If, on the other hand, an edition is prepared espe-
cially for linguistic and paleographical purposes, it
is best to give a complete photographic reproduction of
the manuscript, with an appropriate commentary which
facilitates -- when necessary -- the reading of the
text, and presents all the paleographical and linguis-
tic peculiarities against the background of the general
Coptic tradition. It often happens that the so-called
grammatical peculiarities are listed without any com-
ment as to their significance and importance. This is a
bad habit, because it gives non-specialized readers a
false impression of the state of linguistic knowledge
in Coptology, and opens the way to less devoted schol-
ars to present some mechanical observations as if they
were the product of intelligent study.
As to the content of the texts published, though it
is difficult to trace some trends, I may note the ad-
vances that have been made in the study of certain lit-
erary genres. One of these genres is the Apocryphal
Acts of the Apostles, in connection with the extensive
research promoted by the Swiss enterprise. One should
always remember that the historical problem concerns
together the Sahidic, the Bohairic, and the Arabic col-
lections, in relation to the much more dispersed origi-
nal Greek evidence, and consequently also the Latin and
Syriac traditions.
Another literary group is the Pachomian texts. We
can now read the Coptic text of some of the Epistles of
Pachomius, and some Epistles by Theodore and Horsiesi,
which together change our understanding of the earliest
period of original Coptic literature. Also new frag-
ments of the Vitae have been published (Coquin 1617,
2159).
Identification of the manuscripts.
Much study has been dedicated to the identification
of the contents of the manuscripts, which has been the
subject of many articles (and parts of books), whether
accompanied by the edition of the texts or not. This is
an important field, because a great many Coptic frag-
ments have not yet been identified, and even partial
remarks add useful material to our general knowledge of
Coptic literature. What is lacking here is a general
tool of reference, which should permit us to insert the
new findings at their proper place in this immense puz-
zle. On of the aims of the Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti
Letterari is to supply such a tool.
Another problem is that of the style or the form in
which articles of this latter kind are conceived. One
might suppose that it is of minor importance, but on
the contrary this is one of the elements which discour-
ages the spread of such studies (which are badly need-
ed) and a right appreciation of them by scholars in re-
lated fields. Often the announcements convey the im-
pression that the so-called discoveries are especially
fortunate rewards of years of deep study and great ef-
forts in the continuous study of Coptic manuscripts.
The reality is rather different. Because of the rela-
tively little attention given before to this kind of
research and the great quantity of more or less unstud-
ied codices and fragments, continuous results may be
obtained from any serious investigation of the materi-
al, if it is based on a good knowledge of the previous-
ly identified manuscripts and of the historical situa-
tion of the collections.
This assertion is proved by the contributions both
of earlier scholars (Crum, Lefort, Till, Garitte, etc.)
and of more recent scholars (Kuhn, Devos, Coquin,
Morard; but especially Lucchesi and Orlandi). But un-
fortunately the technical information, which is what
really matters, is often confused among other observa-
tions, such as descriptions of how the discoveries were
made, or remarks on the importance of the subject, or
detailed descriptions of the mistakes of earlier stud-
ies. All such material should be kept rigorously sepa-
rate from the essential data, and in any case the read-
er should be able to understand immediately (by means
of clearly arranged lists) (a) which are the
manuscripts in question; (b) what new information is
being given about them; and (c) how the new information
fits into what is already known.
The subjects studied.
Finally, I shall list the subjects within the study
of Coptic literature which have been the most studied
in these twelve years. Perhaps the most important de-
velopments have been in the Pachomian field, where new
texts have been found (see above) and many translations
published (English: Veilleux 1540; French: Veilleux
2257; Italian: Cremaschi 4095). Also, the significance
of the texts for many problems of the history of monas-
ticism has been investigated (especially Ruppert 0421;
Bacht 2044; Buchler 1637). One can say that after some
years, much is changed in the picture of Pachomian
monasticism, in comparison with previous studies.
Shenute has received less attention than he de-
serves, but new important texts have been published
(Orlandi 2248; Shisha-Halevy 0700; Young 1525 and 1986;
Kuhn 2097; Layton 2030; Lucchesi 0780), and an exten-
sive bibliography (Frandsen 1622).
The work of the ]quipe for the Greek edition of Gre-
gory of Nazianzus has promoted the study of the Coptic
texts attributed to him (Lafontaine 0366, 1585, 2108).
The other Gregory, of Nyssa, has on the contrary en-
joyed the happy coincidence of two identifications:
fragments of his De anima et resurrectione (Coquin
1607), and extensive fragments of his Commentary on Ec-
clesiastes (Orlandi 1905; Lucchesi 1960).
Conclusion.
Let me conclude this paper with some observations.
The number of contributions touching on Coptic litera-
ture published in the years 1976-1988 is in itself re-
markable, but from the point of view of the understand-
ing of Coptic literature as a cultural phenomenon, the
ensemble of those contributions cannot be considered as
satisfactory. Most of them concern only some very par-
ticular aspects of Coptic literature; often they simply
signal the existence of one text, without trying to as-
sess its significance for the entire complex of Coptic
literature. There is more: one gets the impression (not
only from the recent contributions, but also from the
older ones) that even the editors of the texts read on-
ly the texts published by them, and nothing else --
save the Bible -- or in any case, what they have read,
they have read only from a linguistic point of view.
All this reveals the scarce interest in Coptic lit-
erature as such, even among those who deal with Coptic
texts. Therefore it is not surprising to note the same
scarcity of interest among scholars in related fields,
and consequently the lack of a market for publications
of Coptic texts, which of course discourages even the
specialized publishers from trying to foster this kind
of publication. But one should also consider that this
situation has not been formed in recent years alone (on
the contrary, we may find a slight improvement recent-
ly); that it will probably last for much time to come;
and that such as it is, it even makes some sense. I
have been dealing with Coptic authors, translators,
redactors, and scribes for many years now, and I have
come to understand and appreciate some of them (or so I
think). But when I ask myself, who might have an inter-
est in studying them, the answer is: only a handful of
enthusiasts, like those who are in fact working today.
Such being the situation, it will take rather much time
before Coptic literature may claim its rightful place
among the other ancient and medieval literatures of
more fortunate peoples.
There should be an exception, namely the Copts them-
selves, and also the Egyptians for their national cul-
ture, who should find in one of their ancient litera-
tures, together with the literatures in the Greek and
Arabic languages, much more than in the archeology,
etc., the roots of what they are today. This is why I
hope that they will accept the help that non-Egyptian,
western scholars can give them, but also that they will
go farther on in what is their own task: to link past
and present, with an open mind, without prejudices or
fear.
_______________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Due to restrictions of space, only some of the publi-
cations are listed. For the other publications, the
numbers refer to the Coptic Bibliography, VI edition,
Roma, CIM, 1987).
0006 Tito ORLANDI, The Future of Studies in Coptic Bib-
lical and
Ecclesiastical Literature, in: R. McL. WILSON (ed.),
The Future of
Coptic Studies, p. 1-22, Leiden, Brill, 1978, "Cop-
tic Studies" 1
0106 T. ORLANDI - S. DI GIUSEPPE, Passione e miracoli
di S. Mercurio,
Milano, Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1976, 136 p., "Testi e
Documenti,
Serie copta", 54
0111 A. CAMPAGNANO, A. MARESCA, T. ORLANDI, Quattro
omelie copte,
Vita di Giovanni Crisostomo, Encomi dei 24 Vegliardi
(ps. Proclo
e Anonimo), Encomio di Michele Arcangelo di Eustazio
di Tracia,
"Testi e Documenti per lo Studio dell'Antichit{, Se-
rie Copta",
60, Milano, Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1977
0112 Tito ORLANDI, Il Dossier copto del Martire Psote,
"Testi e
Documenti per lo Studio dell'Antichit{, Serie Cop-
ta", 61,
Milano, Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1978
0113 Antonella CAMPAGNANO, Ps. Cirillo di Gerusalemme,
Omelie copte
sulla Passione sulla Croce e sulla Vergine, "Testi e
Documenti per
lo Studio dell'Antichit{, Serie Copta", 65, Milano,
Cisalpino-Goliardica,
1980
0366 Guy LAFONTAINE, Une hom]lie copte sur le diable et
sur Michel
attribu]e a Gr]goire le Th]ologien, Le Mus]on 92
(1979) 37-60
0583 K. Heinz KUHN, A Panegyric on Apollo Archimandrite
of the
Monastery of Isaac, by Stephen Bishop of Heracleopo-
lis Magna,
CSCO 394 395, Louvain, Secretariat du CorpusSCO,
1978
0700 Ariel SHISHA-HALEVY, Unpublished Shenoutiana in
the British
Library, Enchoria 5 (1975) 53-108
1284 Dwight W. JOHNSON, A Panegyric on Macarius Bishop
of Tkow,
Attributed to Dioscorus of Alexandria, CSCO 415 416,
Louvain,
Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1980
1390 Gerald Michael BROWNE, Michigan Coptic Texts,
Barcelona,
Papyrol. Castr., 1979, "Papyrologica Castroctaviana,
Studia
et Textus", 7
1393 T. ORLANDI - B. A. PEARSON - H. A. DRAKE, Eudoxia
and the Holy
Sepulchre. A Constantinian Legend in Coptic, "Testi
e Docum.
per lo Studio dell'Antichit{, Serie Copta", 67, Mi-
lano,
Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1980
1524 A. PIETERSMA, S. T. COMSTOCK, H. W. ATTRIDGE, The
Apocalypse
of Elijah, Based on P. Chester Beatty 2018, "Text
and Translations",
19, Chico CA., Scholars Press, 1979
1540 Armand VEILLEUX, Pachomian Koinonia, Life, Rules
and Other
Writings of Saint Pachomius and his Disciples, Kala-
mazoo MI,
Cistercian Public., 1980-82, 3 Vols.
1607 R.G. COQUIN, E. LUCCHESI, Une version copte du De
Anima et
Resurrectione ("Macrinia") de Gr]goire de Nysse, OLP
12 (1981) 161-201
1622 P. J. FRANDSEN, E. RICHTER-AEROE, Shenoute: a Bib-
liography,
in: D.W. YOUNG (ed.), Studies Presented to H.J.
Polotsky, p. 147-176,
Beacon Hill MS, Pirtle Polson, 1981
1891 Martin KRAUSE, Koptische Literatur, Lexikon der
Agyptologie 3,
col. 694-728, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1979
1965 Antony ALCOCK, The Life of Samuel of Kalamun,
Warminster, Aris
Phillips, 1983
2059 E. JUNOD, J. D. KAESTLI, Acta Iohannis, "Corpus
Christianorum, Series
Apocryphorum" 1-2, Turnhout, Brepols, 1983, 2 Vols.
2163 Paul-Hubert POIRIER, La version copte de la Predi-
cation et du
Martyr de Thomas, SH 67, Bruxelles, Soc. des Bollan-
distes, 1984
2248 Tito ORLANDI, Shenute contra Origenistas, Roma,
CIM, 1985
2336 Bentley LAYTON, Catalogue of Coptic Literary
Manuscripts in
the British Library Acquired Since the Year 1906,
London, The
British Library, 1987
4640 Enzo LUCCHESI, Repertoire des manuscrits coptes
(sahidiques)
publi]s de la Biblioth}que Nationale de Paris,
"Cahiers d'Orientalisme"
1, Gen}ve, Cramer, 1981