My dear Smyly,
Many thanks for your proof of
the calendar article² and your remarks
on the astrological fragment, which were
an unexpected pleasure. I enclose a
proof of the astronomical fr.³ We leave
on Nov 21 going by the N.D. Lloyd
S. service⁴ from Marseilles to Alexandria.
I should strongly recommend you to go by
this, for the boats are large, & cooking
excellent. You can get 1st class berths for
₣ 13 and dont let Cook⁵ persuade you
into paying more. Also it is unnecessary

to take a return ticket. They give you 20%
off if you come back the same way. The boats
leave Marseilles on Dec 6, 13 and 27. I enclose
a circular on the subject.
I have at length completed the appendix on
the Macedonian calendar. The dates from Tebt
107 ^ recto were difficult to deal with : the I eventually
placed them between the 21st and 25th year of
Euergetes I and hope there is nothing in them
to disprove that With regard to the supposed
Philometor dates, through P. Par 63 XIII
might refer to Philopator, I dont see how
P Par 60⁶ can refer to anyone but
Philometor or Euergetes II. Hence I shall
be disposed to accept the Hierogl. insc
at Philae without altering it, as you do

With regard to the 'regnal' year of Philadelphus,
a demotic docket on one of dour Hibeh papyri
dated in Epeiph 4 of the 35th year shows that
si is dated in the '34 th which is also the
35th year', showing (what I had rather
suspected from Rev. Laws /iii⁷ πωυλουμεν απο
Γορπ = Μεσορη) that Philadelphus regnal
year began later in the year than Epeiph 4.
I notice that you take for granted that the
'regnal' years were Egyptian, i.e. had 365
days: but I think the other hypothesis
that they were Macedonian has at least a
claim to be considered, especially as Euergetes I's
b... accension day was kept on Dius 25
not the corresponding Egyptian day.
Enclosed is a proof of the astronomical
fragment. We have been so pressed with the
Hibeh vol, that we have decided not to

return the Hibeh Tebtunis proof next month,
especially as the appendices arent written and Otto⁸
proceeds but slowly with his vol ii of the priests.⁹
But you might let me have any criticisms
before Nov 20th.
Have you seen H. Maspero¹⁰ on the finances
of the Ptolemies?¹¹ Nothing new in it