History of Papyrology - beta


[begin page 1]


My dear Smyly,
I was away in town2 yesterday, but
went to the Bodleian today, the light being none
of the best. Here are the answers to your queries
(1) P.P.II3 vii line 7. I read εις τουτο for
εκ του γ̅ εις is quite certain. Παυνι in
M4's copy isnt right.
line 11. the first symbol ῐ seems to represent
αρουρα, the second 5 artabae
13. I dont understand the symbol .
 is of course ιπ(παρχια) or some other
derivative of ἵππος. But here the symbol seems
to be Μ not Π with an Ι through the middle.
(2)5 P II. viii col II verso the word before
τιραχθησονται might be read as ε̣π̣ε̣ι̣. In the
next line Wilcken is, I think, right: It is γαρ.


[begin page 2]


not παρα and ιλικοι What you took
for the second half of Ν is probably only
paint.
As for επιδανει]ζεσθαι I agree with you
ζ is unsatisfactory. ν]ι̣σ̣α̣σθαι could be read
but it is more like ]λεσθαι
(3)6 II xiv (1a) 9.10 ως δ αν is right
he made a muddle of it first. ανενενεγ7
καμενον will do. In this scrawl ον, ων
and αν are indistinguishable, but συνταγθηι
wont do. I am prepared to accept M8's
συντασσηι
(1b) He seems to have written ουση
first (perhaps he was going to write ουσαν)
and then scratched out ου & put in ο at
the top ἡ υγιης is right. In the
next line προ̣ς̣ τ̣α̣ θ̣εμελε της can be

read. He certainly didnt write θεμελια
but it is possiblye he inserted α over the
line aftewrads, for the papyrus is rubbed
just at that point
(4) II xx col I 15 ο]θ̣ε̣ν is right.
(5)9 II xxii 14. about 10 letters are lost
between χυραση̣ι̣ and απο. I cant see
any ει.
(6)10 XXVI (4) 2. the traces before ος will
do for ημ. Λιμναιου of course is
right as in (3) 2,3 λι/μναιου του παρα
In (7)11 I should read 𐅂 α χαλκου
[δρ]αχμα[ς ε?ξ|ηκοντα. But I dont
understand lines 5 and 6 where M12's readings
must be wrong. I suspect a mention
of αργυριον in line 6. L.6. in (8)13
too there was probably a payment in both


[begin page 3]


silver & copper. There are traces of
a line below αργ 𐅂 εκα[τον.
Ptolemais ὅρμου is by the way
almost certainly at Illahun14. Probably
the Gurob papyri15 came from its very
cemetery.
Our boxes16 have come. Petrie tells me
he only found about 25 papyrus mummies.
We have parts of 120 (about 60 well
preserved), so our collection ought to be
very large, though the pectorals etc are in
most cases somewhat smaller than the Gurob
ones.
Tell Mahaffy I am very sorry he wouldnt
come here.

Yours
B.P. Grenfell.

1. Presumably 1900.

2. Refers to London.

3. All references hereafter refer to P.Petr. II.

4. Refers to Mahaffy.

5. For the text discussed here see SB VI 9454 (4).

6. For this text, see P.Petr. III 46 (1).

7. Sic: ανενενκαμενον meant.

8. Refers to Mahaffy.

12. Refers to Mahaffy.

15. Presumably the papyri later edited by Smyly in P.Gur. (1921).

16. Refers to the boxes from the Tebtunis excavation.

Cite this page: Center for the Tebtunis Papyri. Document 90. History of Papyrology. https://histpap.info/letters/90/.