My dear Smyly,
Many thanks for so
promptly sending your remarks, which
we will consider carefully. The
most serious are those about the 'regnal'
years. The Magdola² papyrus,³ which
belongs to Philopator⁴, not Euergetes⁵,
might be square with the your theory
about the accession, but the P.P. on
Part III Introd 8⁶ seems to be, as you say,
fatal. I had overlooked the month
being Phamenoth owing to the text
being hidden away in the introd., but it

surprises me rather that in the spite
of it syou should have adhered to the
accession view in P.P. III p. 331.
At present I am disposed to abandon the
'accession' theory altogether at the
price of hashing about the appendix
fearfully and to give up the
question of regnal yrs hopeless. The νέον ἔτος
on Pauni I of the Canop. Inscr. seems to
me no use, for the regnal & revenue
years differ in months on both
sides of the Sirius rising, cf. P.P. &
P. Magd which have Phamenoth with
th P. Hibeh 80 which has Epeiph.

The Hibeh text suggest that thatthe
difference between the two years was
maintained until nearly or quite the
end of the financial year, and I would
prefer making Thoth, the beginning
of both years, as T. Reinach⁷ proposes,
if that were possible. But I cant
see on his system what became of α
regnal, for to suppose that people
went on dating by a king after his
death (as T.R. seems to imply) is
absurd. I have written to him to ask
for an explanation.
There seem to be some interesting things
from mummy 8.⁸ I hope the new

cartonnage has been satisfactory.
Do try and come out to Egypt next
year if you can.