My dear Smyly,
I propose to arrive on
Tuesday^aft. next by the rail (Westland
row¹) It gets in about 5.30 p.m. I
think. On Wedn. I am dining with
the Provost².
Hunt & I went through the Papyrus³
with the results following.
Recto II 8⁴ υπηρετου certain, but I do
not believe in κατεπλευσινδ & καταπλεθσε
is clear, the termination is so blurred that it
might be almost any thing.

III 2 Δημητριον is not possible
III 7⁵ It is more like εισ- than εκ, but
εκ could be read.
9. Πετενουριος is quite certain
12. There is a lacuna after επιγ[ and
it is not 'verklebt⁶' now.
IV 8 σαν can be read, but so could σιν
(dots under the letters are necessary anyhow)
The question depends on whether a vertical
stroke is ink orf the original or ink that
has come off from the document gummed on
to it. W's reading makes better
Greek than yours and we should prefer it.
Verso⁷. II 2. W saw traces of ink where
his supposed ται would come, but they
are too slight to suggest any particular

letters and would do for σ̣ι̣ν̣ just as
well.
5. Τας- is quite clear -α̣ς̣
doubtful but inevitable. τασσεσθω
δε is very wide of the mark.
6 your reading is all right
7 Read, as you say, το αργυριον
II των τ is clear, and in spite of
the spacing τ[ους] σ[ταθμους is
necessary though your σ is very doubtful
προστιθεναι is right. υποτιθ cannot be read
15 your reading is certain
16. Here we much prefer W's
reading. It is, as I said before,
Γ not Π and ΚΟΙ not ΚΟΝ
III 7. the drachme sign before ξ is
rubbed out, as you say.

By the way isnt your first sentence,
as you have corrected the proof, rather an
'Irishism'? Of course I understand your
meaning, but the oxymoron is a litte
violent for the uninstructed.
In Recto II 10 we should prefer αυτον
to αυτων, the word in 12 is pretty
certainly an infinitive, μ̣η κατ̣α̣[βην]α̣ι̣