^{page 19 note 1} Its present whereabouts is unknown. Professor Moret, who very kindly searched the archives of the Musée Guimet, but without any success, tells me that it was not in the Musée when he became Conservateur in 1906. Professor Spiegelberg has heard nothing of it since he copied it there some time before 1896 (the date of the publication of his Rechnungen).

^{page 19 note 2} 7¼ by 4½ in. at greatest length and breadth respectively. The papyrus is bleached to a greyish colour. The top, right-hand and bottom edges are unhurt; the left-hand is very ragged as a result of the tear which caused the estrangement of the two fragments.

^{page 20 note 1} Gardiner, in JEA., iii, 105–6Google Scholar, and (with Gunn) v, 46.

^{page 20 note 2} Newberry, in PSBA., xxxv, 119, note iGoogle Scholar.

^{page 22 note 1} Newberry, , Beni Hasan, ii, 20Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 2} Budge, , God of the Egyptians, i, 354Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 3} Eg. Grammar, p. 500, “J.24,” note 5.

^{page 23 note 1} Griffith, , Inscriptions of Siut, etc., vi, 280Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 2} On a statue of an important official of Amenophis III from Memphis, in Petrie, , etc., Tarkhan I and Memphis V, p. 33 ffGoogle Scholar, plates lxxviii–lxxx.

^{page 23 note 3} Op. cit., pi. lxxx, 1. 19.

^{page 24 note 1} A very unusual, if not a unique spelling; perhaps by confusion with , in which the hieratic form of is indistinguishable from that of .

^{page 24 note 2} Spiegelberg, ibid., read for , but later altered this to the reading given here on the strength of the personal name , for which he has very kindly sent me the following references: Leemans, Mon. Eg. à Leide, ii, pi. 16; Sharpe, , Hierog. Insc., i, 26Google Scholar (= B.M. Stele 138); Lepsius, , Denkm. Text, i, 183Google Scholar. To these must be added the remarkable jackal-headed shabti-figure, B.M. 47398, of painted limestone, for Naherhe (XIXth–XXth Dynasty). The reading is confirmed by the writing in 1. 4 of the B.M. fragment. I have transcribed with , for the sake of consistency with the writing below (instead of Spiegelberg's ).

^{page 25 note 1} The scribe has undoubtedly written , which in hieratic somewhat resembles . The mistake occurs also in hieroglyphic as early as the reign of Amenophis III (Petrie, Wainwright, and Gardiner, Tarkhan I and Memphis X, pl. lxxx, 1. 19), and is quoted by Spiegelberg, , Demotica, II, 53Google Scholar, note 5, in Sitz. d. Bayerischen Ak. d. Wiss, 1928, 2, Abhandl., as an accepted variant at the end of the New Kingdom. I owe this reference to Dr. Gardiner.

^{page 25 note 2} Probably not more than two signs missing.

^{page 25 note 3} Inserted in small writing above the line.

^{page 26 note 1} There are no traces of this line on the verso; possibly was omitted.