original. Peet (1923, 2), p. 136, considered that the list of all the differences between the original and the so-called facsimile was too long for him to publish. It should be added that to the Egyptologist the word facsimile, as used above, would not convey any erroneous impression.
In preparing his hieratic text Eisenlohr (1877) confesses to have made changes in the British Museum "facsimile" loaned to him but he made some slips, as Griflith (1894) has pointed out. With these facts in mind it will be clear that a wrong inference might readily be drawn from another statement in Budge's Introduction, namely the following: "As early as 1869 the preparation of a facsimile of the papyrus and descriptive text was authorized by the Trustees of the British Museum; but the progress of the work was delayed, and in 1877 Prof. Eisenlohr published an edition entitled," . . . "the facsimile which accompanied it being produced from plates already made for the Trustee's edition, and lent to Prof. Eisenlohr."[1]
The papyri 10057, 10058 were originally one papyrus of 14 leaves, each leaf about 15 inches wide. Some 7½ inches from the middle of the sixth leaf were regarded as irretreviably lost, till 1922 when fragments belonging to this missing portion were discovered in New York City by Mr. Newberry; compare Peet (1923, 2) and Archibald 1925 [1923].
Review by F. L. Griffith, Orientalislische Liueratur-Zeitung, vol. 2, 1899, cols. 116-117. Quotation: "This book has evidently been printed only to make use of plates, prepared thirty years ago for Dr. Birch, whose projected publication of this famous papyrus was never issued. It was from proofs of these plates that Eisenlohr made his edition. . . . The plates of the British Museum edition are very handsomely reproduced, and the book is very cheap; beyond this there is little to be said in its favor: no more inconvenient style of publication could be imagined. The plates, representing as they do the whole of the recto and those portions of the verso on which there is writing, exactly as the papyrus is now mounted, may give a somewhat better idea of the positions of the different entries in the original; and the colour of the papyrus is imitated, as well as the inks of the writing. In these details alone is there any superiority to the plates of Dr. Eisenlohr. The few mistakes in the facsimile which the present writer (P. S. B. A. 1894) found in the Eisenlohr's plates appear here also, and in neither edition is there any clear marking of the repairs and modern ink restorations on the verso. On the other hand, the new publication is far less adapted for use than its predecessor, . . . The pages are mercilessly cut up (to measure!) in the plates, without the slightest reference to their meaning (3). Beyond the mere numbering of the plates no reference numbers are given to the often intricate writing. Clearly therefore, the present publication was not undertaken to benefit Egyptologists, but simply as a utilization of the old plates. Dr. Birch must have felt that these would have to be entirely redrawn, and so the publication was indefinitely shelved. It is a pity that so
- ↑ "Als ich im Frühjahr 1872 England besuchte, war Dr. Birch so gūtig, mir ein Exemplar des lithographirten, aber noch nicht erschienen, Abdrucks jenes Papyrus zu zustellen," Eisenlohr, op. cit., p. 2. I have verified that Eiscnlohr's publication of these plates was not effected with the consent of the Trustees of the British Museum. Compare Quaritch's Catalogue, no. 184 and Eisenlohr (1899).
