I went through your paper, “Introduction to the Economicus by Xenophon” a third time, and realize again what an exciting, reasoned and (to the layman) eminently readable read it is. Congrats ! I think it could be sent in for publication, as is. However, as we discussed, I have written out a few suggestions, none substantial, or, even suggesting a different organization. It flows.

1) At my second reading, some typographical and punctuation questions arose, which are reproduced in BLACK, expressed in the ‘proof-readers’ marks of doubling the notation in the (right-hand) margin. Also, I am in the habit of questioning those few phrases thought unnecessary, for the purposes of shortening and simplification.

2) My hand writing is big, so what I have written may look like a very critical reading, but this is not what I think, feel or intend. Please excuse my BIGNESS: a more judicious result would have ensued had I used a smaller pen. Please understand.

3) During the third reading, after I understood your argument better, I used RED, to distinguish my third notes from those of the second. But red is often associated with criticism, which I certainly do NOT mean. These notes are merely the suggestions of a lay reader, and whether you use them or not is a matter of indifference to me. Because I found your text fascinating and readable and inherently interesting, however, I was tempted to ‘get into it’ the more. Please excuse my enthusiasm. [And my attempts at humor.]

4) The one larger point I wish to make is this: the original seems a wonderfully convoluted example of “Irony.” While you clearly bring out the ironic organization, tone, examples, thrust and meanings embedded in the original, and explain how this is so brilliantly layered, these literary devices could [should, I think] be emphasized more strongly, and earlier. Particularly for the reader who will read it only once. Your interpretation is, after all, your original contribution, and it should rise clearly to the surface. This will only emphasize the shadowed conclusion: which, is, I take it, in part, that Xenophon was both criticizing both Socrates and himself; but also praising both himself and Socrates.

Therefore, I wrote ‘ironic’ ‘satire’ ‘sardonic’ ‘oblique’ ‘layered’ many times, just to suggest where you have revealed this, but often without as much emphases as [I think] you might.

In ‘technical English’ the outline and conclusion is given at the beginning, then the material is presented, finally summarized at the end. I realize that in academic English, conclusions are often left for the end. I view writings from my Technical background, which may be inappropriate.

You judge.

I hope this interesting, thoughtful and valuable paper sees the black and white of publication soon