THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 63 
THE BENEFITS BY THE KING TO THE GODS IN GENERAL—continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
6d 5c 
oe? tb—nfr n-wnyw nw| Bat L. My n n—r—W p-hp 
to do the very best(?)! to the people of Egypt, these (things) to those who do (?)" what is right 
: 5d 
my ‘r-n Dhwty betes: hn . . [e-h] p-é&’r Thuty | p-5 p-5 
as did Thout, [the very great]. in [Egypt(?)] as did ‘Thout the very great 
Sreclals BENEFITS ‘TO? THEIPRIESTS. 
W[z-hm--f?]? "sR ’w—sbwt Hn-f-s ‘n  e-th(st) n-htpw (—ntr?) 
Ord[ered(?) his majesty(?)] furthermore on behalf | He ordered it again on behalf of the sacred domains 
6e 5e 
htpw [-ntr?] n nirw | h' nb n n-nirw | [nm n-—nb n—pr 
of the [sacred?] domains of thegods and the gold, | of the gods; [and the money (and) the grain 
hz hy ridy?]_ r  hwt-ntrw nt é-w-ty-st n snigsy(s?) (e) nw- (rpyw) 
silver (and) grain (to be) given for the temples which was given as tax for their (temples) 
m(!)—-hr? hspt h‘ p(s) Swt(?) rwt | hr-rnpt nm — n-tyw. nt hpr n 
every year (of the king) and the corresponding(?) shares | every year and the portions which were for 
5 
nw [?!nir]w m hsp nw(?)® hw(t)’ | n—nirlw nn—yhw(t)li [n-]! yhw(t) ae 
of the |[god]s from the vineyards(?)® of the fields(?) | the god]s from the vineyards (and) the gardens- 
hr hnbw [... ?] ()hA(w)tnbd nm p-sp [nkt tr-w 
and gardens, [and?] all things and the rest [(of the) things altogether 
74 
wn hr|-sn e—w|n—n,é-w(?)  mhlt|(?)—u(?) ’m—w'? 
(which) were (due) to(?) them’ which] they had been __ receiving(?) 
m rk yt?(—f] [mn—sn] r(?) PRESS he 
in the time [of his] father [should remain] at(?) [under his father 

1 Literally, ‘the top (7. e., beginning, or the best) of the good.” 
2 The —w seems to be the phonetic complement following the sign w2, wi. 
3’ With a remarkable m. So far we have an exact repetition of Ros. Greek 14-15, ras d:dopuevas els abta Kar’ 
éviauTov ovvTakers oiTiKas TE Kal apyupLKas. 
4 For ’ry(w), 7. e., ‘belonging to them, due, proper” (kanxoicas). Reading rjw ‘‘parts’’ would be tautology. 
5 We must follow Ros. Greek 15, andthe demotic. Our scribe has exchanged agricultural words as meaningless 
for him. Damanhur, 14-15, suggests that the obscure passage was confusing even in the original. (Cp. Brugsch, 
W orterbuch, 968, boldly restored.) ‘The effaced group after hnbw seems disfigured for i‘ “and.” 
® Not the middle stroke of the plural strokes above; it is too high. Neither is hr “‘on, and”’ probable. 
7 The abbreviation i= y;ht is very archaic, like the (threefold) omission of the plural strokes. 
§ Thus, reading the last sign on line 6 as the determinative “‘book-roll.”” Hr [h}i|-sn ‘‘before them” seems 
not possible. 
® With an abnormally large determinative ‘‘way”’’ the limits of which are not clear. 
” Grammatically doubtful. Could it not rather be read e-t(y) ’r-w “to make them do, to cause to be done’? 
The dot after the ambiguous sign, however, seems to point to the reading n/(})-, not ty. 
1! The plural article »— seems to have been omitted by homoioteleuton with the first sign of the group yh, 
y,ht. See the Rosetta parallel. 
2 So far simply after Ros. dem. 9, with which the traces in our text do not all agree. The wa—mn}é—w can be found 
most easily, but the mh requires fancy. Mh(t)—n usually means “‘to seize, to grasp.’ The reading “(they were) 
owing” r—w would have a sign too much and would present other difficulties. The reading st “to demand’’ 
likewise remains uncertain. Is our text corrupted? Next we might try to see also m n— “‘in the [temples?’’]. 
