66 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
SPECIAL BENEFITS TO THE PRIESTS—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
—sn(?) m(?7) 8 Sah sk SA ke.) [n7] nil?) etre? 
Rg Oe ae SRE rte y are(?) 
69 
Pe ae shwt? iwy® n—(?)nfr(?) | . . . &-Kmy(@). 
[seeking] the very best (for) the two countries,’ good(?) [for] Egypt(?)” . 
81 6h 
sf te coe Cehey) 2 cee | nm n-k’w mtw-phi(t) nt(?) t-Kmy 
that which is proper? . . in [the land]> and and the other proper things of(?) Egypt 
(7. e., traditions) 
74 
()h(w)t- wrw.. . Wa2(?) [—n|] ('r—f—smn—w hr nNW-2)y 
many things |[fine?]. (There) ordered(?) [he let them remain" on _ their condition 
[hA]m—f ’w-[sbwi?|®. . . . w'bw(?) e-h p-hp™ ef mn hit) 
His Majesty concerning(?) [the rights] the sacred ones(?) | according to what is right, he being in the mind (of) 
8e 
ri!) [o-f | [mnk] br [nirw| ntr-mnh hr n-—ntrw, eé-f sn]|* 
being his [heart] [kind] .towards [the gods]’ akind god for the gods  inquirling (for) 
hr-’b(!)8 spw-sn nfrw nw—pht(1)™ n n—rpyw 
wishing (read: seeking) benefits for them their proper (honors) in the temples 
&f 7b 
'w s-mw -sn m ar-> | f. | [et(y)-’r-w myy?]. 
to renew them in his time. [to renew them ?].!° 


1 Also. the traces between the next two secondary vertical lines offer nothing positive. Group 1 at first looked 
like n[t]y ‘‘which,” but the final —y would show only one straight stroke with certainty. Sw “their” (or with a 
verb “‘they’’) is more probable. ‘The remaining traces of signs are even more problematic. 
2 The : before the heron stands in a secondary hole. A bookroll between ¢ and the plural strokes is possible, 
but the engraving would be very shallow. 
’ Or, we may read the two plant-signs more fully: “Upper and Lower Egypt.” 
4 Or, plural ssw? 
5 This word after the trace. 
° Thus, after the analogy of line 6), etc. Otherwise ’w might also be the auxiliary of a verb, ete. | 
’ Thus, after Ros. Gr. 34, dem. 20, as the following words suggest. Where we have restored mnh “kind,” 
stands a high m under or over an erasure. ‘The engraver put this beginning the words » ntr mnh “‘as (n or, of) a 
kind god”’ and omitted the next two signs, confused by the double occurrence of the sign “ god.”’ 
* This corresponds with Greek Ros. 35, rpooruvOavoyueres (re Ta THY iepHv TiuwTara) and Ros. demot. 20, é-f 
sn, “he inquired.’’ Consequently, the verb seems to be corrupted from snw “asking, inquiring” (read sn, §n, 
for ’b, nw for the heart-sign). 
* The determinative of the sundisk looks strangely disfigured, so that at first it gives the impression of ’} “heart.” 
'° These three doubtful traces of groups do not agree with Ros. 19, which has merely the words n—mtw ph(w?) 
nt ph n n—’rpyw “the things proper, which are proper in the temples.’”’ Our inscription must have expanded those 
words considerably, perhaps, in order to improve the style which in this part of the demotic version must appear 
to the hasty reader confused and full of repetitions. 
Thus: i. e., “he confirmed”’ (better than “‘he established’’). 
” So far according to Ros. 19, but it is true that the space is not very favorable to this restoration; neither is 
the hieroglyphic text. 
8 Unusual determinative of sn(?) or of wd “for,” then corrected. 
‘4This word seems to be recognizable under corrected traces and thus insures this whole piece of restora- 
tion after Ros. demot. 20. f 
* Thus, after Ros. 20 and our hieroglyphic text, but the space is again so scanty that we must ask whether the 
text has not been mutilated. It is quite certain that the following words of Ros., p—/-h(}) pr—‘ ‘‘in the time of 
his kingship,”’ must have been omitted, notwithstanding the fact that their equivalent has been kept in the hiero- 
glyphic version. 
a P 

