THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 67 
THE THANKS OF THE GODS. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
Rdy-n'} [ntrw] my-qd-sn [ Ty? n—| ntrw 
(There) have given [the gods?] all together [((There) have given] the gods 
h' ntrwt r[—db}t?| [um n—nirwt| trw 
and the goddesses? [in?] [return?] (for) [and the goddesses] all 
9a ‘ 
—sn [n-t-Sbyt my 
them (7. e., for these things?)3 lin reward for these (things)* 
Mie! cscs. 9502 ati abawe, oe 8 
(that) did [the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, 
the son of the Sungod], to the king Ptolemy, 
7c 
Piwyrwmys ‘nh  2t, Pth mr, nk: ertihawed ihe 
Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, living forever,] beloved of [Ptah,] 
[ntr] pr p-ntr nt pr 
[the God] Epiphanes (the success described below): the God Epiphanes, (the following) : 
THE BAD TIMES DURING THE REBELLION. 
7d 
B(!)tn4 n ntr(w)(?) [p?|n NAN LE latin: (50 SaleShyed shin n— ntrw, 
The rebel against the gods,  this- (one) namely(?) [that man]impious against the gods, 
1 Or more mechanically, following Ros. 5, ‘‘(there) have-given [fo him]”’ (n-f), with a later resuming of the 
object (“to the king’’?). This would, of course, be awkward style. (For ‘have given [to them],”’ 2-sn, the 
space is insufficient), 
* Thus, after the parallelism. The strange traces are explained by the ligature of “god” and “goddess”’ 
(=serpent), Ros. 5. Our text seems to have given erroneously both that ligature and its explanatory dissolution 
into two groups. 
8 We should like to restore after Ros. 5, but first, it is impossible to find (m)—’swy “‘in reward, in return” in the 
traces. An 1 (or ’r??) is certain; above, to the right, there seems to be merely a vertical stroke; this is probably, 
but not clearly, one of the plural strokes of nirwt; the traces to the left confirm this, although they are irregular 
and partly too high to be intentional. What follows is obscure and very unlike the regular orthography of 2b}t, 
db}t ‘‘return, compensation,” which we should expect. We have to read it without phonetic complement (and 
determinative?), treating as secondary all the traces over my ‘“‘sic’’ and running through the head of the dd}- 
hieroglyph. 
4 Evidently the kin of the stone is to be corrected into btn. ‘The demonstrative has an unusual position. 
5 This space, again, is scanty, and furthermore, the hieroglyphic text does not seem to contain these words. 
They ought, however, to be here, forming the important logical connection between the part made up of quota- 
tions from the Rosettana and the part treating the new theme of the decree. 
‘ 
