76 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE DOWNFALL OF THE REBELLION IN THE THEBAIS—continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
gh 
tp—‘w|y?| Maree ey ah n(?)-rm(t)w [e-?]wn—n;-w | dks n 
at the head [of the rebels, the(?) people (who)? had rebelled in 
roa 
es eae —w r—r;—s|n| t-t[hth?|t [e—?] wn—nj—w eR 
he decreed various punishments?] against! th[em] the sedition(?)® (which?)? they had [made ?] 
r-mn-n |  wezlw. 
as far as? death(?). 
THANKS AND HONORS TO THE ROYAL COUPLE DECREED BY THE PRIESTS. 
R-{ntt cat hm-f 
Infasmuch as have done] His Majesty, 
roa 
n-st byty, Ptwyrwmys ‘nh 2t igs ue a ‘nh at 
the king of S. and N. Egypt, Ptolemy living forever, oe ets Be [King Ptolemy] living forever, 
Pith mr h‘ — snt-hmt|-f] hat Pth mr . oo. 
beloved of Ptah, and _ [his] sister-wife, the queen, beloved of Ptah, [and his wife, the queen] 
12f rob 
nb(t) -twy | [Orw’]w;p;dr[jt, | Gllwptre]$ 
the mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, Cll[eopatra, | 
ntrwy| pr my wt, n—nirw [nt] pr p-(?)  [smt?] 
[the two Gods] Epiphanes, according to the decree’ the gods Epiphanes (in) the(?) [way?] 
sf n|tt?] m—dbw 
(the) proper (thing?) [which is?] for the sake of(?) 
I3a 
er Were th er en gs 
[the welfare of (?) the gods?],4 the’ gods (are) 
1 Neo-Egyptian orthography, it seems. 
2 A very remarkable archaism, if understood correctly by me. But I fear that the above restoration of the 
passage attributes a little too much mildness to that unmerciful time. We should expect capital punishment 
for all prominent rebels. 
’ Does this mean “‘according to the foregoing description of the decree, according to the text above’? Wt (for 
early wz) might, however, mean also “‘order, command,” and might refer to the ordering of the right things by the 
king. Thus the sense of this phrase, occurring only here, remains very problematic in the single words, although 
the general meaning is clear. Also the following words are unusual. See next note. } 
4 Tf we should understand m/(/)— dbw in its earliest sense: ‘‘in return of,’’ we should obtain a superfluous parallel 
to the words following below: “‘in return for [the benefits],’’ 7. e., the reason for the honors due to the king. We 
can, however, treat that preposition as analogous to Coptic efbe: ‘‘for’’ pressing intention, as we have it also in 
our demotic texts (/in—s e—tb “‘to order for the sake of’’). See also above, note on r1c, d. Whether the m in place 
of r has any significance is questionable; it may be merely a graphic error for ry. ‘The first signs on line 13 (like 
the strong arm, then effaced traces, then 7) would point to ‘‘for them,’’ but these traces are very difficult. 
5 If the word “people” is preceded by the definite plural article n—, then a relative e— would seem to have been 
suppressed before the verb wn. ‘That article n—, however, is not quite certain; the trace on the stone might also 
be considered as the final —t of ht, h3t “before,’’ and then the verb would not have the definite relative construction. 
° We have a feminine noun (i. e., an abstract?) describing something bad. In place of the above bold guess 
we might try to restore also in various other ways. Thth is usually written differently. Yet “‘the punishment” 
of the rebels could hardly be meant here; the leading verb is an imperfect, with wn, and not a narrative aorist. 
7 The suppression of a relative e— before wn is not easily explained. It would be easier, grammatically, to 
take the two verbs with wn—n;— as parallel principal clauses. 
® The traces have been rendered on the facsimile quite mechanically, without restoring them according to 
the context. ‘They look like an erroneous addition, possibly abandoned by the engraver. 


