THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 85 
FESTIVALS COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
é mje 
r tp[w|-sn m hbw—pn [nt(u)w] ty kim[w? | [n pl] hd 
on their (i. e., the people’s) heads at these festivals | [and that they] wear crowns [at the] festival 
5, —n(/) ’r(?) hb [n] rpy [-nb?] 
beginning from the celebration(?) (of) the festival (in)  [every?]® temple [celebrating these days | 
[of the New Year (on the first day of the first month?) 
ITI(?) Lf rst wetter ag se 
to-day (of this month?)]' —_ three(?)? EE |. co nem el fii ceremonies?]” splendid (ly ?)§ 
SPECIAL HONORS FOR THE QUEEN. 
Mtwtw S-heteeeee es Nt(u)—w t(y)—-h' 
And (when) will be [brought out in procession the And (when) will be brought out (in procession) 
p(?)—tw#] 
that statue 
‘ Bes _ 
Peete. te niwilw(?) "sk swt Seg ene a re éf—hpr 
statue of the king, shall be?]*’ then also mentioned before(?) of the king, when it happens’ 
1 This restoration taken from Ros. 12, and decree I, 15c, is somewhat long. We might try to shorten it by 
assuming that the preposition 5‘(—m) had here passed from the ancient use ‘“‘from”’ (still so, Ros. hier. 12) to the 
latter and opposite sense which we find in demotic and Coptic Sa: “until.”’ It would then be possible to explain 
thus the above passage “to [the end of?] the festival.”’ As long as the text is incomplete, the decision is impossible. 
S‘-n(/) with an infinitive is, of course, an unusual construction, but the whole passage is unusually worded. Ros. 
Greek 50, states plainly that the fifth day of the same month (Thout) was meant, 7. e., that the celebration 
extended over five days. ‘The hieroglyphic text, Ros. 12, taken by itself could also be understood: “from the first 
day of the year to the Five Days,” 7. ¢., to the last, epagomenal, five days of the year. ‘The priests, who were 
inclined to think first of those closing days of the year which were so important in the sacred calendar, could easily 
misinterpret that date thus (7. ¢., from the first festival of the year to the last, through the whole year). Conse- 
quently, our text seems to attempt to make that date clearer by some changes; it is quite possible that even the 
reduction of the festival from five to three days aimed at nothing else than avoiding that obscurity. For the 
amiable negligence of ancient Egypt the duration of the festival through five days ought not to have been oppres- 
sive enough to shorten it. To show some good will was sufficient and the execution of all details was not expected. 
So the correct date seems to have been more important than the extension of some cheap ceremonies. 
2] first tried to read zsrw “‘in splendid ways”’ after the demotic text. (The traces which I once tried 
to find before the plural sign are absolutely uncertain and even improbable.) Zsr means also ‘‘holy, sacred” 
(but hardly thus the demotic corresponding word). It occurs to me now that the three strokes are nothing but 
the numeral. After their arrangement that number seems to be complete (III) and is not to be considered as a 
part of V, so that this would seem to agree with the demotic text. 
3 The —w is not certain enough to insure this restoration, for which the space is rather limited. (Or’w, e=r?.) 
4 Sw=swt of early Egyptian. 
5 The —m half preserved, followed by part of the determinative “flower.” 
® The ‘‘every”’ can be inferred from the absence of the article with the (not absolutely certain but very prob- 
able) word “‘temple.”’ 
™ The ability of demotic writing to be crowded or extended in an incredible way makes the estimation of the 
lost words very hazardous. ‘The above space looks too large after the hieroglyphic text. 
8 On ss ‘extended, numerous (NB!), liberal, magnificent,” cp. line 6e. 
® Rather as subordinate, conditional clause (as in Coptic) than as emphasized principal clause. 
