THE SECOND DECREE. 
The so-called ‘“‘second”’ (in reality first) decree! stands to the left of the decree treated so 
far, with only 2 to 3 inches space between. ‘The hieroglyphic hand is very similar to that 
of the “‘first’’ decree and may be identical, although considerably more elegant; evidently, the 
engraver took more time in the first half of his work, so that we have here a further proof 
that the sequence of both documents is to be reversed. The demotic text begins a little 
over 4 inches under the last hieroglyphic line. Its writing, at first elegant, firm, and intelligent, 
becomes heavy on plate e, and on plate f as clumsy as if the signs had been recut for correc- 
tion. I do not hazard an explanation of these latter changes. 
THE DATE. 
DEMOTIC TEXT OF THE SECOND DECREE. 
[Hspi XIX, \plls XXIX(?) 
[Year 109, Apellaios ?| 29(?) 
nt iY bt =n) ormtw t—Kmy 
which makes (as) month of Egyptian people 
IV(?)—Smw, hw IX, 
Mesoré (12th month), day  9,? 
rb 
| pr-' p-lh\i 
(THE HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT OF THE SECoND| 0!) the king, the young one, 
DECREE IS DESTROYED FOR THE FIRST rh pr n Pst [nm pf-yit(2) 
THREE LINES). who has appeared (as) king at the place [of his father 
nb n—‘r'y(w)t, nté n—()] | tf-pht(c)-t 
lord (of) the diadems who great is] his might, 
Id 
'y-smn t—Kmy [ef] t(y)- | nfr-f 
who has established Egypt, (as) [he has] improved it, 
[ut 2;—-| mnh Pe et a ke cad 
[who] kind (is) [his heart towards the gods, who . 


his enemies (while) he improves the life of (the) men, 


1 See p. 3, on the error in this conventional name and the demotic text on the exact date. 
*’The date is not clearly readable. Neither the signs for the season nor the preceding number are plain. 
The traces at the latter place look like a II, and thus my first reading was: second month of the second season, 
a. e., Mechir (sixth month). This would have brought us into the middle of the twentieth year, a time when order 
would have been restored sufficiently throughout all Egypt and the priests would have had time to come from 
every corner of the country. But the ‘‘first,” in reality second, decree mentions “‘the decree of the year 19” 
(at least, line 13d, demotic 13f) and thus fixes our date, for it is not advisable to assume that “‘year 19’’ would refer 
only to the victories over the rebels, not to the following priestly convention and its resolution. It is also much 
more probable that the priests of Egypt did not wait for half a year to show their loyalty on such an important 
occasion. Evidently they acted wisely and promptly, assembling as many priests from the Delta towns as was 
possible within six days, to speak in the name of all the rest. Thus I have tried to read the third season and to 
find traces of the month No. IV above that faint deceptive trace, considering this trace (which resembles a II) as 
secondary. ‘The number 9g for the day is fairly clear, less the 20. I leave it to others to control the correspondence 
of the Macedonian date. | 
* On the stone by mistake #/, evidently by confusion with the following possessive pf “‘his.”’ 
*T do not repeat the transliterations for these long restorations. See the first decree for them. 
De 
