THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 55 
PUBLICATION OF THE DECREE. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
16f 
R(?) = rdt__s(’),;w(/)— | tw wnn Nt(u)-f— hpr  ’s swn (ft) n—nt 
In order tolet it be known (that) there are the | And that it be also (?)® known that those who 
’m(y)w T;—Mrit) (n) t—-Kmy] 
inhabitants of the Inundation Country (i.e., Egypt) | (are) in Egypt] 
Fray | mye inl | | tebe)” wontrw ni [pr 
honoring thetwo Gods Epiphanes according to that honor the Gods [Epiphanes 
which is 
r Pswy?] nfr spi(?)* . e(?)—- h p-nt-n—-hp n ‘rf 
for [compensation] (of)good(ness) of action (?) according to that whichis proper to do (it) 
hiw(?)’-tw shwy-pn hr ‘h‘[y] nlty nt(u)—w sh(;) p-wt n wyt 
be engraved this decree on stela(e) off be written the decree on_ stela(e) (of) 
I7b 
4: ( -rd(t) m \ sh; [x] mdw(t)—nir(w) ‘ny-sry Nn sh(;) mt—ntr 
hard stone in the writing of the divine words, | hardstone in (the) script (of) divine word(s), 
16e 
sh; nS yw! er shs n shG)-S¢ , shG) || Wynn 
the writing of letters (and) the writing of letter script, (the) script] (of the) Ionians (7. e., Greeks) 
I7¢ 
Hyw(y)-nbw" | rd(t?)—‘h-f m= [prw-m;‘t(?) 
the Greeks, setting it up* in [the holy places 
m r—-prw-nb hr rn|—f [ni(u)—w t(y)-] ‘h-(f)" n n-rpyw 
in all temples on (7. e., bearing)] his [name,] and that (it) be set up in the temples 
17d 16f 
mh-I, mh-II, mh-III i r-gs_ hn(ty)| I(=tpy), n(?) | [n-rpyw mh-IT 
(of) first, second (and) third (order) beside the statue | (of) first (rank), in the temples (of) second (order) 
1 The ideogram of the verbal root “‘to know” (Pan’s flute) disfigured to 1. 
2In Ros. ’m slightly disfigured? 
3 Like a high n, but the lower part as far as visible would be too low for this, so I rather read my, but the sign 
is not quite clear. ‘The Demotic version supports this reading my “‘like.”’ 
4J do not understand the above expression in detail, owing to the difficulty in identifying the sign after r. 
The above reading must assume that the ’s-sign was disfigured somewhat; fw ‘‘ proper thing”’ can hardly be found 
there. Above, I suggest, after the apparent ufr, an emendation of spt to sp, “‘time, case, example, action,”’ 7. e., 
of ¢ to a circle (with two strokes inside). So far this is very uncertain, although the general sense is plain by the 
Greek (53) and demotic (31-32) versions of Ros., after which we should expect fwt ‘‘proper.’’ Is it possible that 
the passage was disfigured so strongly by the engraver? Or read simply nfrw-st(!) ‘‘their('!) goodness”? 
* Expressed by an arm holding a stylus? The traces are strange (more like a foot?) and the w as third 
consonant of this verb is quite unusual, so that we must again suspect corruptions (like confusion with mlwtw). 
° Written ‘‘yw by mistake. 
7 The true pronunciation of this very ancient name does not seem to be known yet; I use above the popular 
transliteration. | 
8 Or particularly, ‘being set up.” ‘The -t of rdt is, probably, without signification. 
*See above, p. 54, note 8, on this ’s. Here it is even clearer that it can not be verbal. 
10 Notice well the final -i(7) of our text, also with the above verbal form. 
1 The Philz text omits the —f of the subject, probably having a mere oblique dash which could be confounded 
with the following smaller stroke, a negligent m (like e). Also the verb ‘ohe‘ is negligently written as though 
not understood. We correct after the general parallel (Ros. dem. 32), disregarding the two vertical strokes 
which stand there after ¢(y). 
