54 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
PRIVATE CULTS OF THE ROYAL COUPLE. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
16¢e rsh 
’sk | ’[rfy?}} wnn—-s m-—dy [Nt(u)—w t(y)—hpr’] | °s(?)  ‘(?)®-(n)?-tt 
Also thus it be permitted? And (it) be made] also (?)® at the disposal 
16a 
[wnnyw ntyl-sn ’b(y)—-sn n-rm(t)w  p-ms‘(?)*° | nt é-w(?) —whj—w 
(to) people who? wish (of) the men (of) the people who are wishing 
16d : 
s-| ‘hé— mytt(!) k3t-tn n [¢t(y) Fh‘ ()™ b(!)-smt — t-g3t[-nb] 
to set up likewise this shrine of to bring out in procession(!) likewise the [golden] shrine’? 
16b 
ntrwy pr(wy). r-[rdt] wnn[-slt m n—nirw nt(?) [pr | nt hr 
the two Gods Epiphanes to let (it) be in (of) the Gods [Epiphanes], which (is described) above, 
16e 
pr-sn mitwtw(!)?? | -sn ’r e(?) t(y)—-hpr(-s?) nw—m,w nt(uj)-w ’r 
their house, and they shall make (to) let it be (at) their places, they shall make’ 
hb\w —n'— h‘—pn tp bd n—hbw n—h‘w nt sh; 
these processional [festivalls every month the festivals (of) the(!) processions which are described 
[-2 tp] rnpt. hr hr-rnpt. 
[(and) every] year. above, every year. 
‘The strange archaizing pleonasm of Ros. 13, ’s—’ry—f-sw, was unintelligible to our redactor; he first omitted 
the sw, not recognizing that it stood for swt and expressed a contrast: ‘“‘but, moreover, however.” Replacing the 
’s by the fuller ’sk, the redactor shows that the whole series of adverbial (demonstrative) particles was a meaning- 
less stylistic ornament to him. (I am not sure whether the two very low and deep oblique scratches below the 
secondary vertical line division express a final y; the other traces are difficult.) 
2 Literally, ‘‘on, at, hands.”’ Ros. 13 reads m—‘wy, which I consider merely as an artificial archaism, without 
historical foundation. We might find traces of this ending —wy also here. 
3 The redactor shows that the affixing of the personal pronoun —sv to the relative (?) uty, Ros. 13, looked very 
strange to him. He wishes to-move the suffix sw to its regular place behind the verb ’b(y), but has not the courage 
to remove that interesting form nty—sn entirely, so he leaves it at the side of his correction. 
4The engraver omitted the s (see Ros. 13); whether he made a feeble attempt to scratch it over the m or 
erased it in favor of the m is uncertain. 
° Confused orthography in Ros. 13, after which we restore here as though the third plural and the passive 
endings were united by pleonasm. 
° This added in our text (disfigured to m?). Cp. the demotic version. 
7’The small space suggests omissions. 
* This does not seem to be es: ‘‘she is=it is’; this would hardly be possible grammatically. We are tempted 
to find pr in this ligature; the space would then, however, be too small. It is in any case insufficient; see above. 
Our redaction, certainly, omits the ‘n “‘again’’ of Ros. 31 as superfluous. 
* Literally, ‘‘(at) the place of the hand.”’ ‘The first ligature is engraved quite senselessly and does not seem to 
have been understood by the sculptor. Cp. the parallel, Ros. dem. 31. 
” Literally, “of the multitude.” Egyptian lacks a good expression for the Greek “private people,’’ as we 
see especially in the hieroglyphic version. 
FT‘ “to show, to parade” seems in Ros. and here to be written erroneously for )3‘ “to place, to set up.” 
The other versions demand this emendation. 
2 Evidently omitted in Ros. 31 by confusion of mb with the following plural article. Before might be read 
nt whi-w “and they wish,” which, however, could be read as in Ros. (u)—w. 
