THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 49 
THE SPECIAL FESTIVAL DAYS FOR KING AND QUEEN. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 
eee Sie: A ey NT, 
[Now for (?) the festival days which are mentioned] 
13d 
hr shwy n [ hspt XIX 
on the decree of year 19: 
zr—nty' wn 'bdIV > Smw 
since there was (of) the 12th month (Mesoré), 
[‘rq] hrw n ms(t) ntr nfr 
[the last day], the day of birth (of) the good god, 
[‘nh-2t _ [d]d-(ty?) [m] hb 
the ever|living], fixed as a festival 
13e 
Fw) (2) [leot2 mtr) fr ht 
(of) procession(s) in the temples formerly, 
myti-()ry(w?) n ’bdII 'sht hrw [XVII} 
likewise on the second month, day [17] 
13f 
'r—nf ’rw—nb n 
when he did all things proper for (or: at) 
h‘—n—n-st m ssp 
the royal procession, at the receiving 
14a 
yt (!)f— nw’ n-styt m-—dy(?)® | yt{f\-f 
of his dignity of kingship from his father 
DEMOTIC TEXT. 
Now for the days of festivals which are mentioned on 
13f 
[o-] | wt on hspt? XIX” 
decree® of year 19: 
rll net! Sea ae 
because(?) there was [the 12th month (Mesoré), 
day 30, on which is held the birthday of the king, 
[n] hb 
it ae established] asa festival 
h‘w n(?)? n—rpyw [Ane 
(of) processions in the temples [beforehand: 
ps-smt "bt IT, ’;ht(?) hw X VIT)® 
likewise month 2, day 17] 
13h 
| nt ew 'r n-f(?) noyrw(?) 
when were made tohim _ the rites (of) 
144 
| p-h'[n] PF(2) om Fs)p 
the procession (of) his (?) receiving 
p(?)— © ’;wt-hrt n—tt pf—yi! f~ 7-4 
the high(est) dignity from his father which he made 

* A very awkward literal appropriation from Ros. hierogl. 10. 
like an abandoned blunder. 
_ ? This sign omitted by the engraver. 
> Looked at first like —r my, but read rather as above. 

The traces of the r under zr are feeble, looking 
Has an m been corrected over these groups or vice versa? 
“ Agreeing thus completely with the dating of Ros. hierogl. 10 and Damanhur 28 against the demotic text 
of Ros., which dates 4 months later. 
° We must change the senseless sign ir of the stone as done above (the mw would then treat this word as a 
plural, which it was originally, having collective sense: “the distinctions’), or would we better restore after Ros. 
(Damanhur), m ssp—nf nstyt “when (m as Ros. 9, see note 1 on our line r2c) he received the kingship.” 
° This group crowded into the small space at the end of 13. 
7 We have to recognize, at the beginning of line 14: first the reed leaf (y); behind, there is space left for 
a small sign like the cake ty, which serves, sometimes, as word sign for yt “father.” 
Then four signs: the ¢ small 
and very high; below /, vertical stroke, another —/. ‘The other traces are accidental. 
8 The determinative of the loose papyrus roll preserved or simply the sign corresponding in hieratic to the 
“man with the hand to his mouth? 
® With corrections? ‘The X is not distinct. 
XIX, but the hieroglyphic text is distinct. 
In my plate, the signs may stand too close together. 
showing thus the earlier decree to be quoted. 
We thus might infer a wavering between the dates IX and 
A little intentional gap seems to follow the date, 
Tn Ros. dem. 27 n-t(t) hp(r)—f. ‘The shortening in our text is remarkable. 
2 To be concluded from space. Absent in Ros. 
8 Tt is not possible to harmonize the following difficult traces with certainty with the text of Ros. 28. 
14 Restoring thus after Ros. 28, I assume that the text has been corrected in several places and that the word 
for ‘‘rites, ceremonies,” has a different orthography or an (erroneous?) addition before it. 
© The strange and hazy signs of this phrase give us the impression that at first the different text of Ros. 28 
was copied on papyrus and then changed into the above words lacking in Ros. 
signs seem to stand over erasures. 
Cp. above, p. 46, note 6. The 
