THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 47 
THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
: 136 
[hpi] nty m—rwt(y) p(?)'—ft nt p-bl | 
[the square? or: frame?] which (is) outside,! the square which (is) at the outside 
[nfrlw-'pn m-—‘g(!)? n(?)| [n-shnt(t)w p—mtée p—shnt(!?) n nb 
these decorations opposite (i.¢.,assupplement?) of | [of the crowns, before thecrown of gold 
I3a P 
| shmtyw(y)—[pn]:3 nt sh(;) hr 
these (twofold) crowns: which is described above, 
H2(?)* h' [rs?] wt het nm rs(y?) | 
A (hieroglyph) ‘“‘clear’’ and [a “south” (crown- | asign ‘‘clear(ness)’’ and a “south’’-sign] 
sign)| 


‘Ros. tries by elaborate ornamentation to distinguish this sign from the ordinary s}: “back, behind.” Still 
better, the demotic version in Ros. shows that rwt “ outside’ is meant. Chabas (‘‘le dessus du support qui est 
derriére(!) ces insignes’’) and others misunderstood it entirely. ‘This mistranslation leads us to the question 
whether we ought not to read: “which is outside (of!) these (7.e., the aforementioned) decorations’’ (thus 
Chabas, etc.). Although this follows closely the Greek (and seemingly, i. e., e silentio, the demotic), I prefer to 
refer ‘‘these decorations” to what follows as introducing the description of the further hieroglyphic symbols 
accompanying the decorative crowns. ‘Thus those two hieroglyphic words correspond to the Greek explanation: 
gvdraxthpia xpvoa [déxa?], not rendered in the demotic text. ‘‘Amulets” dvAaxr#pia, means there not a separate, 
detachable piece of decoration (Ricardi even explained, “‘ bands’’!), but simply the brief inscriptions, the hiero- 
glyphic signs or groups, such as were used for symbols, emblems, mottoes. .This peculiar designation for the 
(mostly flat engraved) hieroglyphic symbols is chosen, not only because such symbols were largely used on 
amulets for persons, but because they served to hallow the cultic object, showing its use and owner, just as a 
Christian church might seem to become sacred by the decoration of the cross surmounting it. That “amulet” 
has this unusual meaning of “religious symbol’’ was not recognized by any commentator of the Greek text, as 
can be seen also from the fact that they all used the restoration: ois (€y)ypadOjcera, “on which will be 
written,’ a restoration which now has become generally accepted. According to the context gained from the 
Egyptian version, I supply, rather, ois onuavOqcerar: “by which will be expressed, signified, indicated.’ The 
hieroglyphic group itself is the “‘amulet,” it does not form part of it. Notice another attempt to make the 
description in hieroglyphics specially precise, with regard to those details, in the expression above, “‘at the upper 
side,’ which aims at the sense: “at the (vertical) side of the top piece, of the frame above,’’ a sense which it 
renders not very successfully, it seems. 
2 Text ‘t, while Ros. omits the g. Both follow the same faulty or indistinct original. We see here that those 
difficult texts were copied much more slavishly by the scribes than we should have thought (p. 5). The prepo- 
sition is not vague in its meaning as an archaizing play for “‘near to.’’ It seems to express a very peculiar 
meaning. (Of course, it never can mean “to the right sidé of,’’ as Chabas proposed to explain this unusual 
archaism.) The corresponding Greek werd xara (7d Bacidevov) seems just as unusual. According to good Greek 
usage it can not mean merely a vague “near to,” which Heyne, Drumann, Letronne, etc., tried to find, evidently 
simply to obtain some sense. I assume that the classical meaning, “‘ corresponding with,”’ has found here the very 
unusual application “in symmetry with,” 7.e., “in a way forming a symmetric group.” ‘This can be inferred from 
the two Egyptian renderings (although I am not at all sure that the demotic p-mté corresponds to the Coptic 
p-emto: ‘front, before’’). Possibly, the Hebrew expression, Genesis 2, forms a parallel. 
5 The curved front ornament of the double crown seems to be visible and traces of the crown itself are plausible; 
then I believe to see distinctly three plural strokes, one over another, and the reed-leaf of ’pnw. The traces 
after the ideogram of the double crown seem to represent the vulture-crown of the queen (p. 46, note 4). 
* The above reading according to the demotic text of Ros.27. After the traces of our text we should guess 
rather: ‘‘a rush stalk,’ 7. e., the emblem of the south. This would, however, be synonymous with 
the rs(y) “south” restored below. ‘The following expression of “‘Southland, Upper Egypt” is clear as 
far as the symbol of the vulture goddess Nekhbet is concerned; the preceding sign admits various guesses. 
® N is not visible, but the article p rather probable. 
6 With strangely written determinative. The serpent-like sign of Ros. 26 is probably é(i), a pleonastic 
repetition of the ¢, and the determinative is lacking. Our scribe seems to attempt the correction of this. 
