44 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
nirw-sptyw. . |'r-r|-f  [m?] hrw-hbw . . . -t(?)-s N-~\. ae 
the local gods. When [at] the festival days before it (on)] the [great festivals (?) 
wrw n pr (t) nir | ls Se A gr: 
the great ones of the coming forth (of) a god when the gods come forth, etc.] 
[m gbht-f Sps|t(?) rwt(y), br-f’ 
[from his] holy [recess]' outside, (when) he comes out 
rth 
"’m—Ssn mtwtw s-h‘ |e-w(?) . . . = [nt(u)—-w t(y)—-]h‘ 
on them, (then) shall be brought out (also) they (?) . . . and [be] brought out in procession 
iif 12a 
kit- | Sps(t) ns ntrwy pr(wy) t-gjt | n nb(?) [a n-ntr nt pr] 
the sacred shrine of the two Gods Epiphanes the shrine of gold(?) [of the Gods Epiphanes] 
h'—sn. nm—w(?). 
with them (7. e., with the other shrines). with them. 
R-rdi_s’;—tw(?)* kt-tn E_ t(y)-hp(r)® éw-swn _ t-[g(t)? 
In order tomake (that) be known _ this shrine To effect (that) be known the [shrine 
r(/)t | hrw [-pn] ’w — hnw(??) p-hw nm p-sp t(t); mn-Ss;—S 
from this day to [future times],° today and theremaining time henceforth, 
mtiwtw dy nt(u)—w ty 
shall be given (7.e., placed) shall be placed 
! Lit. ‘‘cool-place,”’ 7. e., closet, recess, shrine. ‘The orthography of spst, which we should expect after Ros. 
would be strange. Possibly the synonym hwt is to be read instead of Spst as p. 42, roe, if we recognize the 
ending —wit. 1 
2 This remarkable orthography for (r)—rwt(y) and the following verb furnish a very valuable explanation for 
the strange groups, Ros. 8, which Chabas translated ‘“‘ad son jour,”” understanding them as r—s; h(rw)-f “after 
(i.e., according to!) his day,’”’ very improbably in both cases. We see now the text in Ros. is corrupted; the pr—f 
becomes intelligible only by our parallel based on a better copy, and the rwty (somewhat pleonastic at the side 
of the verb pr ‘“‘to come out’’) could hardly have been guessed correctly beforehand. ‘On them”’ refers 
back to the festival days, in a relative construction familiar in Semitic languages but looking very pleonastic 
in English. 
* Another instance where, if the stone was broken, we should feel confident to restore every sign according to 
the parallel text in Ros., while the extant traces are simply hopeless. Nothing certain can be seen of the word 
“to know’’ before the very plausible determinative of the squatting man putting his hand on his mouth. Before 
the chapel-sign the basis and the feeble body of a bird-like w seem clear at first sight, but the sign before this w looks 
more like a clumsy s than a s’. Before the chapel two small, vertical strokes, almost too deep for the first hand. 
I thought for a while of the ideogram sSm “‘to lead”’ with preceding phonetic complement s—, but neither will this 
do. ‘Therefore I have not attempted to harmonize between the conjectural restoration as given above after Ros. 
8 and the traces on the stone. It seems the engraver blundered strongly and then tried confusing corrections. 
‘The r is quite plain, but must be a mistake for m after Ros. and the similar error, p. 45, note 4. 
° Thus after Ros. Greek 43, dem. 25, but the identification of the extant signs is again very difficult. The 
sign jin “‘period, age, long time’’ seems visible, but the surrounding signs are quite uncertain, e.g., the group pre- 
ceding it is hardly sp “‘remnant, rest.” 
° The prolongation of lpr looking like —f seems rather an accidental scratch. 
’ The restorations are supplied according to Ros. dem. 25. ‘The space suggests additions in Philze. 
