THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 43 
THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
hr rn—f 
on (7. e., bearing) his name, 
IIb 
[miwiw . . . —wi' | twt’—hw ee ee ed age pra 
[and be ___ placed there] the venerable image of king 
n n-st byty S} R 
of theking of Upper and L. Egypt, theson of [the Sun], 
Piw;yrwmys, ‘nh — 2t, Pth |mr| h‘ | Ptlmwys | ‘nh at Pth mr 
Ptolemy, living forever, [beloved of] Ptah, with | Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, 
[shmt}’— n ntr n | [snt|-hmt-f hat nm p-shnt(i)t(!) (n?-) ntr n_ tf-[shmt 
the divine statue of his [sister]-wife, the queen | with thestatue(!),’? (the) divine,* of his [wife, 
nbt [Awy ee ce DE ia ee Sees 5 ot a OMIA 
and mistress [of both countries, Cleopatra, the queen, Cleopatra, the Goddess Epiphanes] . 
11f 
ntrt?| prt) [mtwtw?| s—[htp— |hn-s nt(u)—w t(y)-[htp?-s ep-| mw‘b 
the Goddess?] Epiphanes, [and be] put init, and they shall deposit(?)” [it in the] holiest place 
, Iid Iig 
s} m | b— zsr® ae [k;wi] nw| nm n-k’’(w) | g;(wt)™ 
[this]* in the holi(est) place [with] the shrines of | with the other shrines 


* Perhaps the passive -fw was placed after the verb “‘ be placed.” 
* Notice the transliteration fwt of the unusual ideogram of Ros. 
* The narrow place allows only this word (written with the sistrum); cp. the demotic equivalent. 
* S[-htp] to be supplied after Ros. demot. 25, while Ros. hierogl. 8 has the simple verb itp “‘rests.”’ 
* The foot of 6 is not to be seen with certainty; the determinative “‘house”’ is strangely rounded and enlarged 
by secondary additions. ‘The vertical, filling dash above is visible only with imagination. Nevertheless, the 
reading is rather certain. Cp. Ros. 8. 
; ® To see an r under the lion requires some imagination; the following (-t and determinative of the house?) is 
quite invisible. (The reading gsr has its origin from a lion holding a feather, which sign, in hieratic, looks quite like 
the arm holding this symbol, so that both signs can be interchanged.) The hr “with,” which we should expect 
after Ros., is not readable; the ideogram ‘‘chapel” requires much imagination, and the following nw can be con- 
cluded only from the vertical stroke below. ‘Traces of the lower part of the sign spt seem to be visible. Of the 
‘r—r-f (lit., “referring to it, as concerns it’’) only the f seems to be easily recognizable, if a large space below be 
admitted which may have been filled by a misplaced vertical stroke. Still we can risk restoring much after Ros. 
hierogl. 8, and the other traces agree. 
7 Written in a very peculiar way. ‘The scribe seems to have hovered between the two confused words shm/(t), 
shnty “statue” (cp. also the orthography sSmt, line roe, etc.), and the similar word shnty (=hieroglyphic shmit, 
shmty) “‘crown.’’ Notwithstanding the masculine article, a feminine ending -t is added mechanically, because 
the word is used of a goddess. The orthography is also otherwise hazy. ‘The parallel Ros. dem. 24 fortunately 
furnishes a plain sim ‘‘statue.”” See page 45, notes 1 and 5, about the difficulties with the obsolete word for 
“crown.” 
8 Literally the ‘“‘god-statue” (not with the adjective niry ‘divine,’ which ought to be written differently). 
See the parallel expression shm—nir in Ros. dem. 24. ‘The adjective, however, is required in English. 
* The big gap between plates e and f allows for the demotic text some additions or repetitions. 
” The traces are unfavorable to this reading and look rather as though the engraver really put down by 
mistake ¢(y)—/‘ ‘‘bring out in procession.”” Above the context has been followed, however, and Ros. demot. 25. 
" Strangely disfigured ligature for g}. The meaning, however, seems clear. 
