38 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE THANKS OF THE GODS—Continued. 

HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
8c 
5; R Piwyrwmys ‘nh — 2t n pr-' Ptlwmys | ‘nh st 
the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, living forever, | to the king Ptolemy, living forever, 
Sa 
Pth mr | [h‘ s]nt hmt-f hat ee 
beloved of Ptah, [and hlis sister-wife, the queen | [beloved of Ptah, and the queen Cleopatra] 
8d 
nbt iwy Orw)p3dr;(t) [n-] | ntrw nt pr qn(?) nht(?) 
(and) mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, [the] Gods Epiphanes, might(?) of strength(?)4 
nirwy pbr(wy) hr—s-[mn?| n—w'(?) 
the two Gods_ Epiphanes,  [establishing(?) together(?)° 
toe ee om Berl fF? ] 7 ntu-w(?) [ty?] nw—'wt(?)—pr—‘(?)8 
their throne (?)]! in the whole land, and they [give?] their royal(?) dignity(?) 
ab. 8f 
| [ywt-s]n—wrt dd|wt?| Ariesnle PON Ck. 3 nn ae 
their great [dignity] consolidated for them? and | [established in the whole land for them and their 
[m|s[w-sn] [r] at [hrt(i)]}w(?) sat. 
[their] children [to] eternity. childrJen forever. 
HONORS FOR KING AND QUEEN. 
é 89 
H‘ — shn-n{fr] Pods 5, Se oe Nm p-shné nfr | ph(?)-s’  [n- 
With good luck [it entered into the heart of With goodluck it has reached(?) [the] 
PE Ae Sed oil! Sa gh Mhyt hi(i)w(?) (nm) nm-.... . . ne 
the priests of the temples of Up]per (and) Lower Egypt | heart(s?) of the [priests of the temples of Egypt 

8d 
my-qld|-sn | .[s-]wr . . ... . «tyre - 
all together [to in|Jcrease [the honors? of| all together, with regard to] 
oa 
sj—R‘ Pirwmys ‘nh — at, | mi—pht(i) . . . Ptlwmys ‘nh  [2t, 
the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, living forever, the honors (of) [king] Ptolemy, living [forever, 

1’The above restoration makes that which follows appear as somewhat repetitious, and is, of course, only one 
of many possible guesses (‘“‘kingdom,”’ etc.). “The redactor has, indeed, tried to enlarge Ros. 5 in a way which 
must involve some pleonasms. é 
2 Comparing this with Ros. hierogl. 5. The ideogram for “‘dignity”’ is possible, although not clear. Behind 
dd the sign above seems to be a rude book roll; below, nothing is certain. A large zg is probable, as trace of 
zt; other traces are only misleading. 
° Very difficult traces which are not favorable to the restitution [mdt—] pht or phyw (cp. 6e). 
4 We should expect such, or a similar reading, after Ros. dem. 20, but the text engraved offers such difficulties 
that I know, so far, no better explanation for it than that it has been mutilated by a senseless contraction of the 
above words. ‘This hazardous explanation is, of course, very unsatisfactory and not convincing. Brugsch tried 
to obtain sense by violent changes of the signs in his copy. The second group, in which I have tried to find nht 
“strength,” is written like ’wt(i)—w “‘ between them,” from which hardly any sense can be gained. ‘Thus it seems 
to need an emendation; see above. It might also be explained as having the group “‘ (their) children’’ worked into 
it, which we find below. ‘The first group would permit also the theory that it meant rmpwt “years” before its 
disfigurement. 
5 Not a satisfactory explanation, because m—w‘ in this sense would be a strong archaism. (Brugsch’s ’rw= 
Coptic er(r)ou “towards them”’ is both a bold forcing of the engraved text and senseless). 
® This is what we should expect after Ros. dem. 21, but the traces are again difficult, especially the alleged pr—. 
7 Or abbreviation for ‘g-s: “it has entered”’? The feeble stroke behind might be understood as a trace of 
the singular article p- (correctly in Ros. 21), either an abandoned attempt to insert it or erased erroneously. 
