THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 35 
THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. : DEMOTIC TEXT. 
6d 
Ws(y)-sn 'sk” ’we- sbwit  s(?). . [  Hn-w-s ‘n | el-tbs¢ 
They ordered also [concerning?] [the artaba] (They ordered (it) furthermore] concerning 
6c 
s[tt m?] hnbw nw [ntrw?] | h' rth I sh [e-wn—n}—éew 
(of) [the arura frora] the fields of [the gods?] and | the one artaba (of) each arura-measure [which was 
6 

s—nbw (read: stt/) oe ss a | SEY OMI n(?)—yhw' on n- | nirw nm 
the arura (stone: anybody!) [from the vineyards of?] | collected from] the fields of the gods and 
nirw r rdy(t) dy—sn n(w?)—yhw* lly’ = [nm n—htp—ntr 
the gods in order to cause (that) be given the(ir?) fields (of) vineyards [of the divine domains 
. Se n n—-ntrw wy-f e-rw-| 
(this to the ground, 7. e., remitted ?)! of the gods, he (?)* remitted these.] 
6d 
[M?] -twiw | [m . . snb r 
And _ that be [not taken anybody for the 
kbnwt?| m _— qdt 
galleyjs as [crew?] 
of 
Ssp—w(?) C)ht my n_ 32(?)d-wt , Gy | n—mt(w)|-phi(i)w e n-—ntrw 
They undertook(?) thing(s) as not were said? | [Nowconcerning the dlues (or: honors) for the gods, 
(7. e., reported ?) 

1 A very difficult passage. It corresponds with the Rosettana and the demotic version (see this) in general, 
but the remark about “anybody” or ‘‘everybody” can not be fitted in, if we do not assume that a confusion with 
the passage speaking of the abolition of “‘the press system”’ for rowers for the navy (Ros. Gr. 17, dem. 10, Damanh. 
16) has been committed in both texts (!?). After all, the most plausible explanation is that the hieroglyphic text 
has, following the demotic version as its model, misread ‘one artaba’’ to rome(t) ““man”’ (cp. on this possibility 
the remarks on the demotic text) and has tried to improve this senseless reading by adding the word nb ‘‘every.” 
By this emendation we obtain a reading perfectly parallel with the demotic text, only that the artaba and the 
keramion seem identified here. ‘The space and the traces make the restoration ‘‘(it?) to the ground” (sw? r £)) 
very difficult. As the general sense of a remission is certain, apparently a shorter synonym was used here (‘‘they 
gave the back to it’’ s} r-s?) or something similar. 
? After the couple of determinatives, which we can recognize, it would seem as though the passage mentioned 
the pressing of civilians as rowers of the war-galleys (Ros. Gr. 17) among the practices abandoned by the reforms 
of the king. But it is true that the hieroglyphic text (Damanhur 16) can not easily be harmonized with our traces; 
therefore, at least our text must have been redacted strongly to differ so widely. Our restoration s—nb “‘anybody”’ 
is taken from 6c, where this group is out of place, as shown above. ‘The group 2d is not quite certain; $d—tw “‘it 
was collected, demanded,”’ however, would hardly be possible without a determinative. Cp. note r. 
8 Without Ros. dem. 17, Gr. 30, it would hardly be possible to decipher these groups. The article p— is dis- 
figured; the sign for “artaba”’ is so indistinct that I read it rm(t)w: ‘‘people”’ for a long time; the sign for “‘arura”’ 
is hazily engraved or stands over an erasure. 
4T read after Ros. 17. Our stone offers indistinct, senseless traces, as though the engraver had erased his 
blunders and had forgotten to reengrave the passage, omitting the auxiliary verb “it was,”’ etc. 
° This is in Ros. “‘the fields of the divine domain(s)” n—yhw (n) p-htp—ntr. Here corrected as above. 
® Also these groups corrected over. The dot after the plural article »— looks as though the engraver had 
thought of the possessive form new, neu, for a while. ‘This may be accidental, however. After Ros. the word 
“a jar’ (kepauov) has been omitted before these groups. 
7 A single stroke represents i/y, as often in the cursive script of contracts. 
SOr wy-w “they remitted,” 7. ¢., king and queen? ‘The whole decree is very inconsistent, ascribing the 
benefits sometimes to the king alone, sometimes to the royal couple. 
