34 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
hr-[s]n [hr-?] tp(?)  ri)w | &w ty(?) nt(u)(?)[-w]? . 
with them! (7.e., due to them) over(?) the shares | They gave (i.¢., caused) that(?) [was] . 
(i. e., taxes) 
[(m—?2] (hnt?) tsw ww wbw 
[from?] among(?) the appointments(?)? to(?) the priests 
ge 
he | C)h(w)t nw sht(?) 
and the things (i.e., work) of the weaving 
mrtyw rdyt(!)-n hm-f 
(of) serfs, (there) permitted His Majesty 
nfry(!)-r hspt XIX(?) hm(?)—sn 
until year 19(?) what they had forgotten (?)% 
ey 
[(m?|y n(?) trw(?) | hk’ kt-()h(w)t m 
as in (their) [part,time?] and otherthings in 
inw [‘3?] rdy(t)4 st hm-f 
number [great?], (there) gave them His Majesty 
[7] i : 
[to] the ground (i. e., dropped, remitted, them). 
61 6b 
[S-]www | -sn ’sk 'w(l) pq, | Wy-f n(?)® 'r ~ [n-?] rl?) 
They remitted also of (?)® byssus He remitted to make [the?| shares(?) (of) 
r(\)w myd pel!) ssw nst(?)w nt 
the shares, the piece(s) of byssus the “royal” (7.e¢., fine) linen (pieces) which 
6c 
[h?|r pr-n-st é-bnp-w’r | hn n—|nt 
(which were) with (i.¢., due to?)® the government ; had not been made among _ those [which 
6b " 
ag te ah fire 2 med 
rw—m;‘t_ nfry(!)— r hspt XIX,| @w-'r-w n  pr-pr- (2) nm m—rpyw 
ae ao temples fry) | sah 19. were made for the government (?) in the temples?]? 
Ne .. 6. « «ey pe 
which (they) owed(?) [to year XIX?]. 


1’This seems to correspond with Ros. Gr. 16, about the remission of the tax for every priestly office. It is 
strange, however, that in the hieroglyphic version (Damanh. 15), as well as in the demotic (Ros. 9), the wording is 
sovery different, while otherwise our text follows the original edition as much as possible. ‘Then, numerous difficul- 
ties in detail still need elucidation, above all the groups preceding shy, where I can not find duw=7r6 reXeorixov, which 
we should expect. This tax here seems to be entirely remitted, while (Ros. Greek 16) the remission was only partial. 
27 have tried to understand ¢s(w) according to its Coptic meaning (not according to the old sense 
“districts’’). The preceding group is not easily explained as hnt for hn “within, among, out of’’ (nor as 
part of hnt-S(y) “‘garden-land”’). So I feel uncertain whether the same income from the temples is still meant. 
3 We should expect: “what they lacked, in what they were behind.’ ‘The above proposed reading hm-—sn 
‘“‘what they had forgotten”’ or ‘“‘had neglected”’ agrees well with this sense, but this ought to have a different 
determinative. The restitution [k]m—sn “they completed”’ would remain very obscure. Cp. Ros. Gr. 29. 
4’Thus for the ndy—y of the sculptor. Cp. Ros. hierogl. 2. 
5 A very archaic use of ’sk. The ’w=e can not be explained with certainty. If it was intended for the prepo- 
sition e, the construction might be understood as abandoned from “he commanded concerning the byssus,” but 
this would require lr, hi, or r—dbjt, etbe(t), as preposition rather than e. Above I have tried to explain e as a mis- 
take for en, the genitive-particle or (cp. 5d?) earlier em ‘“‘from.”’ 
° This seems to be the easiest reading, considering the very tempting traces over r as accidental. 
7 Everything in this line is very uncertain. The beginning seems to be analogous to Ros. dem. 17, Gr. 29: 
the remission of many arrears in money and grain (thus above?) to the temples. 
® We should expect at least ¢ “‘to,”’ but the whole group might be disfigured for r}w ‘‘shares’’ (?). 
* Thus after Ros. dem. 10. This passage has, however, been changed considerably in our text (complete 
remission in place of a partial one). 
— ar 
