32 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
4e 48 
Ptw;rwmys  h‘ | hat nbi-twy slsyn; n—-nirw | mr—ytw, 
Ptolemy, andthe queen (and) mistress of both | Arsinoé, the Gods Philopator, 
countries, 
Orw'wpdr(t) ntrwy mr (wy) ytwy, | nm(?) [pr—t Glwptré, n-ntrw nt pr | 
Cleopatra (!!),1 the two Gods Loving (their) Parents, | and [the queen Cleopatra, the Gods Epiphanes], 
hr—'r(t) ()h(w)t nb(t) nfrw(t) m hwt(?)—ntrw | [mt-]nfrt [Sy nu n- ’rpyw Kmyt 
doing all things good in(!)? the temples bene[fits many to the temples (of) Egypt 
5a 
h‘ wn!) mri? yi(w)tf  mnhe} nm] | n—nt hn [tf-);wt [pr-' 
and (to) those being within his benevolent office and] to those who (are) within [his royal] office, 
(i. e., kingdom) 
r- j;w-sn (’)r(y)w tr—w] 
a'lofthem, thereof (?!),* fall of them.]’ 
’r-sn ()ht-nb(t) | twtw(/) n-r(t) my ’r-n 
they doing everything behooving todo as did |... .. +. 6 « « » © » © e00ss0ts 
5a 
| Dhwty, ‘ “  s—w)2(?) [2t—|‘(?) to ee ee 
Thout, the very great one, ordaining the fitting things(?) 
56 
m *b =n [ntr—mnh hr ntrw? [e ht(i)-f mnk] | () n—- ntrw 
with the heart of [akind god] towards the gods. | [being his heart kind] to the gods,® 
Rdyt(!)—nf nb(?!)-wrw hy qnw* é-f- ty ht prt), pr(l)® ‘Sy n n- 
He gave much money (and) grain in abundance | (as) he gave money (and) grain much to the 

1The text is disfigured by running together the mention of the mother (Arsinoé) and the wife (Cleopatra) of 
king Ptolemy V. Epiphanes. 
* We should expect the dative “to.” The sign m was begun like the hawk (utr), which sign follows 
directly. ‘The engraver tried then to correct the faulty text in a vague way. 
’This poetic expression for “reign, government”? hovers between the epithet ‘; “great” and mnht 
“‘benevolent”’ in the various places, as the signs are quite similar. 
4This use of ’7(y)w is very obscure and seems to be due to some misunderstanding. Is “thereof” merely 
an erroneous doublet of —sn “‘their’’? 
° Corruptions have arisen because the redactor thought he could put in place of the comparison with Horus 
(Ros. Gr., 10) another comparison with a god, 7.e., an abridged redaction of the Greek text, line 18 to 19: dpovritwy 
brws Ta eiOicueva TuVTEANTAL Tots BEois KATA TO TpooHKoV dpoiws 5é Kal Td Sikavoy Tacw arevemev KaBaTeEp ‘Epuns o peyas kal 
peyas, wrongly connecting this with 7a re mpds Oeods evepyerik@s Svaxeiuevos of line 10-11. Evidently a good example 
of hasty redacting. ‘The demotic text does not correspond strictly, and the corrected rendering above still 
remains uncertain, particularly my restoration of ni—, ent—é: ‘‘what is on the hand, what is necessary, becoming, 
customary, proper.’’ No m is visible above. Certain seems the emendation, sw;z. The restoration “kind god” 
is furnished by Damanhur II (corrected reading found by me after the stone in the Cairo Museum). 
® See Ros. Gr. 14 to 15, demot. 6, Damanh. 14. The Phila text is abridged. (Nb or hz disfigured to hb.) 
7 Thus after Ros. dem. 6. ‘The traces on plate 13, line 5a, do not agree sufficiently to allow many safe resto- 
rations. Possibly the Philz text is changed or corrupted. 
®Cp. Ros. dem. 6, near the end. ‘The remarkable determinative of divinity after mn seems to be kept here, 
but we must assume a strong disfigurement. 
° The e-wh-f ty “he added to give”’ of Ros. 6 has been modernized by the redactor, who then seems to have © 
mixed w3l: “to add,” and nb: “gold.” After noticing this, he or the copyist seems to have tried to repeat pr, 
which certainly is superfluous. 
