30 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 
contempt generally shown by the ‘“‘classical scholars” of the old school towards any source not 
written in the only decent languages imaginable, 7. e., in Greek or Latin. The long duration 
of the reigns of those last native Pharaohs, their full and formal titles, and the fixed forms of 
government revealed by the contract protocols ought to have shown to any careful reader 
that those native rulers were no leaders of roving insurgent bands. 
The Ethiopian hypothesis of Krall, which once seemed very attractive, is now exploded by 
our Phile text. ‘The vanquished “impious man”’ is most distinctly designated as an Egyptian 
rebel who had called the Ethiopians to aid him (line 12)). If the reverse had been true, 7. e., 
if an Ethiopian ruler aided by the Egyptian rebels had been conquered, our text would certainly 
have designated him as such; it would have added so much to the glory of the victory that 
we could not expect it to be suppressed. 
That a great part of Egypt was independent to the year 19 is confirmed also by the general 
remission of unpaid taxes to that year (Phile I, demot. 5f), which forms a parallel to the first 
remission of taxes unpaid during the revolution to the year 8 (Rosettana, 1. 8). 
Another valuable result which can now be taken from the second Philensis is that in 
the Thebais we have one ruler of all the rebels, not those many small duvagra: or “‘chiefs’’ of 
Polybius which the peculiar geographic formation of the Delta produced there among the 
insurgents. Also in this case the decree would rather have spoken of a plurality of rebel 
leaders if possible; this would have sounded much better as increasing the value of the victory 
and showing more clearly the illegality of the secession. The mention also of the crown 
prince of the native kingdom (line 12a; see above, p. 74, p. 75, note 1) is a certain confirma- 
tion of the uniform government of the Thebais. 
With this agree the official protocols of those native rulers on the Theban business docu- 
ments mentioned above. ‘They are: ‘“‘the king Harmah, living forever, beloved by Isis, 
beloved of Amen-Ré‘, the king of the gods, the great god.’’ The second king’s titles are quite 
identical. ‘These titles are very interesting. In demotic contracts the royal titles are always 
shortened, also with the Ptolemaic kings. Moreover, the second “cartouche,” containing 
the official name of the earlier style, is always omitted in those private documents, so that we 
need not conclude from the above protocol that a shortened titulature, indicating a more 
democratic government, was used by those native rulers. On their own official documents and 
on buildings they certainly employed as pompous and full titles as any rulers of gentile Egypt 
ever used. Characteristic is the mention of Isisand Amon. It is tempting to think of the Isis 
of Philz and to assume that the rebels came from the southern frontier of Egypt, but this is 
by no means certain. Isis had so many temples. The mention of Amon indicates probably ~ 
that the residence of the native dynasty was at Thebes. ‘Thebes still seems to have been the 
most populous city of Upper Egypt and it had an important situation. The mention of the 
“land of Thebes”’ in the Philee decree (line 5a), of course, proves nothing to that effect; it is 
merely an awkward translation of the old Greek term ‘“Thebais” and thus quite vague. 

ee ee ee ee 

