THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 25 
of 193 (year 12?), even later than the reconquest of the Thebais in the nineteenth year.! 
Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemies, 313) believes that “dated documents among the Petrie 
-Papyri (II, xiv, vit) show that in the fourth and the eighteenth years of Epiphanes, the 
Ptolemaic law-courts and the farming of taxes, etc., were undisturbed in the secluded Arsinoite 
nome.’ But there is the possibility that documents written during the time of the revolution 
and lacking thus the correct and legal dating were rewritten after the suppression of the rebellion; 
the “legal government” would not recognize a document without proper dating, and rewriting 
such objectionable documents was too fine a pretext for officials and lawyers to obtain extra 
fees. ‘Thus we must not too easily be deceived by those dates. On the other hand, it is probable 
that the Fayum, with its strong Greek population, could be maintained against the rebels as 
long as the royal power reached to Memphis. We may venture to draw an inference as to the 
time of the reconquest from the legation sent by Ptolemy Epiphanes to Rome in rgr B.C. 
(year 14?) to offer an enormous sum of money and his armies to the Romans as aid in the 
impending war with Antiochus of Syria. If this was not a grotesque deception, the Ptolemaic 
government ought to have had the greater part of the arable ground of Egypt under its control 
at that time, so that the taxes flowed again into the depleted treasury of Alexandria, minus 
those of the Thebais only. 
I place here another fragment of Polybius, the continuation of the passage from the 
excerpta Valesiana (21, 19 Dindorf, cp. p. 22): 
Tapamw\HnoLov 6€ TL avuveBn Kal KaTQ And something similar happened also at the time 
TOUS KQLpoOUsLnVLKa Ilo\uvKkparns TOUS aTooTavTas when Polycrates (had) subdued the insurgents. 
EXELPWTATO. 
Ot yap Tept rov ’A@ivw kat Ilavoipay For the followers of Athinis and Pausiras (!) and 
kal Xéoovdov Kal tov ‘IpdBacrov, oimep Chesuphos and Irobastos, who still survived of the 
Hoa €TL dracwe OueEvoL TOV duvacTor, eiEavTes (rebellious) chiefs, yielding to necessity, appeared at Sais 
Tols mpayuact Tapnoay eis Hy Law and surrendered themselves to the discretion of the king. 
Kal ogas avrovs eis THY Tov PBaciréws But Ptolemy, disregarding the pledges and having 
éxerpifovto TloTL. ‘O dé Ilro\euatos the men tied naked to the (!) carts, had them dragged 
adernoas Tas lores Kal dnoas_ Tovs 
avOpwmovs yuuvols Tats auatas eidxe 
kal wera Tavta(!) Timwpnodpevos” aTeKTELVeE. and after this (!) had them vengefully (!) killed. 
Kai mapayevouevos peta tavta(!) eis And going after this (!) to Naucratis with his army, 
tyv Navxpatw pera THs oTpatias xal(!) when Aristonicus had presented to him the men en- 
TapactTyoavtos avT@ Tots é&evooynuevous listed for him as mercenaries from Greece, he received 


1 From the time before the year 19/20 date Strack, No. 71 (from Benihasan) and No. 73 (from Tehneh), because they still use the 
second official surname of the king, edxdpioros ‘the winsome.’ We find this title abandoned, above all, in our two Phile decrees; 
that of Damanhur, copying the old decree of year 9, partly keeps mechanically that title, partly omits it. The reasons for the official 
omission of that surname tempt us to think that the king, regarding himself a great conqueror after the first victories, did not wish 
to be called ‘“‘kind’”’ any more. That it was omitted, e. g.,on the dedicatory Greek inscription of the Asklepios temple at Philz 
only to save space (Letronne, Recueil d’Inscr. I, 9, after Parthey), is, of course, impossible, The Egyptian priests, in other inscrip- 
tions, tried partly to replace it by other titles. Those two inscriptions (71 and 73) thus show that Middle Egypt had been regained 
between the years 12 and 19. 
2 A. Mai, Nova Script. Coll. Il, 412, gives this as from book 21 with the variant riwwpnfevras. “ The text seems to aim at express- 
ing the idea for stating a warning, example.” 
