THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 23 
rebels), but its second and third sections must not be interpreted, as usually is done, as record- 
ing the surrender of the rebels inclosed in the city, so that “what happened” would be the 
progress of the siege. My understanding of the text is that it records the completed (aorist) 
siege; the verb thus includes also the final capture of the city. The description of the Rosettana 
excludes a capitulation. ‘To assume that the priestly writer wanted to hide the breach of the 
capitulation by his expression “he took the city by storm”’ seems to me very unsafe. Such a 
concealing would look like embellishing the actions of the divine ruler, the king, 7. e., excusing 
them. This could be interpreted as criticizing them, and those poor priests were careful enough 
in their expression, especially at that time, to avoid the punishment of /aesa majestas. Thus I 
take the storming of the city and immediate massacring of the defenders quite literally. The 
surrender of the rebels seems to mean those in adjacent districts of the Delta, east (and south?) 
of Busiris. This and the breach of the capitulation by their execution, namely, is indicated 
somewhat also in the following words of the Rosettana: 
DEMOTIC TEXT. 
(27)rovs [6’]! adnynoapeévous 
Tov atooTavTwy émi Tov 
€auTov TaTpos Kal THY xXwpav 
élvox\no?|avras kal Ta lepa 
aOLKHoaAYTAS Tapayer OuEVos Eis 
Méuduy, érapvvav” (28) 7 @ 
matpt kal TH éavTov Baovdeia, 
mavTas ékO\acey KabnKovTws 
Kab’ Ov Katpov tapeyerndn 
mpos TO svuTedeoO7 [var a’T@ 
Ta] WpoonKkovTa voulua TH 
Tapadnyer THs Bacotdelas 
(And) the leaders of those who 
had fallen away under his father 
and had troubled the country and 
had wronged the temples, when 
he came to Memphis, (for?) aveng- 
ing his father and his own royal 
power, he punished them all as 
they deserved, at the occasion when 
he appeared, that there should be 
accomplished to him the proper 
ceremonies for the taking over of 
the kingship. 
(16) The impious ones who had 
assembled soldiers, becoming 
leaders to trouble the nomes, 
doing wrong (gm) to the temples, 
deserting the way of the king and 
his father, the gods gave that he 
made a slaughter among them 
at the festival of receiving the 
high(est) dignity which he re- 
ceived (lit. did) from his father. 
He caused them to be killed (on) 
the wood. 
The demotic text here again is an important source on account of its free rendering. Also 
the hieroglyphic text is fortunately preserved, Ros. 1 (cp. Damanhur, 22-23, which is much 
mutilated) : 
. . . [Det. impious people] also (N. B.!)? who had amassed (zdb‘) soldiers (N. B.!), who had 
been at the head of them, upsetting (?sdm) the nomes (tsw) (and) violating (th;) the temples [Damanhur 
completes this: at the receiving of the kingship from his father . . . killing,® placing them (?) on® the wood]. 
The greater dependence of the hieroglyphic version on the demotic text than on the Greek 
(p. 4) is remarkable; it elucidates the demotic somewhat, notwithstanding its mutilation. For 
example, it confirms it in the statement that those leaders of the rebels were soldiers,’ and fur- 
nishes the best confirmation of the fact that the native soldiers formed the nucleus of the 

1 My conception of the text prefers the restoration 6’ to that of 7’ which is usually employed. 
2 Or énaubywy part. pres. “avenging.” 
3’sk (cp. p. 32, note 6) ‘‘and, moreover, also.” 
4Cp. Senuhyt, line 130, this verb for the gathering of armies. 
5 Only m:m left of the verb sm(m) “‘to kill.” 
6 The circle and stroke seems to mean fp ‘‘on.”’ The plural strokes behind belong to the pronoun (sm or st) ‘“‘them’”’ which ought 
to stand before ¢p. i 
7 That the word Ss means here ‘‘multitude,” not “soldiers,’’ is extremely improbable. See Ss for regular soldiers, 4Z. 1884, 104. 
It is true, the peculiar use of the Egyptian expression for “multitude’”’ causes many difficulties, as we have had to state repeatedly. 
