Tov oe NeiAXov = tHV 
avaBaow pweyadrnv Tornoa- 
pevou €vy 7a Oyddm Ere 
Kat eiOicuévov Karak vee 
Ta (1. 25) webua, Katéoxev, ék 
TOM\AWY TOTWY OXUPWOAS TAH 
oTouaTa TOV TOTAMY, 
Xopnyjoas eis avTa KXpNUaTwv 
wAn00s ovK Odlyov kal 
KaTaoTHoas inmels TE Kal 
mefous mpds TH PvdAaky (1. 26) 
avT av 
Ul > , ld af ld 
év ONLYw xXpoVw, THY TE TOALY 
KAT KpaTos ei\ev Kal Tovs év 
9 ~ 9 ~ , ld 
avTH agePeEls TavTas dLepOerper, 
e 
Kadamep |‘Epuljs cal Qpos 6 
= e \ ? , ex 
THs ‘Iovdos kai ’Ociptos vids 
éxelpwaaTo Tovs év TOLs avTots 
TOTOLS ATOOTAaYTAS TpOTEpOV. 
THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 
And when the Nile had made its 
(yearly) rise (specially?) great in 
the Sth year and was expected to 
flood the plains, he held (the Nile) 
under control, damming up in 
many places the mouths of the 
rivers (1. €., canals), 
spending for this not inconsider- 
able sums of money, 
and establishing cavalry and in- 
fantry for their (i. e., of the canals) 
guarding, 
he took in short time the city by 
force (t. e., by storm) 
and annihilated all the impious 
men in it, 
as Hermes (!) and Horus, the son 
of Isis and Osiris, had overthrown 
the rebels in the same places afore- 
time. 
21 
He put dams (to) the canals 
which brought water to the 
city mentioned (above, a thing) 
which the former kings were 
not able to do thus; 
they (!) spent” much money for 
them. 
He counted (off) troops, men on 
foot® and horses, to the mouth(?) 
of the rivers mentioned, to guard 
them safely on account of the 
[inundations] of water which were 
great in the year 8 (1. 15), ... to 
the mentioned (lit. named) rivers 
which brought water to much 
ground (!), being extremely 
deep(?).* 
The king took the city mentioned 
by force within little time. 
He made a massacre of the im- 
pious ones in it. He made it a 
slaughter, as did the sungod® and 
Horus, the son of Isis, to those 
who had committed impiety 
towards them at the places men- 
tioned formerly. 
The remarkable liberty with which the demotic text proceeds makes it again a source of 
history of its own, although its clumsiness, its dependence on the Greek text, and its inferiority to 
the latter source must not be denied. ‘The hieroglyphic version as preserved in the stone of 
Damanhur, lines 19—20, is incredibly mutilated and shortened. It reads: 
“His Majesty went to Khentiwy [repeated]; she was ... (which) were in it, because they 
had made the beginning [7. e., leadership] of many acts of violence; they had transgressed against 
the way of His Majesty and the commandments (siz) of the gods.” The rest is too unsafe and 
does not yield anything new. ‘The incredibly disfigured hieroglyphic name of the city can now 
be restored. The demotic orthography has been elucidated by Spiegelberg’s discovery of the 



1TIt is not safe to draw from this free addition the inference that Ptolemy Philopator had attacked Lykopolis unsuccessfully. 
2 Probably the third person plural is only an expression of the passive: “there was spent.’’ It could, however, also be under- 
stood of the former kings; possibly, the demotic writer understands it thus: “‘(although) these spent.’’ This would disagree, how- 
ever, with his usually very good understanding of the text. 
3 Text erroneously: his foot! 
4 By this addition the demotic writer wishes to show that he understood the inundation of year 8 as unusually high. That 
the Greek text is the original is shown by these explanatory words in a specially convincing manner. 
5 Thus also the hieroglyphic text of Damanhur. ‘The god “ Hermes-Thouti’’ in such a prominent part is surprising. Still I 
hesitate to restore the Greek text to [dp]ns “the sungod”’ after the other versions. The engraver, at least, seems to have intended 
“Hermes,” only we should like to assume that the reading was a misunderstanding of the name Phré, ‘“‘the sungod.”’ 
