THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 19 
own benefits received from the crown must not be overrated also for another reason. In the 
priestly decree of Memphis-Rosetta the priests, after all, act as spokesmen for the people and 
thank the king principally on behalf of these, although pretending that they have been 
specially benefited by him. 
At the side of those great reforms for the natives in general, we find no special concession 
for the future to the rebelling warriors, as stated on page 14. The view that this silence of the 
decree was nothing but tactful caution (p. 14) seems most plausible. Otherwise we might 
interpret this absence of special consideration of the warriors as though the government wanted 
to win the unwarlike masses and to separate them from the warriors, who alone were hardly 
numerous enough to be very dangerous, as shown on p. 13. Anamnesty, however, was offered 
to the warriors and to all insurgents, another very great concession from the point of view of 
such a despotic government as that of the Lagide: 
(Greek 19) mpocératey 6€ Kai Tovs Katamopevouevous EK TE TOV paxiuwy Kal T@V ad\wY, THY 
&\Nbrpia hpovnodvtwv, év Tois KaTa THY Tapaxiy Katpots KaTe\Odvras peve éerl Ta ilwy KThoEwr. 
“He ordered also that those of the warriors and of the others, having different (political) 
views (!), who, during the time of the disturbance (cp. above, p. 17) surrendered (lit. came 
down), should remain in possession of their property.” 
The demotic translation is here specially interesting, showing much more clearly than the 
Greek text that not an amnesty to those who had already deserted the rebels is meant, but a 
promise held out to the rebels in order to make them return to loyalty: 
(1. 11) “‘he ordered again concerning those who would come (n—nt ¢—wei, future!) (from) 
among the warrior class (n—rm(t)w qnqn, cp. p. 60) and the rest of men who had been (é-’r 
hpr) on other ways (hr ktht m(y)t)! in the disturbance which had been (!) in Egypt (n p-thth 
é—r hpr (n) Kmt) should be left (remaining?) (1. 12) in their places (e t(y) [hpr?|-st [n] 
nw—m’w) and that their goods should be theirs’’ (nt(u) nw-nk(w)t hpr hr-w). 
This version distinguishes thus more clearly between the two classes of rebels than the 
Greek original. It divides the Greek expression ra iéva “‘their property’ into movable and 
immovable property in order to show the full value of the amnesty, and, as said above, rep- 
resents it more distinctly as an offered inducement to the rebels by employing the verb in the 
future. We see thereby that the government did its best to win the natives, but it contains 
also the proof of the desperate situation in which the Ptolemaic dynasty was placed. 
It is not likely that all this enforced liberality and mildness had much effect as long as it 
could not be backed up by military successes. After such successes of the governmental 
troops, however, the cowardly character of the Egyptians, of which we have spoken so often, 
probably began to manifest itself and to find the reforms tempting enough to desert the 
national cause or even to turn against it, as described above. 

1 Most curiously, after mentioning the remission of the yearly trip of the Egyptian priests to Alexandria for presentation (before 
the high priest of all Egypt), the writer of the decree by the mention of this voyage (which, of course, was made almost exclusively 
by water) seems to be reminded of a similar matter referring to navigation, and inserts, as a postscript to the general reforms: 
IIpocératey 5é cal tiv obd\Anvw Tar eis He also ordered that the “‘pressing’’ of (demot. 9) He ordered not to seize 
THY vavurelav 1 moveta Oar. people for the navy should not be made. rowers (?). 
Notwithstanding the fact that this reform falls out of the carefully arranged order as said here, it is not to be limited to the priests; 
it means another great general concession for all the natives, to whom that levying of rowers must have been a great oppression. 
