THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 15 
king?) sounds like a hint at an interval of not more than two or at the most three years. Yet 
it seems to be an erroneous statement; the interval evidently was longer: 
We have, fortunately, a very valuable and precise monumental statement in the two 
hieroglyphic inscriptions describing the construction of the temple of Edfu.? Both texts state 
that the great court gates were under construction “until (r-mmn) the year 16 of His Majesty”’ 
(z. e., Philopator, whose name has been mentioned before). Then came the disturbance 
(hnw) which broke out afterwards (r[variant ’w] pr hr s}). There rebelled (bin) godless 
(lit. ignorant, know-nothing) people (Amw) in the southern half (m gs hnt) [addition in B.: and 
there stopped the work in the seat of the gods as there was violence (r dudn?) in the southern 
part] until (frt-r, nfrt--w) year 19 of the son of the Sun, the heir of the Gods Fatherloving, 
chosen by Ptah, etc., Ptolemy, beloved of Ptah, the blessed defunct, the God Epiphanes 
[repetitious addition in A.: ... the son of the Sun, Ptolemy, everliving, beloved of Ptah, the 
kind god*] who (A.) pacified the land (sgrf t;) and conquered those rebelling against him (dr 
binw-f); [variant in B.: the strong one (z/t), the king who conquered the disturbance in the 
whole land, dr hnn r t; zr-f]. 
A still later date would, at first sight, seem to be given in the first Turin papyrus referring 
to a lawsuit about a house (Pap. Taurin., ed. Peyron, I, 5, line 29-30): rov éavrov rarépa werj Oat 
éx Tns Avooro\ews MeO’ éETéepwv oTpatwwray eis To’s dvw TOTOUS év TH Yevouevn Tapaxh él TOU TaTpos 
Tov Bacitewr, Oeov 'Exipavois: “‘that his father had departed from Thebes with other soldiers 
’ to the regions higher up in the disturbance which broke out under the father of the kings, 
the God Epiphanes.”’ Following this the lawyer counts for the time which the house of that 
Greek soldier had remained deserted, the full 24 years of Epiphanes, so that the passage could 
be interpreted as though the revolution had broken out at the death of Ptolemy Philopator.‘ 
The above is, however, only an approximate statement. It seems that the calculation of the 
defendant tried to shorten the number of years, and the plaintiff in repeating that calculation 
could well afford to overlook a couple of years under Philopator. The general reluctance 
against speaking more than was absolutely necessary of that sad episode, a reluctance which 
we can observe throughout the Rosetta decree, seems to be noticeable also here, in this over- 
looking of some time under Ptolemy IV. That these years must not be overlooked by the 
historian is shown by Rosettana 27, rods adnynoapeévous Tav atooTayTwy érl Tov éavTOU TaTpos: 
“the leaders of those who had fallen away under his father,’ and that Epiphanes (27-28) pun- 
ished them, “taking vengeance on behalf of his father” (éraytvwy r@ warpi; this remark is 
lacking in the demotic text). See also the second decree of Phil (line 11), if my restoration 
“his father’’ is right. These hints that already Philopator had long and hard fights with the 

1 As pointed out in the text of Polybius, quoted above, p. 13, the expressions “‘finally’’ and ‘‘not after a long time’’ do not har- 
monize. I hesitate to decide whether this negligent style can be attributed to Polybius himself, whose language is very precise 
wherever we are sure of the original text. I suspect here rather an instance of hasty redaction by the epitomizer of Polybius. Thus 
it becomes probable that the original form of the text was much fuller and that it defined—above all—the space of time between the 
battle of Raphia and the revolution much better than in the extant form. 
2A. Duemichen, Tempelinschriften, I, 95 (=Aeg. Zeitschr., 1878, 44; Brugsch, Thesaurus, 1330). B. Aeg. Zeitschr., 1870, pl. II 
(p. 1 foll.) =Brugsch, Thesaurus, 1334. 
3 P-nir mnh. ‘This title usually expresses Kuergetes, but here the surname of Epiphanes, Evxdpicros. This looks like an almost 
inoredible error, 7. e., a translation of the Greek expression without knowledge of the official hieroglyphic title. We should suppose 
that this title was known even to the most ignorant priestly writer, but the error can hardly be explained away. 
4 Thus understood it, e. g., Revillout, Revue Arch., 1877, 326, “in the moment of the death of Philopator after the Greeks 
themselves’’(!). Similarly Chrestomathie Démotique, XCII. 
