INTRODUCTION. 3 
ties have been indicated. The demotic texts, owing to the difficult script which is so poorly 
suited for monumental use (a kind of stenography always depending much on the context), leave 
more uncertainty. I have, in their case, tried to draw mechanically only what I could see 
clearly and without fancy. Of course, every experienced philologist knows how difficult it is 
to call a’decipherment of a palimpsestic manuscript final when it contains a unique text not 
controlled by parallel manuscripts. Here, on stone, the difficulties are increased. I hope, 
however, to have saved the best historic treasure of Phile so far that scientists will not have 
to lament an irreparable loss when the beautiful temples of Philz come to be completely 
destroyed by submerging. The end of Philee will, I must state it with regret, come much sooner 
than has been admitted in the press. 
HES PIRST DECREE. 
The “‘first’’! bilingual decree of Phile, engraved on the right side of the wall, is a modified 
copy of the famous decree of Rosetta, or rather of Memphis, in which city the priests of all 
the Egyptian temples (as far as they were then under control of the struggling Alexandrian 
government) had assembled in the ninth year of Ptolemy V., Epiphanes, to honor the king as 
benefactor of the temples and of the whole Egyptian nation. ‘Two years after the suppression 
of the great revolution, 7. e., in the year 21, the priests at another convention in Memphis are 
stated to have renewed that decree of thanks to the king and the establishment of his divine 
worship. ‘The principal reason was that the decree of year 9 had not yet been set up in the 
temples of the Upper Country, owing to the long years of rebellion. The promulgation of 
those honors to the king seemed the more necessary to the priests because the reforms of the 
old decree (above all, the remission of taxes lost to the Alexandrian government in the rebellious 
provinces) had been extended to the time of the suppression of the rebellion, 7. e., to the year 
19 inclusive. 
Of course, these reasons are not stated too plainly in the new decree; this would have meant 
a painful confession of past disloyalty. Still, the decree was not entirely reproduced at Philz 
as it had been written in the year 9. Instead of maintaining the fiction that the Upper Country 
had been loyal, the text of the priestly resolution of Memphis is here given mutatis mutandis.’ 
Therefore it bears not the original date of the ninth year, but the date of the convention of the 
year 21. ; 
The divine honors are extended to the queen, Cleopatra, as probably had always been 
done since the date of her marriage. ‘This formal recognition of the queen’s cult is, however, 
not the main point for republication, as Lepsius thought. The great rebellion furnished the 
principal reason for this republication. All references to that great rebellion, however, were 
taken out of the old text of Memphis; that whole unfortunate period now was left to oblivion. 

1T still use this expression because the erroneous numbering introduced by Lepsius has become familiar. According to its dating 
(de above oie is the second. See the references to the alleged ‘‘second’’ decree in the “‘first’’ inscription, line 9f and 13c¢ to d 
demotic 13f). 
apiti ee of Damanhur, of the year 23, the scribe simply altered the protocol of year 9 to that of year 23, but copied the text 
of year 9 for the rest quite mechanically. This was mere negligence, not a wilful fiction of conservatism or loyalty. I am not sure 
whether we can draw the inference from a comparison of the two later editions (Phila and Damanhur) that the adaptations of the 
decree of Memphis were left to the scholars of each temple, instead of being worked out at the convention where the renewal of that 
decree was decided. ‘The inclination of the Egyptian mind toward a ce.taiv laxity in execution of everything may be considered, at 
least in the case of the Damanhur copy. 
