¿XXXV? Month.... In the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra his sister, the children of Ptolemy and Cleopatra the Gods Illustrious; and the Priest of Alexander and of the Saviour Gods, of the Brother Gods, of the Beneficent Gods, of the Father loving Gods, of the Illustrious Gods, of the ¿hostile? Paternal God, and of the Mother loving Gods: and the Prize bearer of Berenice the Beneficent, and the [Gold and Silver] Basket bearer of Arsinoe the Brother loving, and the Priest of Arsinoe the Father loving, being [as appointed in the metropolis]: the bargain was made by the men of the family of Alecis: Ammonius the son of Pyrrhius, and Psenamunis the son of Pyrrhius, coming into the temple ... agreed with Pechytes the son of Arsiesis and ¿Oenone? to sell for a sum of money ... ... (14) Royal Street ... month ... time ... . Executed and confirmed. Written by ... clerk to the chief priests of Amonrasonther and the contemplar Gods, the Gods ¿Beneficent? the Father loving Gods and the Gods Illustrious, the ¿hostile? Paternal God, and the Mother loving Gods. Amen.
The name of Eupator appears here to contain, in two different places, the characters which in the Rosetta inscription denote hostile or turbulent; and this circumstance would incline us to prefer the date of the last year of the reign of Philometor: but it is possible that the same epithets may have been intended to mean warlike, in a favourable sense.
There remains a fourth enchorial manuscript, of some importance, at present in the British Museum, but still belonging to Mr. Salt, without whose permission it would be improper to make public its whole contents, even if they were perfectly intelligible. But, in fact, the preamble of this manuscript has been lost, and the registry is nearly illegible, except that the date is clearly XLVII, and the signature of the President at the table of Hermopolis appears to be Dionysius. The names of Horus and Erieus and Arsiesis are also distinguishable in the body of the deed, and the word “two thousand” is written at length, at the end of the registry. Now the year 47 can only belong to the reign of Philadelphus, or to that of Eupator, and the style of the registry too much resembles that of all the other deeds, including Anastasy’s, to allow us to assign it to the former reign: it must, therefore, belong, not to 277, but to 124 B. C. This date will not indeed give us any certain evidence respecting that of Mr. Grey’s deeds; though it might rather incline us to take the later than the earlier, of two periods, equally probable in other respects. On the whole, we can only leave the alternative open for future decision between the dates, as thus contrasted:
| Mr. Grey’s enchorial deed | (A), XXVIII | 154 | or 143 | B. C. |
| (B), XXIX | 153 | 142 | ||
| (C), XXXV | 147 | 136 | ||
| Mr. Grey’s Greek Antigraph, or rather the enchorial deed of Paris | XXXVI | 146 | 135 | |
| Mr. Salt’s enchorial deed | XLVII | 124 | ||
| Anastasy’s Greek conveyance | XII-IX | 106. |
The registry of Mr. Grey’s first deed is therefore at least 37, and, on the whole, most probably 48 years more ancient, than any other writing with a pen and ink that exists; and it still remains in the most perfect preservation. Mr. Jomard has compared the manuscript of Anastasy, for its importance, to the pillar of Rosetta: but it can in no respect whatever be put in competition with the Antigraph of Mr. Grey.
SPECIMEN OF MR. GREY’S ENCHORIAL PAPYRUS
CHAPTER VI.
EXTRACTS FROM DIODORUS AND HERODOTUS; RELATING TO MUMMIES.
It is rather as being illustrated by the discovery of Mr. Grey’s Greek papyrus, than as contributing much to its illustration, that I shall here introduce such passages of Diodorus Siculus and of Herodotus, as tend to explain the customs of the Egyptians respecting the honours shown to the dead bodies of their relations.
“The inhabitants of this country,” says Diodorus, Book I. § 51, Wess., in the language of Booth, p. 26, “little value the short time of this present life; but put a high esteem upon the name and reputation of a virtuous life after death; and they call the houses of the living, Inns, because they stay in them but a little while; but the sepulchres of the dead they call Everlasting habitations, because they abide in the graves to infinite generations. Therefore they are not very curious in the building of their houses; but in beautifying their sepulchres they leave nothing undone that [the excess of magnificence can suggest].”