Fragments on Egyptian Literature, \VJ 



by Manetho as the next king ; and the commencement of his 

 reign is subsequent to the expulsion of the Shepherds by Teth- 

 mosis 393+59 + 66=518 years. (See Josephus, Cont. Apion., 

 i. 26.) 



.Now, whatever opinions may be entertained respecting the 

 correctness of Manetho's statements, in the whole or in part, 

 it is plain, from what has been said, that he does not state 

 that Rameses, or Sethos, the founder of the xixth dynasty, 

 was the son of Amenophis ; and, in the absence of such a 

 statement, his mention of the dynasty being changed, would 

 seem to imply, that he was not so related to his predecessor. 



I turn now to the table of Abydos, which has been supposed 

 to confirm this pedigree of Rameses, but which appears to me 

 to furnish a strong presumptive argument against it. 



It is well known that, in the lowest horizontal line of this 

 table, the prsenomen and name of Rameses the Great are 

 arranged in alternate ovals ; each occurring, when the table 

 was complete, ten times. Over these are two other lines, which 

 seem to have originally contained thirty-nine different praj- 

 nomens, and a single name, following the last praenomen, which 

 is precisely the same as that in the lowest line. The sovereign, 

 who bore this last name and prsenomen, is admitted on all hands 

 not to have been the father of Rameses the Great, but his 

 ancestor in a remote degree. Why then, it may be asked, are 

 the intermediate names omitted ? It is difficult to give a satis- 

 factory answer to this question, if we suppose, that the kings 

 who reigned during this interval were interposed in genealogi- 

 cal succession between the two Rameses mentioned in the 

 table. But the difficulty would be removed, by supposing that 

 Rameses the Great was of a different family from his imme- 

 diate predecessors, but equally descended from the former 

 Rameses (Rameses II. of Champollion-Figeac). I would not 

 venture to advance this supposition, as proved by this genealo- 

 gical table. I merely say, that the table should not be appealed 

 to as confirming a different theory, when it is at least equally 

 reconciieable with that which I have mentioned. 



I cannot, however, help remarking, that the anxiety of the 

 great Rameses to prove his descent from the royal stock, is, in 

 my mind, a strong presumptive argument against his being 

 the son of his predecessor, and of course universally admitted 



