d given a statement, according to which Mena must have lived nearly
six thousand years before the Christian era. This was looked upon for a
long time as utterly inadmissible, as it was so clearly at variance
with the chronology of our own sacred books; but, as time went on, large
fragments of the original work of Manetho were more carefully studied
and distinguished from corrupt transcriptions, the lists of kings at
Karnak, Sacquarah, and the two temples at Abydos were brought to light,
and the lists of court architects were discovered. Among all these
monuments the scholar who visits Egypt is most impressed by the
sculptured tablets giving the lists of kings. Each shows the monarch of
the period doing homage to the long line of his ancestors. Each of these
sculptured monarchs has near him a tablet bearing his name. That great
care was always taken to keep these imposing records correct is certain;
the loyalty of subjects, the devotion of priests, and the family pride
of kings were all combined in this; and how effective this care was,
is seen in the fact that kings now known to be usurpers are carefully
omitted. The lists of court architects, extending over the period from
Seti to Darius, throw a flood of light over the other records.

Comparing, then, all these sources, and applying an average from the
lengths of the long series of well-known reigns to the reigns preceding,
the most careful and cautious scholars have satisfied themselves that
the original fragments of Manetho represent the work of a man honest and
well informed, and, after making all allowances for discrepancies and
the overlapping of reigns, it has become clear that the period known as
the reign of Mena must be fixed at more than three thousand years
B.C. In this the great Egyptologists of our time concur. Mariette,
the eminent French authority, puts the date at 5004 B.C.; Brugsch, the
leading German authority, puts it at about 4500 B.C.; and Meyer, the
latest and most cautious of the historians of antiquity, declares 3180
B.C. the latest possible date that can be assigned it. With these
dates the foremost English authorities, Sayce and Flinders Petrie,
substantially agree. This view is also confirmed on astronomical grounds
by Mr. Lockyer, the Astronomer Royal. We have it, then, as the result of
a century of work by the most acute and trained Egyptologists, and with
the inscriptions upon the temples and papyri before them, both of which
are now read