But no means existed of checking the lists of the first three dynasties,
as no contemporary monuments other than a IVth Dynasty mention of a IId
Dynasty king, Send, had been found. The lists dated from the time of
the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties, so that it was very possible that with
regard to the earliest dynasties they might not be very correct. This
conclusion gained additional weight from the fact that no monuments of
these earliest kings were ever discovered; it therefore seemed probable
that they were purely legendary figures, in whose time (if they ever did
exist) Egypt was still a semi-barbarous nation. The jejune stories told
about them by Manetho seemed to confirm this idea. Mena, the reputed
founder of the monarchy, was generally regarded as a historical figure,
owing to the persistence of his name in all ancient literary accounts
of the beginnings of Egyptian history; for it was but natural to suppose
that the name of the man who unified Egypt and founded Memphis would
endure in the mouths of the people. But with regard to his successors
no such supposition seemed probable, until the time of Sneferu and the
pyramid-builders.

This was the critical view. Another school of historians accepted all
the kings of the lists as historical _en bloc_, simply because the
Egyptians had registered their names as kings. To them Teta, Ateth, and
Ata were as historical as Mena.

Modern discovery has altered our view, and truth is seen to lie between
the opposing schools, as usual. The kings after Mena do not seem to be
such entirely unhistorical figures as the extreme critics thought;
the names of several of them, e.g. Merpeba, of the Ist Dynasty, are
correctly given in the later lists, and those of others were simply
misread, e. g. that of Semti of the same dynasty, misread "Hesepti" by
the list-makers. On the other hand, Mena himself has become a somewhat