(6) It was another favourite doctrine with Comte, also adopted by Mill—­that the general state of culture is chiefly determined by the prevailing intellectual condition of a people, especially by the accepted ground of explanation—­whether the will of supernatural beings, or occult powers, or physical antecedents:  the “law of three stages,” Fetichism, Metaphysics, Positivism.  And this also is, at least, so far true, that it is useless to try to interpret the manners and institutions of any nation until we know its predominant beliefs.  Magic and animism are beliefs everywhere held by mankind in early stages of culture, and they influence every action of life.  But that is not all:  these beliefs retain their hold upon great multitudes of civilised men and affect the thoughts of the most enlightened.  Whilst the saying ’that human nature is the same in all ages’ seems to make no allowance for the fact that, in some nations, a considerable number of individuals has attained to powers of deliberation, self-control, and exact reasoning, far above the barbarous level, it is yet so far true that, even in civilised countries, masses of people, were it not for the example and instruction of those individuals, would fall back upon magic and animism and the manners that go with those beliefs.  The different degrees of enlightenment enjoyed by different classes of the population often enable the less educated to preserve a barbarous custom amidst many civilised characteristics of the national life.

Sec. 8.  Historical reasoning must start from, or be verified by, observations.  If we are writing the history of ourselves:  if of another time or country, we can observe some of the present conditions of the country, its inhabitants, language, manners, institutions, which are effects of the past and must be traceable to it; we may also be able to observe ancient buildings or their ruins, funerary remains, coins, dating from the very times we are to treat of.  Our own observations, of course, are by no means free from error.

But even in treating of our own age and country, most of our information must be derived from the testimony of others, who may have made mistakes of observation and further mistakes in reporting their observations, or may have intentionally falsified them.  Testimony is of two kinds:  Oral; and Written, inscribed or printed.  In investigating the events of a remote age, nearly all our direct evidence must be some sort of testimony.

(1) Oral testimony depends upon the character of the witness; and the best witness is not perfectly trustworthy; for he may not have observed accurately, or he may not have reported correctly; especially if some time elapsed between the event and his account of it; for no man’s memory is perfect.  Since witnesses vary widely in capacity and integrity, we must ask concerning any one of them—­was he a good judge of what he saw, and of what was really important in the event?  Had he good opportunities of knowing