the circumstances?  Had he any interest in the event—­personal, or partisan, or patriotic?  Such interests would colour his report; and so would the love of telling a dramatic story, if that was a weakness of his.  Nay, a love of truth might lead him to modify the report of what he remembered if—­as he remembered it—­the matter seemed not quite credible.  We must also bear in mind that, for want of training, precision in speaking the truth is not understood or appreciated by many honest people even now, still less in unscientific ages.

Oral tradition is formed by passing a report from one to another, generation by generation; and it is generally true that such a tradition loses credit at every step, because every narrator has some weakness.  However, the value of tradition depends upon the motives people have to report correctly, and on the form of the communication, and on whether monuments survive in connection with the story.  Amongst the things best remembered are religious and magic formulae, heroic poems, lists of ancestors, popular legends about deeply impressive events, such as migrations, conquests, famines, plagues.  We are apt now to underrate the value of tradition, because the use of writing has made tradition less important, and therefore less pains are taken to preserve it.  In the middle of last century, it was usual (and then quite justifiable) to depreciate oral tradition as nearly worthless; but the spread of archaeological and anthropological research, and the growth of the Comparative Method, have given new significance to legends and traditions which, merely by themselves, could not deserve the slightest confidence.

(2) As to written evidence, contemporary inscriptions—­such as are found on rocks and stones and bricks in various parts of the world, and most abundantly in Egypt and Western Asia—­are of the highest value, because least liable to fraudulent abuse; but must be considered with reference to the motives of those who set them forth.  Manuscripts and books give rise to many difficulties.  We have to consider whether they were originally written by some one contemporary with the events recorded:  if so they have the same value as immediate oral testimony, provided they have not been tampered with since.  But if not contemporary records, they may have been derived from other records that were contemporary, or only from oral tradition.  In the latter case they are vitiated by the weakness of oral tradition.  In the former case, we have to ask what was the trustworthiness of the original records, and how far do the extant writings fairly represent those records?