individual; the second external--the knowledge of its existence by
others--the _ego sum_ and the _tu es_; and our acceptance of the
statements of each on _matters of fact_, should depend on their mutual
agreement.

The first question, then, for the historian should be, What accounts
does this nation give of its early history? the second, What account of
this nation's early history can be obtained _ab extra_? By stating and
comparing these accounts with such critical acumen as the writer may be
able to command, we may obtain something approaching to authentic
history. The history of ancient peoples must have its basis on
tradition. The name tradition unfortunately gives an _a priori_
impression of untruthfulness, and hence the difficulty of accepting
tradition as an element of truth in historic research. But tradition is
not necessarily either a pure myth or a falsified account of facts. The
traditions of a nation are like an aged man's recollection of his
childhood, and should be treated as such. If we would know his early
history, we let him tell the tale in his own fashion. It may be he will
dwell long upon occurrences interesting to himself, and apart from the
object of our inquiries; it may be he will equivocate unintentionally if
cross-examined in detail; but truth will underlie his garrulous story,
and by patient analysis we may sift it out, and obtain the information
we desire.

A nation does not begin to write its history at the first moment of its
existence. Hence, when the chronicle is compiled which first embodies
its story, tradition forms the basis. None but an inspired historian can
commence _In principio_. The nation has passed through several
generations, the people already begin to talk of "old times;" but as
they are nearer these "old times" by some thousands of years than we