erroneous traditions contain a portion of truth which history cannot
neglect. No one has blamed M. Sprenger for having, in writing the life
of Mahomet, made much of the _hadith_ or oral traditions concerning
the prophet, and for often having attributed to his hero words which
are only known through this source. Yet the traditions respecting
Mahomet are not superior in historical value to the discourses and
narratives which compose the Gospels. They were written between the
year 50 and the year 140 of the Hegira. When the history of the Jewish
schools in the ages which immediately preceded and followed the birth
of Christianity shall be written, no one will make any scruple of
attributing to Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel the maxims ascribed to them
by the _Mishnah_ and the _Gemara_, although these great compilations
were written many hundreds of years after the time of the doctors in
question.

As to those who believe, on the contrary, that history should consist
of a simple reproduction of the documents which have come down to us,
I beg to observe that such a course is not allowable. The four
principal documents are in flagrant contradiction one with another.
Josephus rectifies them sometimes. It is necessary to make a
selection. To assert that an event cannot take place in two ways at
once, or in an impossible manner, is not to impose an _à priori_
philosophy upon history. The historian ought not to conclude that a
fact is false because he possesses several versions of it, or because
credulity has mixed with them much that is fabulous. He ought in such
a case to be very cautious--to examine the texts, and to proceed
carefully by induction. There is one class of narratives especially,
to which this principle must necessarily be applied. Such are
narratives of supernatural events. To seek to explain these, or to
reduce them to legends, is not to mutilate facts in the name of