Though Moore's history cannot now be quoted as an authority, it accomplished its work for the time, and promoted an interest in the history of one of the most ancient nations of the human race.
There are two sources from whence the early history of a nation may be safely derived: the first internal--the self-consciousness of the 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.