[ 47 ] 



is true for one man may not be true for another, 

 or even for the same man at a different time. 

 When this view is taken, the ordinary form of 

 inquiry appears inadequate, since it fails to dis- 

 tinguish between the different aspects of truth under 

 the different conditions. Moreover the nervous 

 system discharges its functions normally by ar- 

 ranging reminiscences in the syntax most satis- 

 factory to the individual ; some men will use the 

 most direct syntax which they can find ; others 

 seem more apt to use syntaxes wherein the con- 

 nections are unintelligible even to themselves ; but 

 the results of either kind of syntax may be recorded 

 in perfectly good faith. If in reviewing the evidence 

 we are able to form therewith a syntax clearer and 

 more direct than that of the witness, our syntax 

 represents what in the scientific sense is true for 

 us ; we may consider the witness to have been ill- 

 informed, or grossly ignorant ; his syntaxis may have 

 been unscientific, or utterly confused; but it does 

 not seem appropriate to apply to the normal and 

 deliberate action of his nervous functions the term 

 mistaken. 



As a concrete example of some aspects of the 

 question of evidence, the history of witchcraft is 

 interesting. The written records of all nations, 

 European or Asiatic, indicate a belief in this, which 

 was practically universal. The Romans seem always 

 to have considered it criminal, and their legislation 



