ven hundred years after. A little later came Zoroaster, then
Confucius, Buddha, Lao-tsze, Pericles, Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle--contemporaries, or closely following each other, their
philosophy woven and interwoven by all and each and each by all.

Moses, however, stands out alone. That he did not know natural history
as did Aristotle, who lived a thousand years later, is not to his
discredit, and to emphasize the fact were irrelevant.

Back of it all lies the undisputed fact that Moses led a barbaric people
out of captivity and so impressed his ideals and personality upon them
that they endure as a distinct and peculiar people, even unto this day.
He founded a nation. And chronologically he is the civilized world's
first author.

Moses was a soldier, a diplomat, an executive, a writer, a teacher, a
leader, a prophet, a stonecutter. Beside all these he was a farmer--a
workingman, one who when forty years of age tended flocks and herds for
a livelihood. Every phase of the outdoor life of the range was familiar
to him. And the greatness of the man is revealed in the fact that his
plans and aspirations were so far beyond his achievements that at last
he thought he had failed. Exultant success seems to go with that which
is cheap and transient. All great teachers have, in their own minds,
been failures--they saw so much further than they were able to travel.

* * * * *

All ancient chronology falls easily into three general divisions: the
fabulous, the legendary, and the probable or natural.

In the understanding of history, psychology is quite as necessary as
philology.

To reject anything that has a flaw in it is quite as bad as to have that
excess of credulity which swallows everything presented.

It is not necessary to throw away the fabulous nor deny the legendary.
But it is certainly not wise to construe the fabulous as the actual and
maintain the legendary as literally true. Things may be true
allegorically and false literally, and to be able to distinguish the one
from the other, and prize each in its proper place, is the mark of
wisdom.

If, however, we were asked to describe the man Moses to a jury of sane,
sensible, intelligent and unprejudiced men and women, and show why he is
worthy of the remembrance of mankind, we would have to eliminate the
fabulous, carefully weigh the traditional, and rest our argument upon
records that are fair, sensible and reasonably free from di