After the arguments you have heard, given in the presence of men of learning as well as of many common people, those of poor and simple understanding easily believed it and decided that all they had heard was the truth, as they were not able to unravel the thread of such an intricate story. Others, who were more sophisticated in their understanding, educated and very discerning, scrutinized the facts minutely to see if what they had heard could be true or not, and found them mentally unacceptable, thinking it was totally against reason.

Whether one believes something that one hears depends on one's reason and not on one's wishes. Therefore, the prudent man who hears something that his reason cannot accept will then wonder at it and become very doubtful. This is why there were plenty of people amongst those present who were not very happy with such a story, since they saw that what was presented to them had no basis in reason. If anybody wishes to ask why they thought all these things to be sheer pretence, let this question be answered by their reasons, which to us appear very clear.

Those who said the opposite to those who defended it as a true story explained themselves as follows. They argued that the Ancients, especially that shining light of philosophy, Aristotle, who wrote a brief treatise on this topic, could not accept the idea that a reasonable man in good health and fully in command of his senses could be so overcome by forgetfulness that he would be unable to remember any important thing that happened in the past.

As nobody has a memory of present or future events, they therefore of necessity remember past things that have already happened. Memory is when the image of something seen or heard in the external world is always present in the capacity for remembrance. Recollection is when something done or heard has left the capacity for remembrance but is remembered again on seeing another similar thing.