 Anscombe also discussed “one of the rare pieces of stupidity in the writings of Wittgenstein” (HJC, 89). He once wrote that if we were to find a piece of writing saying Caesar never existed, and was invented for other ends, this would be some evidence that Caesar never existed. Anscombe pushes us to think further about this. If we were to discover such a document, we would instead immediately conclude it to be worthless, this because it conflicts with so much we have been taught about the history of the West. She thus opposed the idea that our belief in Caesar’s existence rests upon any evidence we have for it, rather than from our directly trusting what we have been taught. A coherentist might reply that any document alleging Caesar’s nonexistence clashes with the preponderance of historical evidence we have about him, and that we can check the claims of this document against these other sources of evidence. But Anscombe rejoins that these other sources of “evidence” are themselves historians who straightforwardly believe much of what they have been taught, and we believe them. Thus, we cannot “reduce” testimony to some other source of justification. Believing testimony is basic.