euhemerism what he says for naturalism:--"Tant que la théorie sur
laquelle il s'appuie n'aura pas été démontrée fausse par des arguments
décisifs, et surtout tant qu'elle n'aura pas été remplacée par une
hypothèse plus certaine, il pourra continuer à s'affirmer."[6]

It ought to be mentioned that the following paper was written for the
Folk-Lore Society, at one of whose meetings (in February 1892) it was
subsequently read. As, however, the Council of that Society ultimately
decided that the paper was unsuited for publication in a journal devoted
to the study of folk-lore, it now appears in a separate form. One
advantage to be derived from this is that the illustrations which
accompanied the lecture, and which are of much importance in enabling
one to understand the argument, can also be reproduced at the same time.
It may be added that, while the theme is capable of much
amplification,[7] have preferred to print the paper as it was written
for the occasion referred to. It states, concisely enough, the leading
points of the argument.

To those who are interested in the "realistic" interpretation of such
traditions, I beg to recommend for reference the following works:--First
and foremost, there is "The Anatomy of a Pygmie," by Dr. Edward Tyson
(London, 1699), a book full of suggestive notices. This author has
undoubtedly reached the "bed-rock" of the question; but, owing to his
era and mental environment, he has not realised that his argument is
useless without a consideration of the various stratifications above the
"bed-rock." Belonging to the same century is the chapter "Of Pigmies" in
Sir Thomas Browne's "Vulgar Errors," wherein he makes several very
interesting statements, although he argues from the opposite side.
Scattered throughout the writings of Sir Walter Scott, both poetry and
prose, there are also many references bearing upon this question, from