Those to whom this question is a new one will now see what is the point
of view of the realist or euhemerist with regard to such traditions. He
sees here and there in the past, through much intervening mist,
something that looks like a real object, and he tries to define its
outlines. He has no intention of denying, as some have vainly imagined,
that there _is_ an intervening mist. Nor, it seems necessary to explain,
does he assume that wherever there is a mist there must be some tangible
object behind it. For example, he does not believe that Boreas, or
Zephyrus, or Jack Frost were ever anything but personifications of
certain natural forces.

Various other considerations have also to be borne in mind; not the
least important of which is the fact that the very people who have
preserved these traditional beliefs have done much to obscure them,
owing to their want of education. Scott tells a story of a Scotch
peasant who, discovering a company of gaily-dressed puppets standing in
a thicket, where they had been concealed by a travelling showman, at
once concluded that they were "fairies." He had inherited the belief
that fairies were "little people" who frequented just such places as
this; consequently, he decided these were fairies. This fact was
elicited in court, where the countryman had to appear as a witness. From
that time onward his mind ought to have been disabused of his hasty
belief. But a man so stupid as to assume that a showman's marionettes
were anything else than lifeless dolls, might continue for the rest of
his life to recount his marvellous meeting with "the fairies."
Similarly, to a tipsy man returning homeward from market, many common
and every-day objects take on a weird and superhuman aspect, due to no
other spirits than those he has consumed. From this cause, a large
number of odd stories (such as one told by Mr. William Black of a tipsy