Charles Ploix, and say for
euhemerism what he says for naturalism:--"Tant que la theorie sur
laquelle il s'appuie n'aura pas ete demontree fausse par des arguments
decisifs, et surtout tant qu'elle n'aura pas ete remplacee par une
hypothese plus certaine, il pourra continuer a 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.
Pages:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27