e and the Dwarfs." It appears to be also current in Japan, to
judge from a reviewer's remark, that "the clever artist who has
illustrated the book must have known the Japanese story, for he gets
some of his ideas from the Japanese picture-maker." In the story of Hok
Lee the dwarfs are represented as living in subterranean dwellings, and
in the picture they are portrayed as half-naked, with (for the most
part) shaggy beards and eyebrows, and bald heads. It is wonderfully near
the truth. The baldness is one of the most striking characteristics of
those actual dwarfs, and is caused by a certain skin-disease, induced by
their dirty habits, from which a great number of them suffer, or did
suffer. The shaggy beards and eyebrows are equally characteristic of the
race; and their custom of occupying half-underground dwellings has given
them the name by which they are remembered in Japan at the present day.
The exact scene of the story is a matter of minor importance. Those
people appear to have been known to the Chinese for at least twelve
centuries, and to the Japanese for a much longer period. Thus, it was
quite unnecessary for any novelist in China or Japan to _invent_ such
people, since they already existed. As for the details of that
particular story, or of any other of the kind, it is not to be supposed
that a belief in its historical basis necessarily implies an acceptance
of every statement contained in it. On this principle, one would be
bound to accept the truth of every "snake-story," for the simple reason
that one believed in the existence of snakes. Still, it is possible, and
perhaps not improbable, that tales which preserve the memory of those
people, may also be fairly accurate in many of the statements made
regarding them. The reason, however, of introducing this particular
story is to show that the Chinese or Japanese romancer did not require
to _create_ a race of bald-headed, shaggy, half-wild dwarfs, seeing that
that had already been done for him by the Creator.

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