LORD RAGLAN writes in reference to the review of his book “The Hero” appearing in NATURE (March 27, p. 532): “Your reviewer... suggests that in the absence of documentary evidence I would feel constrained to deny the existence of Nelson and Napoleon. My contention is that in the absence of documentary evidence we should none of us have heard of Nelson and Napoleon.” In reply, the reviewer says that, in effect, Lord Raglan appears to agree. In so far as Nelson and Napoleon are characters in the folk drama, they stand on the same footing as Robin Hood, Maid Marian and the rest. These two names, however, were not an effort of invention, but were chosen as those of the popular hero and bogey of the day. Their survival in this form is an effect of folk memory and not of documentary evidence, and their appearance in a ritual does not preclude their real existence, however incongruous their dramatic action. In this instance, the inference happens to be supported by documentary evidence. The conclusion to the contrary, however, that is, that without documentary evidence we should not know of their existence, is shown not necessarily to hold good. Approved documentary evidence is the only source of certain knowledge, and to this extent Lord Raglan is above criticism; but the archaeologist maintains, on the other hand, that a legend may embody facts which may in certain conditions afford a clue to interpretation, when his evidence points in a certain direction. The story of the Minotaur may be ritualistic; but the setting of the Minoan civilization is the fact to which it gave Sir Arthur Evans the clue. It may be true that, strictly speaking, in the absence of documentary evidence we have no certain knowledge of Minos; but we have all heard and believe in the existence of the head of the great empire, for whom his name is the generic term.