CLXXXII ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT [eth. a.nn. 20 



wont to sit at the feet of the venerable Kanosh and listen to 

 nivtliic tales. Once on a time he explained to me the origin of 

 the cinder-cone and the scai'cely cooled lava which in times past 

 had ponred from it. He attributed its origin to Shinauav — 

 the Wolf o-od of the Shoshonean. When I remonstrated 

 with him that a wolf could not perform such a feat, "Ah," he 

 said, "in ancient times the Wolf was a gi-eat chief." And to 

 prove it he told me of other feats whicli Shinauav had per- 

 formed, and of the feats of Tavoats, the Rabbit god, and of 

 Kwiats, the Bear god, and of Togoav, the Rattlesnake god. 

 How like Aristotle he reasoned! 



There is a jjhase of the defense of mythology which must 

 not l)e neglected, although its contemplation is a source of sad- 

 ness because it is an exhibition of the worst traits of mankind. 

 It has already been seen that in the defense of mythology 

 subtile arguments are i)roduced, systems of psychology are 

 born, and methods of logic are invented. The notions of 

 mythology are not only woven into theories of institutions, 

 but institutions are devised for their propagation and defense. 



Institutions are founded in the natural conditions of family 

 organization. The love of man for woman and the love of 

 woman for mim, together with the love of parents for children 

 and children for parents, are all involved; thus institutions have 

 their origin in domestic love. The social life which develops 

 from this germ, having its roots in domestic love and sending 

 its branches into all the ways of life, constitutes the sheltering 

 tree to protect mankind from the storms of foreign war and 

 internal conflict. Peace, equity, equahty, liberty, and charitj' 

 are concepts at the foundation of institutions. An attack upon 

 institutions is thus an attack upon all these sacred priucii)les, so 

 man defends them to the last extremity. On the other hand, 

 men are constantly seeking to improve them, and that which 

 is benehcent to one may be malign to another. When the 

 tendrils of mythology are entwined in the branches of institu- 

 tions, the attempt to substitute science for myth often appears 

 to be an attack upon the institutions in which it is entwined, 

 and thus the reformer and the defender come to blows. When 

 the defender of venerable mythology is also the defender of 



