ANNUAL ADDRESS. 
15 
things that differ, the artificial attempt to explain that which is 
unintelligible to the narrator. 
Let me take one example. My friend, Dr. Hind, the 
explorer of Assiniboia and of the Labrador river Moisie, told 
me that his Indians were accustomed “ to fix the sun ” by 
setting two stakes, one upright, and the other to fit its shadow. 
In this way the members of the party following after could 
judge of the height and direction of the sun when the leaders 
passed, and so learn how many hours’ journey they were ahead. 
If we turn now to Dr. J. G. Frazer’s Golden Bouf/h, vol. i, 
pages 117-119, under the title “Staying the Sun,” we find 
a number of anecdotes. Dr. Fi’azer writes : — 
“ In their journeys the ” (Australian) “natives are accustomed to 
place stones in trees at different heights from the ground, in order 
to indicate the height of the sun in the sky at the moment that they 
passed the particular tree. Those who follow are thus made aware 
of the time of day when their friends in the advance passed the 
spot.” 
The Indian custom mentioned by Dr. Hind, is an exceedingly 
simple, but pretty and effective, way of marking the time. 
The Australian custom, as reported, is perfectly useless, being 
incomplete. The question arises, is the incompleteness due to 
the stupidity of the explorer who did not understand what the 
natives told him, and left out the essential feature ? Or did 
the Australians retain a vestige of a useful custom after they 
had ceased to understand its purpose and meaning ? An allied 
Australian custom is reported thus : — 
“ When an Australian blackfellow wishes to stay the sun from 
going down till he gets home, he puts a sod in the fork of a tree, 
exactly facing the setting sun.” 
Did this mythical idea of “ stopping the sun ” arise from the 
stupidity of the Australian savage, who had retained and 
misunderstood a vestige of a once useful custom, or from the 
stupidity of the European, ignorant of the contrivances and 
necessities of primitive life ? In either case the myth arises 
from knowledge lost. It is evidence of ignorance. 
In astronomy then, we find that the sequence — whether now 
or in primitive ages — is observation, knowledge, then 
knowledge lost or misapprehended, then myth ; and not the 
converse (as it is usually contended) of myth, out of which 
observation grows, and thence knowledge is gained. 
Might I ask your serious consideration of the point which I 
have raised here, namely, that in the case of constellation 
