LITERARY ASPECTS OF NORTH AMERICAN MYTHOLOGY. 
5 
In the critique of Ehrenreich ’s position his antagonists have 
relied on arguments of too general a nature. The interpretation 
of celestial activities is, after all, largely a matter of opinion, 
and the unanimity of "star” interpretations among the Pawnee 
might conceivably operate against its validity as a literary ten- 
dency. On the other hand, the all important fact it demonstrates 
to me, the existence of a definite literary tendency, does not 
stand out as sharply as it should, just because it is here, first, 
a characteristic of a general kind, and secondly, a characteristic 
of a large area. In order to have an easily accepted proof of 
literary elements in mythology, we must turn to something more 
specific. 
For Ehrenreich, as we have pointed out, there always existed 
in each area a "correct” version of a myth. We have tried to 
show in the preceding paragraphs in what way he may have 
arrived at this assumption. However, we passed over one ele- 
ment that, consciously or unconsciously, may have swayed him 
in reaching his conclusions, namely, the evolutionary hypothesis 
of a norm that diverges. Has he not to a certain extent recon- 
structed certain norms, somewhat in the fashion of general 
averages, and then predicated their former existence ? There 
is, I believe, a certain justification for such an inference. Let us, 
however, pass over this phase of his general theory and grant for 
the present that the versions of the myths themselves, plus cer- 
tain justifiable theoretical assumptions, one reinforcing the other, 
led to the formulation of his views. What versions of myths 
were at his disposal ? In the overwhelming majority of cases, 
only one from each tribe. But that is not all. A selection had 
set in at the very outset; for, partly due to informant, partly 
to investigator, the version obtained was the one which the two 
regarded as the "correct” one. An artificial selection had thus 
begun in the field itself. 
We have now, starting from two entirely different points, 
found ourselves confronted with the notion of one "correct” 
version for each myth. Ehrenreich ’s assumption of a "correct” 
version can best be attacked after a critical examination of a 
certain number of myths and their variants has been made, but 
the field-worker’s and Indian’s assumption of such a version can 
be examined directly. 
