LITERARY ASPECTS OF NORTH AMERICAN MYTHOLOGY. 
3 
cussions myths are so frequently treated as simple units, that we 
are immediately led to the conclusion that over and above their 
analytical separation into constituent elements lie certain theo- 
retical assumptions. What these are in the case of Ehrenreich, 
Lowie has clearly demonstrated . 1 But Lowie was concerned 
primarily with an examination of Ehrenreich’s mythological 
theory as such and paid only passing attention to the manner in 
which the latter may have justified his treatment of the myth. 
It is, however, precisely by an analysis of Ehrenreich’s handling 
of the myth that a refutation of his position is at all possible. 
Such an analysis brings out quite clearly that he started with the 
definite assumption that for every myth one correct and histori- 
cally primary version existed. It is hardly necessary to go to the 
trouble of proving this as a main element in Ehrenreich’s theory, 
for it is quite transparent. Our line of argument will, therefore, 
consist in examining, first, how Ehrenreich arrived at this con- 
clusion, and then, in turn, to inquire whether it is tenable. 
ehrenreich’s mythological theory and the assumption 
of an historically primary version. 
It would, I believe, be an injustice to assume that the thesis 
of an historically primary version was based merely on k priori 
reasoning. A study of the subject matter and dramatis personse 
in many different areas seemed to point clearly to the fact that 
myths are frequently concerned with phenomena of nature or 
more specifically with the celestial bodies — sun, moon, and 
stars. Again, it was noted that many non-celestial episodes and 
actors were interpreted in terms of celestial phenomena. It was 
thus easy enough to generalize and assume that myths originally 
dealt with natural phenomena, further circumscribed to mean 
specifically the sun, moon, and stars. Some students of myth- 
ology went even further and attempted to prove that the myth 
primarily dealt only with one of these luminaries. Into these 
discussions we need not enter. All that we wish to point out is 
that theoretically there exists a certain amount of justification 
for the assumption of the naturalistic school of mythologists. 
1 Lowie, ibid., pp. 97-106. 
