1

tioned by Plutarch (in Vit. Numa), that a woman might conceive by the approach of some divine spirit." In the same reverent tone the learned writer here quoted elsewhere sums up his views as follows: "The two main principles on which the religion of Egypt was based appear to be the existence of an Omnipotent Being, whose various attributes being deified formed a series of divinities, each worshipped under its own peculiar form, and supposed to possess its peculiar office, and a deification of the sun and moon, from which it might appear that a sort of Sabæan worship had once formed part of the Egyptian creed."2 "The manifestation of the Deity, his coming upon earth for the benefit of mankind, his expected interposition, were ideas which even in the patriarchal times had always been entertained, having been revealed to man from the earliest periods, and handed down through successive ages even to the time when that event took place. We are, therefore, less surprised to find it introduced into the religion of the Egyptians, and forming one of the most important tenets of their belief. . . . The fact of this, and the doctrine of a Trinity being entertained by so many distant nations, naturally leads to the inference that they had a common origin; and most persons will admit that they appear to have been derived from immediate revelation or from the knowledge imparted to the early inhabitants of the world, rather than from accidental speculation in distant parts of the globe,—a remark which applies equally to the creation of man, the deluge, the ark or boat, and numerous mysterious doctrines common to different people." 3

Of the various myths and traditions in which some points of analogy may be discerned, there is no one so remarkable for universality as that of the DELUGE. In some form or other it is to be met with in both hemi

1 Herodotus, Book ii,, Notes by Sir G. Wilkinson.

2 Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. ii. p. 499.

3 P. 494.

spheres; and, generally speaking, a certain degree of resemblance pervades every separate account. That this is so, is not disputed either by those who maintain or by those who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible narratives. The former class will be quite ready to accept the fact in evidence of a primeval unity. But the latter will still be able to argue that, the universality of the tradition does not necessarily prove the identity of its origin, or consequently verify the Biblical statement as to the extent of the flood itself. We are concerned to note that there may be truth on both sides. The palpable similarity between the Hebrew and the Babylonian traditions reveals a source of Jewish belief to which we may deductively ascribe doctrines of far more importance. On the other hand, this particular legend, when confronted with actual knowledge, becomes a prototype of mythological aberration.

No educated person now-a-days supposes that the Noachian deluge covered the entire surface of the globe. Many still believe that "all flesh died that moved upon the earth," and that "the earth" means the small portion of it then inhabited. I am afraid that even this amount of elasticity cannot be conceded to the text. In the first place, we must not forget what a very limited space "the world" was to primitive man. The notions of the ancient Greeks upon this subject provoke both surprise and amusement. When they first explored the southern coast of the Euxine, they believed that they had discovered the rising place of the sun. The boundaries known to them were the limits of terrestrial existence. The garden of the Hesperides, the Elysian plains, the floating island of Eolus, were situated beyond the seas and lands with which they had some acquaintance. So was it with the Persians. Sataspes, condemned by Xerxes to circumnavigate Africa, as a commutation of the sentence of death, returned to meet his doom in the less terrible form of the sword; declaring that he had sailed "until his vessel stuck fast and could move

no farther." 1 Moreover, floods are among the commonest of natural catastrophes. In every period of man's existence, and in all parts of the world, great inundations must have occurred which few would be so fortunate as to survive. In our own times, floods have frequently been known to submerge immense tracts of country. In India, in America, in Italy, and in Hungary, the enormous destruction of life and property caused by the overflowing of rivers is fresh in the youngest memory. Sir Charles Lyell has remarked that by the escape of Lake Superior through the subsidence of its barriers (which are only 600 feet high), "a region capable of supporting a population of many millions might be suddenly submerged." 2 The flooding of the Mississippi in 1878 devastated a range of country extending nearly 400 miles in length, and in some places sixty miles in width. In days when the world was thinly populated, such an event would have swept away an entire tribe or a nation. The recent sinking of parts of Java would, in point of extent, have sufficed to destroy all the original inhabitants of the earth. And if we reflect that the strong feature of resemblance, in the different legends, is the escape of a single family (favoured of course by the Deity), there is no reason to doubt that the various traditions are founded on fact; although we decline to admit that the escape could have happened once only, or was then effected by miraculous intervention.

In the Chinese legend, Fuh-he his wife and six children-seven in all, survive the destruction of the world by water, and become the progenitors of the whole human race; though, according to Davis, some versions of the story limit the destruction to goods and lands. Six persons only were saved from the ancient Peruvian flood. This was in a country more subject, as we know, to physical convulsions than any in the world. Submergences of vast regions of South America have repeatedly taken place. In 1751, when the town of

1 Grote's Greece, vol. ii.

2 Prin. of Geology, vol. ii.

Conception in Chili was destroyed by an earthquake, the sea rolled completely over it. On the same occasion a colony settled on the shores of Juan Fernandez, 365 miles distant, was almost entirely overwhelmed by the sea. The three great floods known to the Greeks, viz., Ogyges, Deucalion, and Samothrace, are distinctly three events. Aristotle relates that both of the former were caused by the overflowing of rivers, while that of Deucalion is limited to Thessaly. Although we are bound to give due weight to these materials for a naturalistic interpretation, although we think they must be entirely applied in some cases and partially in all, there yet remain traditions of a deluge so nearly akin to that of the "sacred story" in minute, arbitrary, and essential details, that it is impossible to attribute the resemblance to accident. Wherever likeness of this kind exists, there is no alternative but to refer it to a common starting-point and to a particular event. In respect of the Grecian, Babylonian, Hindu, Hebrew, and perhaps Chinese legends, this, as we now know, is no longer impracticable; though if we apply the same principle to the Mexican version of the Deluge, all we can say is, the starting-point must have been remote indeed. Yet how can we otherwise treat it when we read as follows?" The people of the Noacan preserved a tradition that Coxcox, whom they called Tezpi, embarked in a spacious acalli with his wife, his children, several animals, and grain. When the Great Spirit Tezcatlipoca ordered the waters to withdraw, Tezpi sent out from his bark a vulture, the zopilote, or vultur aura. This bird did not return on account of the carcases with which the earth was strewed. Tezpi sent out other birds, one of which, the humming-bird, alone returned, holding in his beak a branch clad with leaves. Tezpi, seeing that fresh verdure covered the soil, quitted his bark near the mountain of Colhnacan." 1 The Deucalion version is also in some points very similar to the Noachian. Deucalion, warned 1 Quoted by Hardwick from Humboldt's Vue des Cordillères, &c.

by Prometheus, builds himself an ark; and with his wife Pyrrha floats on the sea of waters nine days and nights, and finally lands on Mount Parnassus. Plutarch adds, "The mythologists say that a pigeon let fly out of the ark was to Deucalion a sign of bad weather if it came in again, of good weather if it flew away." The world was repeopled by Deucalion as by Noah.

The resemblance which the Hindu narrative bears to that in the book of Genesis, induced Burnouf to think that it must have been borrowed from the Semitic. But neither he nor Professor Müller ascribes the story in the Bhagavata-Purana to Semitic origin. The legend goes that, Manu one day found a fish in the water wherewith he was about to wash his hands. The fish said to Manu, "Protect me, and I will be thy saviour." The fish was to be thrown into a pond. When it had outgrown the pond it was to be thrown into the sea. Manu complied with the instructions: and ere long the fish said to Manu, "In such a year will come the deluge. Build a ship, and when the deluge comes, embark on the vessel thou hast built, and I will preserve thee." . . . The deluge swept away all living creatures, Manu alone survived. His life was then devoted to prayer and fasting in order to obtain posterity. He made the Páka sacrifice, he offered to the waters the clarified butter, cream, whey, and curdled milk. His offerings were continued, and at the end of the year he thereby fashioned for himself a wife; she came dripping out of the butter, it trickled on her footsteps. Mitra and Varuna approached her and asked her, "Who art thou?" and she answered, "The daughter of Manu." 'Wilt thou be our daughter?" "No," the answer was; "my owner is the author of my being." Manu thus became the second parent of mankind.

In the translation of the Bhagavata by Sir W. Jones, it is a pious king, Satyavrata, who obeys the orders of the Fish. The Fish, who is no other than the "Lord of the Universe," tells Satyavrata that in seven days the three