Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/68

Rh upon which Ra repents, and swears with uplifted hand not to destroy mankind again.

IV. The deluge-story exists in several forms in Indian literature. It does not, however, appear to be a genuine Aryan myth, for there is no clear reference to it in the Rig Veda. The SatapatJia Brahmana, where it first occurs, was written (Weber) not long before the Christian era. Another version, in which the lacunae of the earlier one are filled up, is given in the Makdbhdrata, but this poem, though it existed in part before the Christian era, did not assume its present form till Long afterwards. A third version, still more decidedly Indian in character, is given in the Bhdgavata Purdtia, but the earliest possible date of this work is the 12th century A.D., which deprives its account of the deluge of all claim to originality. It is worth noticing, however, that it agrees with the biblical narrative in two subordinate points the introduction of animals into the ark or box, and the interval of seven days between the warning and its fulfilment. The principal feature of the oldest fiood-story is the part assigned to the fish, which warns Manu of the deluge, and ultimately saves him by drawing his ship to a northern mountain. The selection of the fish (which is clearly divine) is so out of character with the most genuine portions of Aryan mythology that it proves the foreign origin of the Indian narrative, perhaps we may even say, the Semitic origin. Not that the fish-god is peculiar to the Semitic world, but that he is un-Indian, and can so easily have reached India from a Semitic source. If the Indians sent apes, sandal- wood, and purple (both names and things) to Assyria, why should not the flood-story have been sent in exchange with other products of Mesopotamia 1 True, the fish does not appear in the present form of the Mesopotamian story, but it probably did appear in the original myth, for among the titles of the god who warned Tamzi (see abovo) are &quot; fish of the abyss,&quot; &quot; beneficent, saviour fish.&quot; We admit the strong local colouring of the Indian story, which deceived even Weber (but not Burnouf), but this is exactly paralleled by the Hottentot colouring (Bleek) of several South African stories of Christian origin. Whether the early Iranians had a flood-story is perhaps uncertain, since the Avesta gives but little information respactitig mythology, and it has not come down to us complete. But none was known to the Persians about 1030 A.D. (al-Birun.

V. In Gredce there appear to have been several floating flood-stories, which in time became localized and attached to the names of heroes. They all represent the flood as destroying all but a few man, and even in their least original forms they still contain many peculiar features which can only have arisen from an independent exercise of the mythopoeic faculty. The mast famous of them is that of Deucalion, and of this the earliest and simplest form is ia Pindar (Olymp. ix. 64), who identifies the mountain where Deucalion and Pyrrha landed, and where without marriage they &quot;gat themselves a race from stones&quot; (not a late Greek etymological fancy, for it recurs among American tribes), with Mount Parnassus. Apullodorus (about 100 B.C.) has infused fresh life into this story, perhaps from a Semitic source ; he extends the range of the flood to &quot; most parts of Greece,&quot; and states that Deucalion (like Noah and Xisuthrus) offered sacrifice after the flood. Lucian (160 A.D.), laughing in his sleeve, gives a still more conspicuously Semitic account (De dea Syria, c. 12, 13), in which we hear for the first time of a &quot; great box,&quot; and of &quot; children and wives,&quot; &quot;swine and horses, and the kinds of lions and serpents, &c., all by pairs,&quot; as entering the ark. It was a confusion of this kind which led to the charge of Celsus, that the authors of the books of Moses had &quot; put a new stamp on the story of Deucalion ; &quot; reason sufficient for confining ourselves as much as possible to primitive versions of mythic narratives.

VI. America, which abounds in cosmogonies, is naturally not deficient in deluge-stories. Mr Catlin says, that &quot;amongst 120 different tribes that he has visited in North and South and Central America, not a tribe exists that has not related to him distinct or vague traditions of such a calamity, in which one, or three, or eight persons were saved above the waters on the top of a high mountain &quot; (Okeepa, p. 2). It is extremely difficult to tell how far Christian influences may have determined the form of these stories. When, for instance, we find such a peculiar point as the sending out of the birds to see whether the flood had abated, we are disinclined to build any argument on the circumstance. We do find, it is true, strange points of agreement between the Greek and the Polynesian myths, yet considering the vast extent of Christian missionary activity in America, we are bound to special caution. In addition to this, the American deluge-stories convey an impression that they have lost much of their original accuracy. The Polynesian myths, on the contrary, are still almost as transparent as ever. But we shall have occasion to speak of these presently. Instead of proceeding further with a detailed examination of myths, let us briefly touch on three general questions arising out of the subject. (1.) Is the deluge-story found among all nations ? The Egyptians and (probably) the Persians had none ; and it is doubtful whether it exists in non-Mahometan Africa. Probably, too, large deductions should be made from the myths of savage tribes, on the ground of Christian influences, even when related by well- informed travellers. (2.) Was the deluge-story propagated from a single centre ] An affirmative answer has often been returned, e.g., by Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, p. 282. It is impossible, however, to justify this from the mere fact of the superficial resemblance of the different narratives. These may be accounted for (on the ordinary historical theory of the flood-story) from the similarity of the circumstances of partial floods everywhere ; or (if we regard it as based on a nature-myth) from the fact that, by a fundamental law of psychology, the universal wonders of nature everywhere receive (within certain limits) a similar mythic expression. Granting, therefore, in its fullest extent the non-originality of many deluge-stories, we main tain that the evidence points on the whole to the existence of several independent centres from which these stories were propagated. (3.) Restricting ourselves to the con sideration of the non-biblical forms of the narrative, we now inquire, what was their original significance ] A provi sional answer, it is true, has already been given, but one which does not account for the peculiar details of the most original deluge-stories. The only explanation of these which has yet been offered is derived from comparative mythology. It is agreed by mythologists that the exclusive subjects of really primitive traditional stories are frequently recurring natural phenomena. Consequently the elemen tary mythic descriptions or pictures of these phenomena were the most available material when, at a later period of mental growth, the attempt was made to construct a rude cosmogonical theory. Those &quot; demolitions and reconstruc tions &quot; of the world of which we spoke at the outset could only be narrated on the basis of these earliest, simplest, most primitive myths. What then was the natural phenomenon which, in a mythic dress, formed the sub stratum of the deluge-stories 1 Not merely an annually recurring river-flood, such as those of the Euphrates, for the phenomenal basis of myths must be something strikingly wonderful as well as frequently recurring. This the inun dations of a river are not, neither could they be regarded as calamities. But the phenomena of the sky and especially 