It is of the greatest importance to notice that this second class of similarities is by no means confined to features contained in the Bible story. Those who argue for the truth of the latter on the ground that several of its details are confirmed by other legends, are in danger of proWng too much. The same argument makes equally for the truth of other details not found in the Bible. If all these stories are really the traditions of one single event, docs not the evidence point to a boat rather than an ark, if indeed the survivors did not merely ascend a mountain ; and is not the statement of tlie boat being moored by a rope, which appears in legends so wi<iely scattered, at least as probable as that of the senihng out of animals, on the presence of which, in dill'erent legends, so much stress is often laid ? For, as a matter of fact, the stories which contain this feature are often liable to the suspicion of a Christian colouring on the grounds above given, and indeed it is just this picturesque touch which would inevitably most strike tlie imagination, and most easily find its way into tlie i>oi>ular stories of a people. It must also be borne in mind that there is a va.st dillurence be- tween sendinrj out animals to ascertain how fai the waters were dry, and bcgginq them to dive doivn under the water to obtain earth for making dry land. The clay on the feet of the birds in the
FLOOD
FLOOD
Babylonian story is connected with the first, that on tlie feet of the diver in the story of tlie Chippewas with the second. In a word, all tliat the multifarious Flood stories really can be said to Drove is, that tliere was anion^ a very large number of ancient peoples the belief in a Flood, and often, though by no means so frequently, in a universal Deluge ; out this alone does not prove that they all describe one real event, still less that the one true account of that event is the Bible Flood. It is rather the case that a thorough study and com- parison of these stories make both tliese hypo- theses extremely improbable.
IV. The Cause of the Accadian Flood Story. — Four theories as to the origin of the Flood story are possible. That it was originally (1) a mere product of the fancy, (2) a nature myth, (3) a cosmogonic fable, (4) the poetical presentation of some natural occurrence. The first is contrarj- to the analogy of similar legends among all peoples, and hardly needs serious discussion. The second has in its favour the connexion of the Flood story witli Aquarius, and possibly, perhaps, the location of Sit-napisti at tl>e mouth of the Euphrates ; but, on the other hand, this watery subject, supposing the story to be already in existence, was specially suited for this particular zodiacal sign ; and the mouth of the Euphrates might be deemed a fittin" place for the deified hero of the Flood. Tht tliiru finds some analog}' among the Flood legends of otlier nations, but the analogy of the great majority of F'lood stories is strongly in favour of the fourth, and there can be no doubt that it is correct.
The question then arises, 'What event is likely to have given rise to the Accadian story ? ' (a) That it was a universal Deluge is, for reasons already given, quite out of the question. (6) Writers have, however, still maintained (and founded their argu- ments on scientific grounds) that this Flood was much more than a local Uood, and really covered a very considerable area. Among tliese is the late Professor Prestwich, a man who, on account of his geological researches, is entitled to the highest respect (see Literature). He maintains the view, that long after the appearance of paheolithic man there was a submergence of the crust of the earth, chiefly in Western Europe, but extiMiding to the N. W. of Africa, though probably not as far as Egypt, causing a gi"eat inundation of the sea, whidi rose (relatively speaking) at its highest to about 1500 ft. on the Continent, and 1000 ft. in England. It seems to have risen suddenly and to have subsided soon ; that is to say, the inundation did not probably last more than a year or two at most. It destroyed a vast amount of animal and some human life, so that some species of animals became extinct in regions which they formerly inhabited : for example, the lion, panther, spotted hyrena, caffir cat, hippopotamus, African elephant in Europe and N. Africa, and all the then existing mammalia in Malta. Theproof s of this inundation are : (1) the various forms of what the Professor calls distinctively Bubble Drift (distinct in character from tlie Glacial Drift in its various forms of breccia, etc. ), and (2) a sedimentary deposit {loess) found on mountains (distinct from all valley deposits left by rivers). It seems prob- able to him tliat, when tlie Flood rose, animals of all sorts were driven to the mountains, where some escaped, from which the submerged districts were again re-stocked after the Flood. In one instance (at Palermo) it would appear that the light-footed animals, which would have had little diificulty in making their escape, survived, whereas tlie hippo- potamus became extinct. Without attempting to call in question the geological arguments on wliicli this view is maintained, it will be readily seen that it is extremely difficult to make it square with