Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
THE See also:DELUGE (through the Fr. from See also:Lat. See also:diluvium, See also:flood, diluere, to See also:wash away) , a See also:great See also:flood or submersion of the See also:earth (so far as the earth was known to the narrators), or of See also:heaven and earth, or simply of heaven, by which, according to See also:primitive and semi-primitive races, See also:chaos was restored . It is, of course, not meant that all the current flood stories, as they stand, See also:answer to this description . There are flood stories which, at first sight, may plausibly be held to be only exaggerated accounts of some See also:ancient See also:historical occurrences . The See also:probability of such traditions being handed down is, however, extremely slight . If some flood stories are apparently See also:local, and almost or quite without mythical colouring, it may be because the See also:original myth-makers had a very narrow conception of the earth, and because in the See also:lapse of See also:time the original mythic elements had dwindled or even disappeared . The See also:relics of the traditional See also:story may then have been adapted by See also:scribes and priests to a new theory . Many See also:deluge stories may in this way have degenerated . It is at any See also:rate undeniable that flood stories of the type described above, and even with similar See also:minor details, are fairly See also:common . A conspectus of illustrative flood stories from different parts of the See also:world would throw great See also:light on the problems before us; see the See also:article See also:COSMOGONY, especially for the See also:North See also:American tales, which show clearly enough that the deluge is properly a second creation, and that the See also:serpent is as truly connected with the second chaos as with the first . One of them, too, gives a striking parallel to the Babylonian name Ijasis-andra (the Very See also:Wise), whence comes the corrupt See also:form Xisuthrus;the deluge See also:hero of the See also:Hare See also:Indians is called Runyan, " the intelligent." See also:Polynesia also gives us most welcome assistance, for its flood stories still See also:present clear traces of the primitive See also:imagination that the See also:sky was a great See also:blue See also:sea, on which the See also:sun, See also:moon and stars (or constellations) were voyagers . See also:Greece too supplies some stimulus to thought, nor are See also:Iran and See also:Egypt as unproductive as some have supposed . But the only pauses that we can allow ourselves are in Hindustan, Babylonia and See also:Canaan . The peoples of these three countries, which are religiously so prominent in antiquity, have naturally connected their name equally with thoughts about earth See also:production and earth destruction . The See also:Indian tradition exists in several forms.' The earliest is preserved in the Satapatha See also:Brahmana . It is there related that Manu, the first See also:man, the son of the sun-See also:god Vivasvat, found, in bathing, a small See also:fish, which asked to be :.aaZ lradltion. tended, and in See also:reward promised to See also:save him in the coming flood . The fish See also:grew, and at last had to be carried to the sea, where it revealed to Manu the time of the flood, and bade him construct a See also:ship for his deliverance . When the time came, Manu, unaccompanied, went on See also:board; the grateful fish towed the ship through the See also:water to the See also:summit of the See also:northern See also:mountain, where it bade Manu bind the See also:vessel to a See also:tree . Gradually, as the See also:waters See also:fell, Manu descended the mountain; he then sacrificed and prayed . In a See also:year's time his See also:prayer was granted . A woman appeared, who called herself his daughter See also:Ida (goddess of fertility) . It is neither stated, nor even hinted, that See also:sin was the cause of the flood . Another version occurs in the great epic, the Mahabharata . The lacunae of the earlier story are here supplied . Manu, for instance, embarks with the seven " rishis " or wise men, and takes with him all kinds of See also:seed . The fish announces himself as the God See also:Brahman, and enables Manu to create both gods and 1 See See also:Muir, Sanscrit Texts, i . 182, 206 if . men . A third .See also:account is given in the Bhagavata Purana: It contains the details of the ,announcement of the flood seven days beforehand (cf . Gen. vii . 4) and of the taking of pairs of all kinds of animals . (cf . Gen. vi . 19), besides the seeds of See also:plants (as the epic; cf . Gen. vi . 21) . This story, however, is a See also:late See also:composition, not earlier than the 12th See also:century A.D, A first glance at these stories is somewhat bewildering . We shall return, however, to this problem later with a See also:good• See also:hope of mastering it . The Israelite (Biblical) and the, Babylonian deluge-stories remain to be considered . Neither need be described here in Israelite detail; for the former see Gen. vi . 5-ix: 17, and for the . and latter GILGAMESH . As most students are aware, the Baby- Biblical deluge-story is composite, being made up of Ionian. two narratives, the few lacunae in. which are due to the ancient redactor who worked them together.' The narrators are conventionally known as J . (=the Yahwist, from the divine' name Yahweh) and P . (= the Priestly Writer) respectively . It is important to See also:notice that P., though chronologically later than J., reproduces certain elements which must be archaic . For instance, while J. speaks only of a See also:rain-See also:storm, P. states that " all the fountains of the great ocean were broken up, and the windows of heaven opened " (Gen. vii . II), i.e. the See also:lower and the upper waters met together and produced the deluge . It is also P. who tells the story of the See also:appointment of the See also:rainbow (Gen, ix .
12-17), which is evidently ancient, though only paralleled in a Lithuanian' flood-story, and near it we find the divine See also:declaration (Geri. ix
.
2-6) that the See also:golden See also:age of universal See also:peace (cf
.
Gen. i
.
29, 30), already sadly tarnished, is over.2 Surely this too has a See also:touch of the archaic; nor can we err in connecting it with the tradition of man's first See also:home in See also:Paradise, where no enemy could come, because, in the original form of the tradition, Paradise was the See also:abode of God
.
(See PARADISE.)
The Babylonian tradition exists in two See also:main forms,3 nor can
we affirm that the shorter form, due to See also:Berossus, is superseded
by the larger one in the Gilgamesh epic, for it communi-
Berossus: cates four important points: (I) Xisuthrus, the hero four
points, of the deluge, was also the tenth Babylonian See also: (I) The polytheistic colouring of the latter contrasts strongly with the far simpler religious views of J. and P . See also:Note the capricious character of the god See also:Bel who sends the deluge, while at the end of the story the See also:catastrophe is represented as a See also:judgment upon human sins . It is the latter view which is adopted by J. and P . We cannot, however, infer from this that the narratives which doubtless underlie J. and P. were directly taken from some such ' Cf . See also:Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, The See also:Hexateuch, ii . 9, where the documents are printed separately in a See also:tabular form . 2 Isa. xi . 6-8 prophesies that one See also:day this idyllic See also:state shall be restored . 3 For a discussion of the Babylonian version of the Deluge See also:Legend, recently discovered among the tablets from See also:Nippur, see NIPPUR . * The See also:genealogy in Gen. v. is hardly in its original form . Enoch is probably misplaced, and Noah inserted in error . 5 Cf . COSMOGONY, and See also:Cheyne's Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient See also:Israel (on deluge-story).story as that in the Gilgamesh epic . The theory of an indirect and unconscious borrowing on the See also:part of the Israelitish compilers will satisfy all the conditions of the See also:case . (2) In the See also:general See also:scheme the three accounts very nearly agree, for J. must origin-ally have contained directions as to the See also:building of the vessel, and a notice that the ark grounded on a certain mountain . P.'s omission of the See also:sacrifice at the See also:close seems to be arbitrary . His theory of religious See also:history forbade a reference to an See also:altar so See also:early, but his document must have contained it . J. expressly mentions it (Gen. viii . 20, 21), though not in such an original way as the See also:cuneiform See also:text . (3) As to the directions for building the ship (epic) or See also:chest (J. and P.) . Here the Babylonian story and P. have a strong general resemblance; note, e.g., the mention of See also:bitumen in both . Whether the See also:Hebrew reference to a chest (tebah) is, or is not, more archaic than the Babylonian reference to a ship (elippu) is a question which admits of different answers . (4) As to the material cause of the deluge . According to P . (see above) the water came both from above and from below; J. only speaks of continuous rain . The Gilgamesh epic, however, mentions besides See also:thunder, See also:lightning and rain, a See also:hurricane which drove the sea upon the See also:land . We can hardly regard this as more original than P.'s See also:representation . (5) As to the extent of the flood . From the opening of the story in the epic we should naturally infer that only a single S . Babylonian See also:city was affected . The sequel, however, implies that the flood extended all over Babylonia and the region of Nisir . More than this can hardly be claimed . Similarly the earlier story which underlies J. and P. need only have referred to the region of the myth-framers, i.e. either Canaan or N . See also:Arabia . (6) As to the duration of the flood the traditions differ . P. reckons it at 365 days, i.e. a See also:solar year, which is parallel to the 365 years of the See also:life of Enoch (who, as we have seen, may have been the original hero of the flood) . It is probable (see below) that P.'s ultimate authority, far back in the centuries, represented the deluge as a See also:celestial occurrence . The origin of J.'s story is not quite so clear, owing to the lacunae in the narrative . If the text may be followed, this narrator made the flood last See also:forty days and nights, after which two periods of seven days elapse, and then the patriarch leaves the ark . The epic shortens the duration of the flood to seven days, after which the ship remains another seven days (more strictly six full days) on the mountain of the land of Nisir (P., the mountains of See also:Ararat; J., unrecorded) . (7) As to the despatch of the birds . J. begins, the epic closes, with the See also:raven . Clearly the epic is more original . Besides, one of the two See also:missions of the See also:dove is evidently superfluous . Dove, See also:swallow, raven, as in the epic, must be more primitive than raven, dove, dove . That the Hebrew deluge-story in both its forms has been at least indirectly influenced by the Babylonian is obvious . We cannot indeed reconstruct the form either of the Canaanitish (or N . Arabian) story, which was recast partly at least under the See also:influence of a recast Babylonian myth, nor can we conjecture where the See also:sanctuary was, the priests of which, yielding to a popular impulse, adopted and modified the fascinating story . But the fact of the ultimate Babylonian origin of the Israelitish narratives cannot seriously be questioned . The Canaanites or the N . Arabians handed on at least a portion of their myths to the Israelites, and the creation and deluge stories were among these . That the Israelitish priests gradually recast them is an easy and altogether satisfactory conjecture . It remains to ask, What is the history and significance of the deluge-myth ? The question carries us into far-off times . We have no version of the Babylonian myth which goes History back, to about 2100 B.C., while its text was apparently and sign]. derived from a still older tablet . But even this is not flcance of primitive; behind it there must have been a much m yth deluge-myths. shorter and simpler myth . The recast represented by the existing versions of the myth must have been produced partly by the insertion, partly by the omission or modification, of mythic details, and by the application to the story thus produced of a particular mythic theory respecting the celestial world . The shorter myth referred to may—if we take hints from the very primitive myths of N . See also:America—have run somewhat thus, Details on relation of Israelite story to Babylonian . omitting minor details: " The earth (a small enough earth, doubtless) and its inhabitants proved so imperfect that the beneficent superhuman Being, who had created it, or perhaps another such Being, determined to remake it . He, therefore, summoned the serpent or See also:dragon who controlled the See also:cosmic ocean, and had been subjugated at creation, to overwhelm the earth, after which the creator remade it better,l and the survivor and his See also:family became the ancestors of a new human See also:race." This, however, is only one possible representation . It may have been said that the serpent of his own See also:accord, not having been killed by the creator, maliciously flooded the earth (cf. the Algonquian myth), but was again overcome in See also:battle, or that the serpent, after filling the earth with violence and wrong, was at length slain by the Good Being, and that his See also:blood, streaming, out, produced a deluge .2 In any case it is unnatural to hold that the first flood (that which preceded creation) had a dragon, but not the second . An old cuneiform text, recopied late, how-ever, appears to See also:call the year of the deluge (i.e. of what we here call the second flood) . " the year of the raging (or red-shining) serpent," 3 and certainly the N . American myths distinctly connect serpents with the deluges . Among the probable minor details (omitted above) of the presumed shorter and older myth we may include: (I) the warning of " Very-Wise,"' either by friendly animals or by a See also:dream; (2) the construction of a chest to contain " Very-Wise," his wife and his sons, together with animals; 6 (3) the despatch of three birds with a See also:special See also:object (see below); (4) the landing of the survivors on a mountain . As to (I), Berossus suggests that the notice came to Xisuthrus in a dream; in the Indian myth it is the sacred fish which warns Manu . In the archaic N . American myths, however, it is some See also:animal which gives the notice—an See also:eagle or a See also:coyote (a See also:kind of See also:wolf) . As to (2), nothing is more common than the story of a divine See also:child See also:cast into the sea in a See also:box.s The ship-See also:motive is also found,7 but it is not too rash to assume that the box-motive is the earlier, and, in accordance with the See also:parallels, that the hero of the deluge was originally a god or a demigod . The See also:translation of the hero to be with the gods is a transparent modification of the original tradition . As to (3), the original object of sending out the birds was probably not to find out where dry land was, but to use them as helpers in the See also:work of re-creation . Take the story of the Tlatlasik Indians, where the diving-See also:bird (one of three sent out) comes back with a See also:branch of a See also:fir-tree, out of which O'meatl made mountains, earth and heaven; 8 so, too, the Caingangs relate 9 that those who escaped from the flood, as they tarried on a mountain, heard the See also:song of the saracura birds, who came carrying earth in baskets, and threw it into the waters, which slowly subsided . As to (4), the mountain would naturally be thought of as a See also:place of See also:refuge even in the old, See also:simple flood-story . But when Babylonian See also:mythology effected an entrance, the mountain would receive a new and much grander significance . It would then come to re-present the summit of that great and most See also:holy mountain, which, save by the special favour of the gods, no human See also:eye has seen . That a didactic See also:element entered the deluge-tradition but slowly, may be surmised, not only from the genuinely old N . American stories, but from the inconsistent statements, to which Jastrow has already referred, in the Babylonian story . We may imagine that between the creation and the deluge some great and wise Being had initiated the early men, not only in the necessary arts of life, but in the " ways " that were pleasing to the heavenly See also:powers . The Babylonians apparently think of neglected sacrifices, the Australians of a desecrated See also:mystery as the cause of the flood . Some such violation of a sacred See also:rule is the origin that naturally occurs to an adapter or expander of primitive myths . 1 Cf. the myths of the Pawnees and the Quiches of See also:Guatemala . P See the cuneiform text described in KAT3, pp . 498-499 . • Zimmern, KAT3, p . 554 . ' i.e . Atrahasts (Xisuthrus) . ' To have omitted the animals would have been an offence against primitive views of kinship . ' Usener, See also:Die Sintflutsagen, pp . 8o-Io8, 115=127 . 7 lb. p . 254 . e Stucken, Astralmythen, pp . 233-234 . 9 Amer . Journ. of See also:Folklore, xviii . 223 if . And now as to the application of the celestial mythic theory to the early deluge-story . In the agricultural See also:stage it was natural that men should take a deeper See also:interest than before in the See also:appearance of the sky, and especially of the sun Celestial and moon, and of the constellations, even though an theory, astrological See also:science or quasi-science would very slowly, if at all, grow up . That the Polynesian myths (which show no vestige of science) originally referred to. the supposed celestial ocean, seems to be See also:plain . Schirren 10 regarded the New See also:Zealand cosmogonies as myths of sunrise, and the deluge-stories as myths of sunset . We may at any rate plausibly hold, with the article " Deluge" (by Cheyne) in the ninth edition of this work 11 (1877), that the deluge-stories of Polynesia and early Babylonia (we may now probably add See also:India) were accommodated to an imaginative conception of the sub. and moon as voyagers on the celestial ocean . " When this story had been told and retold a See also:long time, See also:rationalism suggested that the sea was not in heaven but on earth, and observation of the damage wrought in See also:winter by excessive rains and the inundations of great See also:rivers suggested the introduction of corresponding details into the new earthly deluge-myth." " This accounts for the strongly mythological character of See also:Par-napishti (Ut-napishti) in Babylonia and Maui in New Zealand, who are in fact solar personages . Enoch, too, must be classed in this See also:category, his perfect righteousness and super-human wisdom now first become intelligible . Moreover, we now comprehend how the goddess Sabitu (the See also:guardian of the entrance to the sea) can say to Gilgamesh (himself a solar personage), `See also:Shamash the mighty (i.e. the sun-god) has crossed the sea; besides (?) Shamash, who can See also:cross it?' For though the sea in the epic is no doubt the earth-circling ocean, it was hardly this in the myth from which the words were taken." 12 And, what is still more important, we can understand better how, in the Gilgamesh epic (lines 115-116), the gods, after cowering like See also:dogs, go up to the " heaven of See also:Ana." They, too, fear the deluge, and only in the highest heaven can they feel themselves secure . Such an explanation seems indispensable if the wide influence of the Babylonian form of the deluge-myth is to be accounted for . As Gunkel well remarks,13 neither the tenacity and self-propagating character of this myth, nor the See also:solemn utterance of Yahweh (who corresponds to the Babylonian See also:Marduk) in Gen. viii . 21b (J.) and ix . 8-17 (P.) can be Ifnderstood, if the deluge-story is nothing more than an exaggerated account of a historical, earthly occurrence . We, therefore, venture to hold that it is an insufficient account to give of the story in the Gilgamesh epic that it is a See also:combination of a local tradition of the destruction of a single city with a myth of the destruction of mankind—a myth exaggerated in its present form, but based on accurate knowledge of the yearly recurring phenomenon of the overflow of the See also:Euphrates.'4 There are no doubt points in the story as it now stands which indicate a composite origin, but it is probable that even the tradition which apparently limits the destruction to a single city, equally with many other local flood-stories, has a basis in what we may fairly call a celestial myth . We can now return with some confidence to the Indian deluge-story . It is unlikely that so richly gifted a race as the See also:Aryans of India should not have produced their own flood-story Indian out of the same primeval germs which grew up into the myth earliest Babylonian flood-story," and almost inconceiv- sluered. able that in its second form the Indian story should not have become adapted to what may be called the celestial mythic I° Schirren, Wandersagen der Neuseeldnder (1856), p . 193 . 11 Referring for Polynesia to Gerland in See also:Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie der Naturvolker, vi . 270-273 (1872) . After a long See also:interval, this theory has been taken up by Zimmern, KAT3, p . 355, and by See also:Jensen, Das Gilgamesch-Epos (1906), p . 120; Winckler (AOF, 3rd See also:series, i . 96) also speaks of the deluge as a " celestial occurrence." For other forms of this view see Jeremias, ATAO, pp . 134-136; Usener, p . 239 . 12 Cheyne, Ency . Bib. cols . Io63-1064 . 13 See also:Genesis, p . 67 . Jastrow, See also:Religion of Babylonia and See also:Assyria (1898), pp . 502, 506 . 11 The view here adopted is that of Lindner and Usener . On the opposite See also:side are Zimmern, See also:Tiele, Jensen, Oldenberg, See also:Noldeke, Stucken, See also:Lenormant . theory . The phrase " the northern mountain " for the place where the ship grounded may quite well be the name of an earthly substitute (the epic has " the highest summit of the See also:Himalaya ") for the mythic mountain of heaven . Nor is it unimportant that See also:Mann is the son of the sun-god, and that the phrase " the seven rishis " in classical See also:Sanskrit is a designation of the seven stars of the Great See also:Bear . For such problems all that we can hope for is a probable See also:solution . The opposite view 1 that the deluge is a historical occurrence implies a self-propagating See also:power in early tradition which is not justified by See also:critical See also:research, and leaves out of sight many important facts revealed by See also:comparative study . For a conspectus of deluge-stories see See also:Andree, Die Flutsagen, ethnographisch betrachtet (1891), by a competent anthropologist; E . See also:Suess, See also:Face of the Earth, i . 17 (190) ; also See also:Elwood See also:Worcester, Genesis in the Light of See also:Modern Knowledge (New See also:York, 19oI), Appendix ii., in tabular form, from See also:Schwarz's Sintfluth and Volkerwanderungen . Dr Worcester's work is popular, but based on well-chosen authorities . The article " Flood " in See also:Hastings' D . B. is comprehensive; it represents the difficult view that flood-stories, &c., are generally highly-coloured traditions of genuine facts . (T . K .
|
|
|
[back] JEAN ANDRE DELUC (1727–1817) |
[next] THEODOROS DELYANNI (1826-1905) |
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.