upon them. Among the multitude of documents of various kinds,
this narrative of Hasisadra's adventure has been found in a
tolerably complete state. But Assyriologists agree that it is
only a copy of a much more ancient work; and there are weighty
reasons for believing that the story of Hasisadra's flood was
well known in Mesopotamia before the year 2000 B.C.

No doubt, then, we are in presence of a narrative which has all
the authority which antiquity can confer; and it is proper to
deal respectfully with it, even though it is quite as proper,
and indeed necessary, to act no less respectfully towards
ourselves; and, before professing to put implicit faith in it,
to inquire what claim it has to be regarded as a serious account
of an historical event.

It is of no use to appeal to contemporary history, although the
annals of Babylonia, no less than those of Egypt, go much
further back than 2000 B.C. All that can be said is, that the
former are hardly consistent with the supposition that any
catastrophe, competent to destroy all the population, has
befallen the land since civilisation began, and that the latter
are notoriously silent about deluges. In such a case as this,
however, the silence of history does not leave the inquirer
wholly at fault. Natural science has something to say when the
phenomena of nature are in question. Natural science may be able
to show, from the nature of the country, either that such an
event as that described in the story is impossible, or at any
rate highly improbable; or, on the other hand, that it is
consonant with probability. In the former case, the narrative
must be suspected or rejected; in the latter, no such summary