628 TUE NATUEAL HISTORY EEVIEW. 



The deluge of the year 13901, " dont nous venous de parler dut 

 " etre occasionue par la debacle du pole sud:" but about the year 2350, 

 '*arrivent de nouveaux deluges provenant de la debacle de la glaciere 

 " du pole nord," These are the deluges, some of which are mentioned 

 in ancient traditions, but in addition to them various " petits cata- 

 " clysmes locaux " are also mentioned by M . Meillet. Those who wish 

 for more information as to M. Meillet's views must refer to the work 

 itself. He does not, however, go at length into the considerations 

 which have led him to such conclusions, although he refers us to cer- 

 tain authorities which are perfectly satisfactory to him ; as, for in- 

 stance, to "le Souria Syddantha, traite d'astronomie egalement en 

 " Sanscrit, redige bien avant 13901." Some, indeed, might be disposed 

 to doubt whether the astronomical treatise known under this name 

 really belonged to a period so remote, but M. Pictet, we are told, has 

 conclusively settled this question. " Je la consigne done ici," says 

 M. Meiliet, " comme un fait." "VVe cannot, however, avoid feeling a 

 little doubt whether M. Pictet himself is prepared to accept the 

 honourable responsibility thus conferred upon him. M. Meillet also 

 refers to various other ancient works, belonging to the Hindu, Persian, 

 and Egyptian literature, in which " cette date precise " is mentioned. 

 It will be seen that although M. Meillet is more definite as to his 

 dates than M. Brouillet, still our two authors agree very well in 

 their ideas as to the probable history of the quaternary period. They 

 are, moreover, both members of the " Societe des Antiquaires de 

 r Quest :" and this Society is said to have been scandalized by the high 

 antiquity which our authors had assigned to the human race. A resolu- 

 tion, therefore, appears to have been passed condenining the work of 

 M.M. Brouillet and Meillet. In taking any such step as this, the 

 Society no doubt placed itself in the wrong, and we are informed that 

 M. Meillet, as well as several other members, accordingly sent in their 

 resignation. But M. Brouillet — did not he stand by his friend ? Did 

 not he also protest against the condemnation by the Society ? We 

 should have thought that, united as he was with M. Meillet, by so 

 many observations made in common, by the remarkable speculations 

 in which they had together indulged, they would have been in- 

 separable even in disgrace. But it was not so. M. Brouillet has 

 not only continued in the bosom of the Society, but has had the fatted 

 calf, in the shape of a medal, offered to him. J^ay more, we regret 

 to say that he and M. Meillet began to quarrel, and a not very credit, 

 able correspondence has passed between them with reference to the first 



