ANCIENT BABYLONIAN ASTROGONY. 389 



and he succeeded to his own satisfaction in finding various 

 passages from the Koran in the cuneiform inscriptions. Dr. 

 Grotefend was the first to achieve any real success in this 

 line of research. It is said that he was led to take up the 

 subject by a slight dispute with one of his friends, which led 

 to a wager that he would decipher one of the cuneiform 

 inscriptions. The results of his investigations were that 

 cuneiform inscriptions are alphabetical, not hieroglyphical ; 

 that the language employed is the basis of most of the 

 Eastern languages ; and that it is written from right to left. 

 Since his time, through the labours of Rich, Botta, Rawlin- 

 son, Hincks, De Saulcy, Layard, Sayce, George Smith, and 

 others, the collection and interpretation of the arrow-headed 

 inscriptions have been carried out with great success. We 

 find reason to believe that, though the original literature of 

 Babylon was lost, the tablet libraries of Assyria contained 

 copies of most of the writings of the more ancient nation. 

 Amongst these have been found the now celebrated descrip- 

 tions of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the Deluge, the Tower 

 of Babel, and other matters found in an abridged and 

 expurgated form in the book of Genesis. It is to that 

 portion of the Babylonian account which relates to the 

 creation of the sun and moon and stars that I wish here to 

 call attention. It is not only curious in itself, but throws 

 light, in my opinion, on questions of considerable interest 

 connected with the views of ancient Eastern nations respecting 

 the heavenly bodies. 



It may be well, before considering the passage in ques- 

 tion, to consider briefly though we may not be able defi- 

 nitely to determine the real antiquity of the Babylonian 

 account 



In Smith's interesting work on the Chaldsean account of 

 Genesis, the question whether the Babylonian account pre- 

 ceded the writing of the book of Genesis, or vice vers&, is 

 not definitely dealt with. Probably this part of his subject 

 was included among the " important comparisons and con- 

 clusions with respect to Genesis " which he preferred to 



