plays the leading part, though associated with different consorts.(1) The incantation is directed against various diseases, and the recitation of the closing mythical section was evidently intended to enlist the aid of special gods in combating them.  The creation of these deities is recited under set formulae in a sort of refrain, and the divine name assigned to each bears a magical connexion with the sickness he or she is intended to dispel.(2)

(1) See Langdon, Univ. of Penns.  Mus.  Publ., Bab.  Sect., Vol.  X, No. 1 (1915), pl. i f., pp. 69 ff.; Journ.  Amer.  Or.  Soc., Vol.  XXXVI (1916), pp. 140 ff.; cf.  Prince, Journ.  Amer.  Or.  Soc., Vol.  XXXVI, pp. 90 ff.; Jastrow, Journ.  Amer.  Or.  Soc., Vol.  XXXVI, pp. 122 ff., and in particular his detailed study of the text in Amer.  Journ.  Semit.  Lang., Vol.  XXXIII, pp. 91 ff.  Dr. Langdon’s first description of the text, in Proc.  Soc.  Bibl.  Arch., Vol.  XXXVI (1914), pp. 188 ff., was based on a comparatively small fragment only; and on his completion of the text from other fragments in Pennsylvania.  Professor Sayce at once realized that the preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth could not be sustained (cf. Expos.  Times, Nov., 1915, pp. 88 ff.).  He, Professor Prince, and Professor Jastrow independently showed that the action of Enki in the myth in sending water on the land was not punitive but beneficent; and the preceding section, in which animals are described as not performing their usual activities, was shown independently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to have reference, not to their different nature in an ideal existence in Paradise, but, on familiar lines, to their non- existence in a desolate land.  It may be added that Professor Barton and Dr. Peters agree generally with Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow in their interpretation of the text, which excludes the suggested biblical parallels; and I understand from Dr. Langdon that he very rightly recognizes that the text is not a Deluge myth.  It is a subject for congratulation that the discussion has materially increased our knowledge of this difficult composition.

(2) Cf.  Col.  VI, ll. 24 ff.; thus Ab-u was created for the sickness of the cow (ab); Nin-tul for that of the flock (u-tul); Nin-ka-u-tu and Nin-ka-si for that of the mouth (ka); Na-zi for that of the na-zi (meaning uncertain); Da zi-ma for that of the da-zi (meaning uncertain); Nin-til for that of til (life); the name of the eighth and last deity is imperfectly preserved.

We have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in magic, which was common to both Egypt and Babylonia; and to illustrate its employment against disease, as in the Nippur document, it will suffice to cite a well-known magical cure for the toothache which was adopted in Babylon.(1) There toothache was