6] _Euripides' Herakles_, Einleitung.

[1007] On this subject see the Introduction to Berard's _De l'origine
des cultes Arcadiens_, and for a further discussion of the relationships
between Izdubar and Hercules, see Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, pp. 70-73,
or his article in Roscher's _Ausfuehrliches Lexicon der Griechischen und
Roemischen Mythologie_, ii. 821-823.

[1008] Meissner, _Alexander und Gilgamos_ (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 13-17.

[1009] In the Greek and other versions, the mountain Musas or Masis is
mentioned,--that is, _Mashu_, as in the Gilgamesh epic. See p. 488.

[1010] See especially Budge, _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the
Great_ (London, Introduction, 1896); Noeldeke, _Beitraege zur Geschichte
des Alexander-Romans_ (Vienna, 1890) and Gaster, _An Old Hebrew Romance
of Alexander_ (_Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1897, pp. 485-498).

CHAPTER XXIV.

MYTHS AND LEGENDS.

Not many years ago the impression appeared to be well founded that the
Semites were poor in the production of myths and legends as compared,
for example, to the Hindus or Greeks. The religious literature of the
Babylonians, originating undoubtedly with the Semitic inhabitants of the
Euphrates Valley, reverses the impression. The 'creation' and
'Gilgamesh' epics suffice, not merely for what they contain, but for
what they imply, to accord to Babylonian mythology a high rank; but in
addition to these epics we have a large number of tales of gods,
demigods, demons, and spirits that illustrate the capacity of the
Babylonians for the production of myths. Indeed, there is no longer any
reason for doubting that the Babylonian mythology exercised considerable
influence upon that of the Greeks. Further discoveries and researches
may show that distant India also felt at an early period the
intellectual stimulus emanating from the Euphrates Valley. At all
events, many of the features found in Babylonian myths and legends bear
so striking a resemblance to those occurring in lands lying to the east
and west of Babylonia, that a study of Aryan mythology is sadly
deficient which does not take into account the material furnished by
cuneiform literature. How extensive the Babylonian mythology was must
remain for the present a matter of conjecture, but it is easier to err
on the side of underestimation than on the side of exaggeration. If it
be remembered that by far the smaller portion only of Ashurbanabal's
library has been recovered, and that of