955 



actually were acquainted with the series of lunar eclipses belonging 

 together, as Schiaperelli supposed. Further it shows that the Baby- 

 lonian saros was not simply a period of 223 lunar months, but 

 a group of 5 series, each of which consists of 7 or 8 full moons, 

 excepting the extreme, all eclipse moons. It clearly demonstrates, 

 therefore, that the saros must have arisen, as suggested above, from 

 the knowledge of Schiaparelli's series, which represent a more primi- 

 tive stage of science, by noticing another periodicity in them. It is 

 worth notice, that arising in this way, the fact which at first 

 seemed to be a difficulty, viz. that the saros is 8 houi-s more than 

 a round number of days, becomes of absolutely no importance. In 

 this genesis of the saros the time of day at which an eclipse occurs 

 plays no part at all. 



The text of Strassmaier gives us no conclusive evidence as to the 

 time at which the saros originated. It dates at its very earliest 

 from the 3"' century B. C, when the Seleucidean era was already 

 in use, and it represents a somewhat higher development of know- 

 ledge already. For in it not only the saros itself occurs, but appa- 

 rently also a knowledge of the imperfection of the saros. As, after 

 this period, the value P= L — ii does not return to exactly the 

 same value, the tirst teims of each series must after a time become 

 the last of the previous series, the 5 lunar intervals must leap 

 forward one interval; and in the Babylonian Canon, therefore, the 

 horizontal lines must come down one line after a certain number 

 of saros periods. ^ Strassmaier assumes that the reason for the top 

 line of the Canon falling in the middle of a series is, that originally 

 there were a great number of columns on the left, that the list, 

 therefore, began in very ancient times and that by this constant 

 leaping over the top dividing line has come down 3 lines. This 

 would show, again, that the compilers of this Canon already knew 

 that the saros was not exact. The first knowledge of the saros itself, 

 therefore, must be looked for in the previous centuries, perhaps the 

 4th 01- 5ti. J3 Q This shows at the same time that the familiar 

 story according to which the Greek philosopher Thalp^s predicted 

 a total suneclipse (that in 585 B. C.) by ,means of a knowledge of 

 the saros borrowed from the Babylonions, can only be regarded as 

 a fiction. At that time the saros was still unknown, and moreover 

 the saros of later times referred only to the return of lunar eclip'ses. 



