]58 G. Tliibaut —Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac . [No. 4, 
the Babylonians on the one side and those of the three nations on the 
other side, agreed or differed, as far as practical nse is concerned. As 
long as it can be shown that the two series of asterisms comprise, on the 
whole, the very same stars or groups of stars; it remains the most pro¬ 
bable hypothesis that the selection of the asterisms was originally- 
made in one place, and that the zodiac thus established was later on 
borrowed by the other nations. Various differences,—- which need not be 
minor ones only—may have sprung up later on; one or more nations 
may for purposes of their own have subdivided some of the primitive 
asterisms into parts, so as to increase the total number; one nation may 
have regarded the stations chiefly in so far as announcing, by their suc_ 
cessive risings, the seasons of the year; another nation may have used 
them, prevailingly, as marking certain subdivisions of the Ecliptic which 
were required for facility of astronomical computation; the asterisms 
may have come to be viewed as mansions of the moon in one place and 
as mansions of the sun in another place ; and in a third place they may 
have come to be practically used only as affording fixed points of refer¬ 
ence for the ever-moving planets. All this does not suffice to refute — 
or even appreciably to diminish the probability of—• the view that four 
zodiacs which are identical, as far as the majority of their constituent 
groups is concerned, are nothing but modifications of one and the same 
prototype. Nor can we in the present case look for that original zodiac 
anywhere else than in Babylon, which we now view with even much 
better reason than twenty years ago as the cradle of all astronomical 
science. 
The reply to this is that, as a closer examination of the facts will 
show, the agreement of the Babylonian Series of stars with the lunar 
zodiacs of the other nations is by no means so close as to compel or 
even to render probable the derivation of the latter from the former. 
In attempting to decide the question whether the partial identity of the 
two series of asterisms entitles us to infer a historical connexion be¬ 
tween them, we must take care clearly to represent to ourselves the 
conditions of the problem, so as to distinguish what has true proving 
force from what has not. In doing so, we may, as Professor Hommel 
does in that part of his enquiry which here immediately concerns 
us, confine our attention to the Babylonian normal stars on the one 
hand, and the Arabian mendzil on the other hand ; as the latter approx¬ 
imate most closely to the Babylonian Series, the whole argument may, 
indeed, with advantage be confined to them Now, what we positively 
and certainly know about the two series to be compared is, that the 
Arabs had a kind of zodiac comprising twenty-eight stars or groups of 
stat s, to which they referred the motions of the moon and sun, and whose 
