161 
1894.] Gf. Thibaut —Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac. 
other hand, these striking coincidences were absent, the whole theory 
of a primitive connexion of the three zodiacs would enormously lose 
in probability. Of the selection of the three faint stars in Orion’s 
head, Professor Whitney says, 1 that ‘ it is not a little strange that the 
framers of the system should have chosen for marking the third sta¬ 
tion, this faint group, to the neglect of the brilliant and conspicuous 
pair, /3 , and £, Tauri. There is hardly another case where we have so 
much reason to find fault with their selection.’ The choice is indeed 
an unaccountable, apparently irrational one ; but it, of course, is just 
this agreement in apparent irrationality which most strongly supports 
the view of the three zodiacs being derived from one original. 
If, therefore, the series of Babylonian normal stars w r as originally 
connected with the lunar zodiacs, we should expect to find that it agrees 
with them in the striking peculiarities just enumerated, or, at least, in 
some of them. But on an examination of the actual state of things, 
our expectations are totally disappointed. Prom Aldebaran, the Baby¬ 
lonian Series advances, not to the stars in the head of Orion, but just 
to those stars which form the natural next link in an ecliptical series, 
viz , /3 and £ Tauri. In Leo, again, it keeps to the ecliptic, in taking in p 
before going up to 6 ; the brilliant star /3 , Leonis, it leaves aside. It does 
not go to the south of the Ecliptic, to take in the stars in the Scorpion’s 
tail, but has, in their stead, 0 Ophinchi, which is situated close to the 
Ecliptic. It does not go up to the north, to take in stars from Pegasus 
and Andromeda. It comprises none of the stars which constitute the 
Bliaranl of the Hindus, and the corresponding stations of the two other 
nations. In short, wherever the three lunar zodiacs coincide in a strik¬ 
ing and characteristic way, the series of Babylonian normal stars 
deviates from them and follows its own track. 
We might add to this list of characteristic deviations of the Baby¬ 
lonian Series if we look for one member of the comparison in an hypothe¬ 
tical primitive lunar zodiac, as e.g ., construed by Professor Whitney, 
(Lunar Zodiac, p. 357). We should in that case, have to point out that 
where the primitive zodiac — as represented by Agleshas and Lieu — goes 
down to the south, so as to take in stars from Hydra, the Babylonian 
Series sticks to the Ecliptic, selecting stars from Cancer. But as in this 
case the Arab Zodiac agrees with the Babylonian Series, it is more ad¬ 
visable to omit all reference to the hypothetical primitive zodiac. 
There now certainly remains a small number of cases in which the 
Babylonian Series agrees with the lunar zodiac, and where, at the same 
time, the agreement cannot exactly be called an inevitable one. Put I do 
1 The Lunar Zodiac; Oriental and Linguistic Essays, p. 351. 
