Letter | Published:

“Primitive Constellations”

Nature volume 60, page 31 | Download Citation



REFERRING to your reviewer's hostile notice of my work, “Primitive Constellations,” I have seldom realised the strength of my general position until I have seen some attack on it. Against my main contention, i.e. the identity of various Greek and Babylonian constellations, he has nothing to say, except that I start with my “theory ready made.” Really, he does me much honour. Am I the inventor of the “theory” that, e.g., the signs of the Zodiac were derived from Babylonia? But, leaving nine-tenths of the book with merely a little abuse, he has much to say on the transliteration of Babylonian words, and expresses great scorn because, following Prof. Sayce, I deliberately write sa, and not sha, and so on. He says I “really ought to know there is no h in Assyrian.” Indeed. I am at present away from books, but happen to have Sayce's “Assyrian Grammar” at hand. At p. 46 I read, “” Again, I am perfectly aware of the force of “the determinative particle ki,” and, in a book for general readers, have naturally chosen to write “Barsipki,” not “Barsipki,” “Suanaki,” “Tintirki,” &c. If the critic had endeavoured to refute my general proposition, or had carefully examined my treatment of any particular constellation figure, e.g. the Arrow, how much more useful it would have been. But a policy of pin-pricks does not venture on this.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Author information


  1. Berry Pomeroy, Boscombe, April 18.

    • R. BROWN JUN.


  1. Search for R. BROWN in:

About this article

Publication history





By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.