Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T13:30:48.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes and Conjectures on the Astronomica of Manilius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

D.B. Gain
D.B. Gain*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

i 66 nam rudis ante illos nullo discrimine uita

in speciem conuersa operum ratione carebat

et stupefacta nouo pendebat lumine mundi,

turn uelut amisso maerens, turn laeta ren‹ato.

surgentem neque enim totiens Titana fug›atis

70 sideribus, uariosque dies incertaque noctis

tempora nee similis umbras, iam sole regresso

iam propiore, suis poterat discernere causis.

69 amisso … renato Breiter, amissis … renatis Ω inter ren et atis lacunam indicaui et expleui 72 poterat discernere iam apud Scaligerum, poterant discernere Ω, impar discernere Bentleius, discernere nescia Housmannus

‘Before them men were ignorant and lacking in the power of penetration. They observed only the outward appearance of things and did not know the reasons for phenomena. It was with bewilderment that they observed intently the light of the sky, so strange an object to them. At one time they grieved for it as if they had lost it forever, at another were joyful as if it had been born anew. They were unable to discover why the sun rises so often (putting the stars to flight) or to discern the true cause of the variation in the duration of night and day and in the length of shadows cast by objects, a variation which really depends on how near or far away the sun is.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 2 , 1968 , pp. 63 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Except where noted in the apparatus criticus appended to the extracts quoted, the text followed is that of Housman, A.E., 5 Vols (London, 1903–30).Google Scholar

2 In ‘Maniliana’, CQ vi (1956), 83.

3 I base my figures on a Concordance to Manilius which I have prepared. Cf. my article, ‘Restoring the Astronomica of Manilius’, Data Trend iv 4 (Sydney, 1968), pp. 17–19.

4 Lewis and Short do not, incidentally, assert that there are no instances of atque before q in prose, but only that there are no instances in Cic. Imp.Pomp., Phil, ii, Tusc. i and Off. i, Caes. BG i & ii, Sail. Cat. and Livy xxi.

5 In ‘Notes et conjectures sur Manilius’, published in Mém. acad. Toy. Belg. xlvi (1892), p. 25 of the article (each article is numbered separately).

6 In De Manilii quifertur Astronomicis (Diss. Marburg, 1890).