Astronomica (Manilius)

For the work thought to be by Hyginus, see De astronomica.
The first page of the Astronomica, from an AD 1461 copy

The Astronomica (Latin: [as.troˈno.mi.ka] or [as.trɔˈnɔ.mɪ.ka]), also known as the Astronomicon, is a Latin epic probably written by a Roman poet named Marcus Manilius sometime during the reign of either Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. Comprising five books, the work describes celestial phenomena so as to explicate the zodiac and astrology. The poem – which seems to have been inspired by Lucretius's Epicurean poem De rerum natura – espouses a largely Stoic and deterministic understanding of a universe that is overseen by a god and governed by reason.

Not much is known about Manilius. He was not quoted by any extant Latin author (that is, a Latin author whose works exist today), but it is believed that the Astronomica was read by many, including Lucan, Petronius, Titus Calpurnius Siculus, Tertullian, Claudian, and Julius Firmicus Maternus. The work was rediscovered by the Italian humanist Poggio Bracciolini c. AD 1416–1417. While it was read and commented upon, the poem never reached the same level of popularity as other Classical Latin epics. Though it was neglected by scholars for many centuries, modern scholarship has taken a renewed interest in the poem.

Authorship and date

There is debate as to whether the "Caesar" referred to in the poem is Augustus (left) or Tiberius (right).

The author of Astronomica is neither quoted nor mentioned by any ancient writer. Even his name is uncertain (in the earliest manuscripts, the work is anonymous, and in the later ones, it is given as Manilius, Manlius, or Mallius), but it was probably Marcus Manilius.[1][2] Due to the uncertainty of his identify, over the years Marcus Manilius has been confused with: Manilus Antiochus (fl. c. 100 BC, mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia), Flavius Manlius Theodorus (fl. c. AD 376–409, who was a consul in AD 399), and even Boëthius (the 6th century Roman senator and author of De Consolatione Philosophiae whose full name was Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius).[3][4] While the poem itself suggests that the writer was a citizen and resident of Rome, many have claimed that Manilius was a non-Roman, either "due to the poet's supposedly inferior Latinity or on the wish to see Manilius as the member of a Greek intellectual milieu at Rome".[5] Others, including the 19th-century classicist Fridericus Jacobs and 19th-century historian Paul Monceaux, have argued that he was an African, based largely on his writing style, which supposedly resembles that of other African authors.[2][6] The classicist Katharina Volk counters these arguments, suggesting that Manilius writes "from [...] a conventional Roman perspective" and "takes recourse to Roman history to illustrate the astrological facts he discusses".[7]

Similarly, the dating of the work has been controversial, and the only clear reference to a distinct historical date is a mention of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest – a decisive loss for Rome that forced the state to withdraw from Magna Germania – in AD 9.[8] As such, three hypotheses have emerged: that the whole poem was completed under Augustus, that parts were written under the reigns of both Augustus and Tiberius, and that the entire work was written under the reign of Tiberius. The first of these conjectures was largely favored in the Renaissance up until the 19th century. In 1815 Karl Lachmann argued that the references made to the emperor in the poem were better understood as referring to Tiberius. Finally, it has been argued (notably by A. E. Housman) that the first two books were written under Augustus, the final two were completed under Tiberius, and that the middle, or third, book is "undatable".[9][nb 1] A consensus has yet to be reached, although Volk writes that the poem can "be dated roughly to the second decade of the first century AD."[11]

Textual history

The Astronomica was rediscovered by Poggio Bracciolini c. AD 1416–1417.

The text of the Astronomica as it is known today depends on three manuscripts, which have been referred to as G, L, and M.[12][nb 2] These three belong to two separate manuscript families: mss. G and L are the descendants of an earlier (and now lost) manuscript now called "α" (after which the first family is named),[14][13] whereas ms. M is derived from a lost manuscript called "β" (after which the second family is named).[13] G dates from the end of the 10th century to the 11th century AD and was found at the monastery of Gembloux in Brabant. L was from the library of Leipzig and was probably penned around the middle of the 11th century, and features many corrections made by a scribe.[12] M, on the other hand, is a descendant of the manuscript (i.e. the aforementioned ms. β) rediscovered by the humanist Poggio Bracciolini, somewhere not very far from Constance, during a break in the sessions of the Council of Constance that he was attending, c. AD 1416–17.[12][13] After his find, Bracciolini had an individual transcribe the poem, but due to the scribe's supposed incompetence,[nb 3] Bracciolini sarcastically claimed that the resultant copy had to be "divined rather than read" (divinare oportet non legere).[12] M, in particular, has been singled out as perhaps the most important surviving manuscript, because it is seemingly a direct copy of the original archetype for Astronomica, which means it is of better quality than the postulated manuscript α (which itself was most likely derived from the original archetype, but suffered corruption during transcription).[14]

The first edition of the Astronomica was prepared by the astronomer Regiomontanus from very corrupted manuscripts and published in Nuremberg in about 1473.[15] The text was then critically edited by Joseph Justus Scaliger, whose first edition appeared at Paris in 1579; a second edition, collated with much better manuscripts, was published at Leiden in 1599–1600, and a third edition was published in 1655. Almost a hundred years later, a greatly improved edition was published by Richard Bentley in 1739.[16] In 1903 Housman published in five volumes from 1903 to 1930 what is considered by many to be the authoritative edition of the poem; Volk notes that "[Housman's] work is famous – some might say notorious – for its bold handling of the text, its incisive commentary, and its merciless [...] invective against other scholars."[17] In 1977, G. Goold published a Loeb English translation of the book, making it the first time that the work was made available in its entirety to the anglophone world.[18] This version of the poem – complete with substantial introductory notes and diagrams – was called “masterly” by Volk and Green, and, according to the two, “marked a significant development in the accessibility of Manilius to a larger audience".[19]

Contents

The universe as described by Manilius comprises two spheres: a solid one (i.e. Earth) and a hollow one (i.e. the firmament). Manilius's conception is therefore similar to this 17th century depiction of the universe.

Manilius's Astronomica is the first extant work on astrology that is extensive, coherent, and for the most part intact.[20] Volk notes that since Manilius dedicated an entire epic to the topic of stellar phenomena, the poem itself is "indicative of the great fascination [...] that the stars held for the Romans of Manilius' period".[21]

A hexameter epic, the Astronomica opens with Manilius's claims that he is the first to sing of astrology, and that Mercury spurred his interest in the celestial bodies.[22] In the first book, he initially ponders the origin and nature of the universe; he considers theories from Xenophanes, Hesiod, Leucippus, Heraclitus, Thales, and Empedocles before arguing that the universe was created from the four elements and is governed by a divine spirit (ll. 1.118–254).[23] Manilius holds to the view that the universe is made up of two spheres: one that is solid (i.e. the Earth) and one that is hollow (i.e. the "sphere of stars", often referred to by scholars as the firmament). The various constellations are found fixed on the firmament.The Earth itself remains at rest, and the firmament revolves around it, thus accounting for the movement of the stars at night. The planets, the moon, and the Sun revolve around the Earth in the space between its surface and the edge of the firmament.[24] Because the Earth is in the very middle of the universe, it is equidistant on all sides to the firmament, and this is why it stays in place, rather than falling.[25] The entirety of the universe, according to Manilius, is ruled by a god (conspirat deus) and governed by reason (ratione gubernat).[26][27] With this being said, throughout the poem, Manilius is vague on the exact relationship between the deity, the universe, and reason.[27] After Manilius finishes his description of the universe, he discusses the many constellations and stars (ll. 1.255–560), the celestial circles (with particular emphasis on the Milky Way) (ll. 1.561–804), and comets, the latter of which Manilius sees as harbingers of disasters, such as plagues.[28][29]

Book three discussese the signs of the Zodiac, among other topics (16th-century woodcut depicted).

According to Volk, books two and three primarily deal with "laying out the elements of a birth chart".[30] Book two in particular opens with a proem wherein Manilius presents a brief history of hexameter poetry; he specifically singles out Homer and Hesiod. However, his purpose is not to insert himself into this poetic tradition, but rather to emphasise how unique his poem is when compared to others. Manilius argues that "every path that leads to Helicon has been trodden" (omnis ad accessus Heliconos semita trita est, i.e. all other topics have been covered) and that he must find "untouched meadows and water" (integra [...] prata [...] undamque) for his poetry: astrology.[31][32] Manilius ends the second book's opening with the assertion "that the divine cosmos is voluntarily revealing itself both to mankind as a whole and to the poet in particular", and that because his poetic mission has been sanctioned by fate, he is set apart from the common crowd.[33] After this proem, an elucidation of the zodiac follows.[34] Manilius considers the many zodiacal signs (ll. 2.150–269), various aspects and relations between the signs and other things (ll. 2.270–692), and dodecatemoria[lower-alpha 1] (ll. 2.693–749).[36] Near the end of book two, Manilius lapses into a digression on the didactic method (ll. 2.750–87) before concluding with a section on the fixed circle of the observer (ll. 2.788–970).[34] The third book opens with Manilius's reiterated claim that his work is original.[37] He also stresses that since his topic is difficult, the audience can "expect truth but not beauty".[38] Following verses variously discuss lots (ll. 3.43–202), calculating the ascendant and the horoscope (ll. 3.203–509),[nb 4] chronocrators[lower-alpha 2] (ll 3.510–59), determining the length of one's life (ll. 3.560–617), and the tropic signs[lower-alpha 3] (ll. 3.618–82).[38] Due to its highly technical nature, the classicist Steven Green argues that this book is the one wherein "the disjuncture between instruction and medium is most obviously felt [since] complex mathematical calculations are confined to hexameter and obscured behind poetic periphrasis".[45]

The fifth book largely deals with the myth of Andromeda (right) and Perseus (upper left).

Volk writes that books four and five revolve around "the effects of particular celestial phenomena on the native".[30] Book four concerns many topics that originated from Egypt, leading classicist G. Goold to suggest that Manilius was basing his work off of an Egyptian source.[46] Such topics include: discussions on character (ll. 4.122–293), decans (ll. 4.294–386), the partes damnandae[lower-alpha 4] (ll. 4.308–501), the degrees of the zodiac and zodiacal geography (ll. 4.502–817), and ecliptic signs (ll. 4.818–65). At lines 4.387–407 and 4.866–935 are found "exhortation[s] of the frustrated student", wherein the complaints that astrology is difficult and that nature is hidden are countered with the respective assertions that "the object of study is nothing less than (union with) god" and that "the universe (microcosm) wishes to reveal itself to man".[48] Most of the fifth and final book is spent on a discussion of paranatellonta[lower-alpha 5] by way of the myth of Andromeda and Perseus; this treatment of the myth is by far the longest digression in the poem. Green contends:

The digression is very well chosen, in as much as no other mythological episode involves so many future constellations interacting at the same time: Andromeda (e.g. 5.544), Perseus (e.g. 5.67), the Sea Monster – strictly, Cetus (cf. 5.600), but often referred to in more generic terms during this story as belua (5.544, 608) and monstrum (5.581) – Medusa's head (e.g. 5.567), and Andromeda’s parents, Cepheus and Cassiopeia.[50]

In other words, Green argues that this story is perfect for what Manilius is trying to accomplish because he can justify why the constellations are so close to one another and to be found in an eternal arrangement, as he had argued earlier in 1.354–360.[50] Finally, the last few lines of book five concern stars and other stellar phenomena, and the work ends with a simile of the "res publica of stars".[51]

Style

The work is considered one of great learnedness, elegance, and passion; the Harvard University Press writes that Manilius "exhibit[s] great virtuosity in rendering mathematical tables and diagrams in verse form", and that "the poet writes with some passion about his Stoic beliefs and shows much wit and humour in his character sketches of persons born under particular stars".[52] That being said, the Astronomica has also been noted for its peculiar (albeit metrically correct) style of writing, although this is largely due to the somewhat recherché nature of its contents and to the fact that no earlier archetype of the work's style seems to exist.[2][53] Some have contended that the work's peculiarities can be attributed to Manilius's supposed African origin; these thinkers contend that he wrote and spoke a form of Africitas, a putative African dialect of Latin "with strongly marked peculiarities of vocabulary, syntax, sentence-structure, and style".[6][54] Regardless, there is next to no evidence (other than the supposed presence of Africitas in the poem) that Manilius was from Africa.[6]

In addition to stylistic peculiarities, the work sometimes features idiosyncrasies and contradictions. Green argues that the book is "riddled with confusion and contradiction", and he highlights the following issues: "presentation of incompatible systems of astrological calculation, information overload, deferral of meaning and contradictory instruction".[55] With that being said, he also notes that similar tensions exist in other astrological works of the 1st through 3rd century AD.[55] Another contradiction is pointed out by Caroline Stark, who notes that Manilius paradoxically claims that astrological knowledge can both be sought out by the human individual, but is also only granted by divine favor.[56] Some have suggested that it is possible that Manilius included these contradictions and complexities so as to be seen as "a figure of unreachable knowledge for the novice student-reader".[55] Green, however, contends that Manilius – due to his "pride in poetic innovation" and his "deference [...] to the Emperor" – was seeking to present "himself as a compliant imperial agent, intent on producing a creative poetic enterprise that plots its own way through the levels of acceptable stellar discourse in the early empire".[55] Similarly, David Pingree concludes that the poem's "principal purpose", in addition to serving as a didactic tool, "seems to have been to delight its audience with poetry and to arouse admiration for the poet by its cleverness".[57]

Completeness of work

There is much discussion as to whether or not the work is unfinished. Housman noted that it is not possible to cast a full horoscope based on the information that is to be found in the extant Astronomica. In addition, despite Manilius's repeated claims that the poem will discuss the zodiacal nature of the planets, no such treatment is found in the Astronomica. Furthermore, the fifth book features a large lacuna between lines 5.709–10; Volk argues that "the text jumps abruptly from the topic of the extrazodiacal risings to that of stellar magnitudes".[20] She thus proposes several speculative hypotheses: perhaps the lacuna in book five originally contained a description of the planets, perhaps the lacuna is relatively small and the work is unfinished, or perhaps whole books originally existed between lines 5.709–10 but were lost during the "hazardous process of textual transmission".[20]

Influences

While inspired by the Epicurean epic poem De rerum natura by Lucretius (pictured), the Astronomica embraces Stoicism.

Manilius frequently imitates Lucretius, who wrote the epic poem De rerum natura, and some classicists have even argued that Manilius was going to pen six books, in imitation of Lucretius's epic (however, evidence for this hypothesis is scarce and thus it remains a mostly speculative – albeit attractive, according to Volk – postulation).[58] Whereas Lucretius approached the world from an Epicurean standpoint, Manilius’s work is largely Stoic in its outlook, emphasizing the deterministic nature of fate.[59][60][nb 5] Indeed, Volk writes that "Manilius is a veritable anti-Lucretius and his presentation in the Astronomica of an orderly cosmos ruled by fate is a direct attack on the random universe depicted by his predecessor".[60] Furthermore, whereas Lucretius used De rerum natura as a way to present a non-theistic account of creation, Manilius "was a creationist rather than a materialistic evolutionist", and thus explicitly references "one spirit" (unus spiritus, l. 2.64), a "divine power" (divina potentia, l. 3.90), a "creator" (auctor, l. 3.681), and a "god" (deus, l. 2.475).[65] This also means that – in contrast to Lucretius, who often uses a passive construction to convey his understanding of nature – Manilius uses active grammatical constructions.[66]

Additionally, the Astronomica shows the influence of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Virgil’s Aeneid, and Ennius's Annales, as well as the works of the Greek didactic poet Aratus.[37][59][67] The latter's influence on Manilius is especially noticeable, and Volk points out that Manilius based much of his first book on portions of Aratus's Phaenomena.[68] Despite his indebtedness to Aratus, Manilius does diverge in his understanding of the cosmos; whereas Aratus focuses largely on description and mythology, Manilius emphasizes the scientific aspects of his work.[69] There is still debate as to whether Manilius had direct knowledge of Aratus's poem, or if he was using a translation made by Cicero, Ovid, or Germanicus.[70][71] Today, many scholars, such as D. Liuzzi and Emma Gee, favor the latter position.[71][72] Manilius also makes overt references to Homer (referring to him as the "greatest poet", maximus vates) and Hesiod (calling him "nearest to [Homer]", proximus illi).[73][74]

Influence and scholarly attention

Manilius had hoped that the work would gain him literary immortality, but the Astronomica barely survived the Medieval period. For this reason, A. E. Housman likened it to a shipwreck, and mused that it was an example of how "no man ever ought to trust the gods".[17]

Manilius is never quoted by any other extant Roman author. With that being said, he is alluded to by many, such as Lucan, Petronius, Titus Calpurnius Siculus, Tertullian, and even Claudian, suggesting that his work was certainly read.[75] The works of Julius Firmicus Maternus, who wrote in the time of Constantine about astrology (among other topics), also exhibit so many points of resemblance with the work of Manilius that he almost certainly must have used him or someone inspired by him as a guide.[2][1] For instance, in his work Matheseos libri octo (composed c. 334–37), he follows Manilius's method of instruction, and then analyzes the same astrological fundamentals that Manilius covers.[76] Due to Firmicus's similarity to Manilius's work, it is therefore peculiar that he does not mention Manilius by name, and that he explicitly states that hardly any Roman except Germanicus, Cicero, and Fronto had treated the subject of astrology.[2]

Few copies apparently survived into the Medieval period. Nonetheless, an AD 988 letter from Gerbertus Aureliacensis (who would eventually become Pope Sylvester II) to the abbey at Bobbio features a request for a work that he describes as "by M. Manilius (or possible Manlius) about astrology" (M. Manilius (v.l. Manlius) de astrologica). Thus, it seems likely that a copy of the Astronomica was at one time housed in the famous Library at Bobbio.[77]

Despite the apparent dearth of attention in antiquity and the Middle Ages in regard to the Astronomica, the nature of the poem and the identification of its author have engendered scholarly interest, starting with its rediscovery in the 15th century. The Italian humanist Lorenzo Bonincontri delivered lectures on the work that drew huge numbers; eventually, he compiled his lecture notes into the first commentary for the work.[78] Bonincontri seems to have been very interested in how Manilius treated the nature of comets in the first book of the Astronomica, and Stephan Heilen has argued that portions of his work, De rebus naturalibus et divinis, were based on Manilius's treatment of the subject.[79]

Despite the attention it garnered, it never received the same amount of regard as other Classical Latin epics; indeed, Volk argued that, for the longest time, the work was "neglected by modern scholarship".[80] In the later half of the 20th century, however, interest in the work grew, with classicists and others starting to take more interest in Manilius's philosophical and scientific ideas.[80] The first full-length monograph in English on Manilius and his poem was written by Volk and published in 2009, entitled Manilius and His Intellectual Background.[81] Two years later, Volk and Green edited a book entitled Forgotten Stars: Rediscovering Manilius' Astronomica, featuring essays from scholars the world over. The book's purpose was to "encourage readers to discover Manilius" and expand scholarly interest in the Astronomica, since prior scholarship concerning the work's poetic, scientific, and philosophical themes had only emerged in the latter part of the 20th century, restricted mostly to Germany, France, and Italy.[80][82]

Scholars have noted the irony in Manilius's relative obscurity, given that he had penned the Astronomica in the hopes of attaining some form of literary immortality. Housman channeled this sentiment in a dedicatory poem that he wrote for his critical edition of the Astronomica, wherein he "constrast[ed] the regular eternal movement of the stars [both] with his and [his friend Moses J.] Jackson's morality, [as well as] the sad fate of Manilius himself".[17] Housman likened the poem to a shipwreck ([carmina] naufraga) and argued that the poem was an example of how "no man ever ought to trust the gods".[17]

Zodiacal definitions

  1. ↑ This term is used to refer to the division of each zodiacal sign into twelve further segments.[35]
  2. ↑ These are the "celestial features [...] that govern individual sections of a person's life".[43]
  3. ↑ Theses signs are Cancer, Capricorn, Aries and Libra; they "house the solstices and equinoxes".[44] They are called “tropic signs” because "they (or at any rate Cancer and Capricorn) constitute the turning points of the sun’s annual course".[44]
  4. ↑ The "degrees to be rejected", or certain degrees of the zodiac signs that are considered deleterious.[47]
  5. ↑ This term denotes "constellations, parts thereof [...] or especially bright individual stars, which become visible or invisible at the same time as certain degrees or decanal sections [...] of the ecliptic".[49]

Notes

  1. ↑ This is based on the fact that the first book mentions the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (implying an Augustinian date), the second claims that Capricorn is the Emperor’s natal sign (implying this book was written under Augustus), and the fourth describes Libra as the natal sign of the leader (implying that this book was written under Tiberius). Books three and five are hard to date, but book five is assumed to have been penned under the reign of Tiberius simply because it followed after the Tiberian book four.[10]
  2. ↑ In 1903, Housman claimed that the modern version of the Astronomica depended on four manuscripts: G, L, M, and V.[12] He originally hypothesized that V—much like M—was a descendant of ms. β (i.e. the manuscript first discovered by Poggio Bracciolini in the early fifteenth century), but later, in 1930, Housman ruled that V was instead one of the many "scions of M".[12][13]
  3. ↑ Bracciolini refers to this scribe as ignorantissimus omnium viventium ("of all living men, the most ignorant").[12]
  4. ↑ At lines 218–24, Manilius describes a "vulgar" method for calculating the ascendant, which—according to Pierre Brind'Amour—he calls a "dubious computation" (dubia [...] ratione).[39][40] Lines 225–482 feature Manilius objecting to the vulgar method, explaining "how latitude affects the length of the days in the various seasons and the rising time of the signs", providing a proper scheme to calculate the ascendant, and elucidating "a method by which the length of the days throughout the year can be computed for any specific location."[41] However, starting at line 483 and ending at line 509, "something very peculiar happens. The poet suddenly announces another method for computing the Ascendant, and what he proceeds to expound [...] is exactly the same vulgar method which he had previously described and condemned."[42] Some scholars, like A. E. Housman, G. Goold, and Auguste Bouché-Leclercq contend that Manilius simply made an error, whereas Pierre Brind'Amour contends that lines 483–509 are spurious.[42]
  5. ↑ While the work is widely regarded as Stoic, there are dissenting minority opinions.[61][62] Gustave Lanson contested the idea that the poem is Stoic,[62] and, more recently, Alexander MacGregor argued that while contemporary scholars, such as Goold and Volk, read Manilius as a Stoic,[63] the Astronomica actually "contradicts or ignores the central tenets and prejudices peculiar to Stoicism".[64]

References

  1. 1 2 Volk 2009, p. 1.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Chisholm 1910–1911, pp. 580–581.
  3. ↑ Volk 2009, pp. 2, 4.
  4. ↑ Manilius & Goold 1977, p. xi.
  5. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 162.
  6. 1 2 3 Brock 1911, p. 180.
  7. ↑ Volk 2009, pp. 162–163.
  8. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 138.
  9. ↑ Volk 2009, pp. 138–139.
  10. ↑ Manilius & Goold 1977, p. xii.
  11. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 138.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Manilius & Housman 1903, pp. vii–viii.
  13. 1 2 3 4 Manilius & Housman 1930, p. v.
  14. 1 2 Manilius & Goold 1977, p. cvi.
  15. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 2.
  16. ↑ Volk 2009, pp. 2–3.
  17. 1 2 3 4 Volk 2009, p. 3.
  18. ↑ Bailey 1979, p. 158.
  19. ↑ Green & Volk 2011, p. viii.
  20. 1 2 3 Volk 2009, p. 5.
  21. ↑ Volk 2011, p. 6.
  22. ↑ Manilius & Goold 1977, p. xvii.
  23. ↑ Manilius & Goold 1977, pp. xviii, xx.
  24. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 25.
  25. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 31.
  26. ↑ Manilius, Astronomica, 1.251.
  27. 1 2 Volk 2009, p. 34.
  28. ↑ Heilen 2011, p. 282.
  29. ↑ Volk 2009, pp. 266–267.
  30. 1 2 Volk 2014, p. 95.
  31. ↑ Manilius, Astronomica, 2.50, 2.53–54.
  32. ↑ Volk 2010, pp. 187–188.
  33. ↑ Volk 2003, p. 628.
  34. 1 2 Volk 2009, pp. 267–268.
  35. ↑ Manilius & Goold 1977, p. li.
  36. ↑ Manilius & Goold 1977, pp. xxxviii–liv.
  37. 1 2 Manilius & Goold 1977, p. lxii.
  38. 1 2 Volk 2009, p. 268.
  39. ↑ Manilius, Astronomica, 3.389.
  40. ↑ Brind'Amour 1983, p. 144.
  41. ↑ Brind'Amour 1983, pp. 144–45.
  42. 1 2 Brind'Amour 1983, p. 148.
  43. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 271.
  44. 1 2 Volk 2009, p. 94.
  45. ↑ Green 2014, p. 57.
  46. ↑ Manilius & Goold 1977, p. lxxxiv.
  47. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 273.
  48. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 269.
  49. ↑ Hübner, Wolfgang (2006). "Paranatellonta". In Canicik, Hubert; Schneider, Helmuth. Brill's New Pauly. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e907920 – via BrillOnline Reference Works.
  50. 1 2 Green 2014, p. 46.
  51. ↑ Volk 2009, pp. 266–270.
  52. ↑ "Astronomica – Manilius". Harvard University Press. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  53. ↑ Hatch 2007, p. 735.
  54. ↑ Wilfrid 1928, p. 73.
  55. 1 2 3 4 Green 2014, p. 56.
  56. ↑ Stark 2011, p. 267.
  57. ↑ Pingree 1980, p. 263.
  58. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 120.
  59. 1 2 Keith 2013, p. xix.
  60. 1 2 Volk 2009, p. 192.
  61. ↑ MacGregor 2005, p. 41.
  62. 1 2 Volk 2009, p. 226, note 13.
  63. ↑ MacGregor 2005, p. 41.
  64. ↑ MacGregor 2005, p. 65.
  65. ↑ Steele 1932, p. 325.
  66. ↑ Steele 1932, p. 326.
  67. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 184.
  68. ↑ Volk 2014, p. 106.
  69. ↑ Abry 2007, pp. 1, 9.
  70. ↑ Abry 2007, p. 2, note 5.
  71. 1 2 Volk 2009, p. 189, note 29.
  72. ↑ Gee 2013, p. 117.
  73. ↑ Manilius, Astronomica, 2.1, 2.11.
  74. ↑ Steele 1932, p. 320.
  75. ↑ Volk 2011, p. 9.
  76. ↑ Volk 2009, p. 124.
  77. ↑ Volk 2009, pp. 1–2.
  78. ↑ Heilen 2011, p. 278.
  79. ↑ Heilen 2011, pp. 278–310.
  80. 1 2 3 Volk 2011, p. 1.
  81. ↑ Volk 2009, p. vii.
  82. ↑ Volk 2002, p. 197.

Bibliography

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/29/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.