MA Thesis: An Examination of Some Aspects of The Astronomica of Manilius

Title: An Examination of Some Aspects of the
Astronomica of Manilius
by Ian Carl Reide
A thesis presented for the degree of Master of Arts in the

Department of Classics and Ancient History
University of Western Australia
Presented 1998
Presented 1998
Table of Contents
Table of Contents..............................................................................i-vii
Acknowledgements...........................................................................viii
Preface.................................................................................................ix-x
1. Chapter One: An Examination of the Astronomica
1.1 Stoicism, Astrology, Astronomy and the

Meaning of the Astronomica ...................................................1
1.2 Summary of the Astronomica. of Manilius...............................4

1.2.1 Introduction
1.2.2 Book One
1.2.3 Book Two
1.2.4 Book Three
1.2.5 Book Four
1.2.6 Book Five
1.3 The Date of the Astronomica....................................................23
1.3.1 Introduction
1.3.2 Summary of Evidence and Arguments
1.3.3 The Question of Augustus Birth and Sign
1.3.4 The State of the Heavens
1.3.5 Rhodes, Tiberius, Libra and Book Four
1.3.6 Book Five
1.3.7 Conclusion
1.4 Sources of the Astronomica.......................................................38

1.4.1 Introduction
1.4.2 Aratus and his Influence on the Astronomica
1.4.2.1 Introduction
1.4.2.2 Summary of the Phaenomena
1.4.2.3 An Overview of the Two Works
1.4.2.4 An Examination of the Individual Constellations
of the Phaenomena and the Astronomica
1.4.2.5 An Examination of Religion in the Two Works
1.4.2.6 References in the Astronomica to the Phaenomena
1.4.2.7 Conclusion to Aratus
1.4.3 Manilius Stoic Sources
1.4.4 Manilius Astrological Sources
1.4.5 Manilius Astronomical Sources
1.4.6 Conclusion
Chapter Two: Manilius and His Intellectual Environment
2.1 A History of Astronomy & Astrology....................................59

2.1.1 Introduction
2.1.2 The Astronomy of the Greeks
2.1.3 The Fourth Century
2.1.4 The Hellenistic Period
2.1.5 The Astrology of the Greeks and Romans
2.2 The Beliefs and Personality of Manilius.................................70

2.2.1 Introduction
2.2.2 Personality
2.2.3 The Imperial System
2.2.4. Manilius as an Observer of the Heavens
2.2.5 Manilius and Mathematics
2.2.6 Manilius as an Astronomer
2.2.7 Manilius Stoicism
2.2.7.1 Stoicism in the Astronomica
2.2.7.2 Manilius Means of Argument
2.2.8 Conclusion to Manilius Beliefs and Personality
3. Chapter Three: Astronomy in the Astronomica
3.1 Introduction...............................................................................89
3.2 The Spherical Universe............................................................94

3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 The Overall Shape and Path of the Seven Planets
3.2.3 The Spherical Shape of the Earth
3.2.4 Suggestions of a Nonspherical Celestial Sphere
3.2.5 Conclusion
3.3 The Celestial Circles................................................................104

3.3.1 Introduction
3.3.2 Manilius Celestial Circles
3.3.3 The Zodiac
3.3.4 The Precession of the Equinoxes
3.3.5 The Location of the Colure Points
3.3.6 Conclusion
3.4 Constellations..........................................................................116
3.4.1 Introduction
3.4.2 The Constellation Catalogue of Manilius
3.4.3 Anomalies in Manilius Catalogue
3.4.4 Conclusion
3.5 Planets.......................................................................................122
3.5.1 Introduction
3.5.2 The Order of the Planets
3.5.3 Retrograde Planetary Motion
3.5.4 Conclusion
3.6 Stellar Magnitude....................................................................127

3.6.1 Introduction
3.6.2 Manilius Text
3.6.3 Constellations v. Stars v. Brightness
3.6.4 Hipparchus, Ptolemy and the Stellar Catalogue
3.6.5 Conclusion
4. Chapter Four:
The Colour of the Star Sirius in Antiquity ......................134
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Modern Discussion
4.3 Ancient Sources
4.3.1 Homer
4.3.2 Cicero
4.3.3 Horace
4.3.4 Seneca
4.3.5 Claudius Ptolemy
4.3.6 Manilius
4.4 Conclusion
4.4 Conclusion
5. Chapter Five: The Astrology of the Astronomica............148
5.1 Introduction
5.2 A Philosophical Basis for Astrology
5.3 Empirical Arguments for Astrology
5.4 The Worth of Manilius Astrological Procedures
6. Chapter Six: An Astronomical Examination of the

Horoscope Formulae of Book Three...........156
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Summary of the Horoscope Formulae
6.3 The Two hour Rise Formula: 3.21846 (No. 1)
6.4 Introduction to the Second Formula: 3.24774 (No. 2)
6.5 First Explanation of Principal Formula: 3.275300 (No. 3)
6.6 The Babylonian Basis of Manilius Formulae
6.7 Explanation of the Importance of Latitude
in Horoscope Calculation: 3.30184 (No. 4)
6.8 The Principal Formula in a Version Accurate
for all Latitudes: 3.385442 (No. 5)
6.9 A Description of the Change in the Duration of
Daylight over the Course of the Year: 3.443482 (No.6)
6.10 The Second Version of the Two hour Rise
Formula: 3.483509 (No. 7)
6.11 Conclusion to the Horoscope Formulae
Tables
Table 1. Comparison of the Order of the
Constellations in the Phaenomena
and the Astronomica ............................................43
Table 2. List of Celestial Circles in the
Astronomica and Phaenomena...............................44
Table 3. Seasons Ascribed to Zodiacal
Constellations: 2.6669......................................113
Table 4. Calculation of Day / Night Periods
over the 12 months June A.D. 14May
A.D. 15 at the Latitude of Rome
as compared to System A & B.........................178
Diagrams
Diagram 1. Manilius Cosmology..........................................54
Appendices
Appendix A. Glossary of Astronomical Terms.................184

Appendix B. Order of constellations in Aratus
Phaenomena and Manilius Astronomica..............................188
Bibliography and Reading List......................................................189

Ancient sources..................................................................................190
Secondary Sources.............................................................................196
Secondary Sources.............................................................................196
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jane Bellemore for her help,
assistance and support over the course of this thesis. I also wish to thank
the UWA Department of Classics and Ancient History for their support
over my lengthy, part-time enrolment. For their assistance in searching
for obscure texts and inter-library loans the staff of the University of
Western Australia Library deserve a special mention. Lastly, I would like
to thank two scholars whose work was important to this thesis. The first
of these is Dr. Peter Bicknell of Monash University who provided advice
on the question of the colour of Sirius. The second is Dr. G. P. Goold
whose text and work on Manilius I have relied upon for my own studies.
Errata
Since the original printing of this thesis a number of minor errors have
been found and corrected:
Chapter 5 - pg removed from the footer.
Bibliography - Iliad spelt Iliad in Richardsons The Iliad: A Commentary.
Preface
The principal goal of my thesis will be to examine the astronomy found

in the Astronomica of Manilius. Little of the astronomy of the ancient
world has survived. Manilius preserves some clues and facts that provide
an insight into this field. There are also a number of other topics that I
feel deserve re-examination, the best of these is the question of the date
of the work. With this emphasis I have not examined the areas of the
literary or linguistic worth of the poem.
Before looking at the poem in detail it is first advisable to review the

work overall. The Astronomica is a poem in five Books, written by the
Roman poet Manilius c. A.D. 14. It is approximately 4,250 lines in length
and is one of the few extant works that deals with astrology. Woven
through the astrology is the central theme of the work, that of Stoic
philosophy, as well as a significant amount of astronomical information.
The Astronomica provides no intensely detailed account of any aspect of

its subject matter, be it astrology, astronomy or even Stoicism. The Stoic
content of the work does present a consistent argument, but there is no
serious debate nor discussion of the various aspects of the philosophy as
might be found in the works of the earlier Stoics. Manilius poem was
clearly not intended to be an analytical examination of Stoicism. Its goal
was to convince the reader of the worth of Stoicism and to reveal the
divine future to the few willing and able to learn its secrets. Indeed, the
astrological worth of the Astronomica is limited. Although astrology
______________________
Preface 11
astrological worth of the Astronomica is limited. Although astrology
comprises the bulk of the text, analysis reveals that it is merely a number
of incomplete and contradictory summaries of astrological procedures.
The astronomical content is included merely as introductory material to
the astrological.
My thesis comprises six chapters: an Introductory chapter that examines

the Astronomica itself, a second chapter that looks at the world of the
poet Manilius, a third chapter on the astronomy inherent in the Astronomica,
a chapter devoted to a case study on the colour of the star Sirius in
antiquity a study that clearly reveals the usefulness of Manilius as a
source for astronomy, a fifth chapter that examines the Stoic origin of
Manilius astrology and a final chapter that takes a detailed look at the
major astrological procedure offered by Manilius.
The first Appendix is a glossary of astronomical and astrological terms.

These terms are explained in my footnotes, but Appendix A provides a
more detailed explanation of all terms used. Appendix B is a list of the
constellations appearing in the works of both Aratus and Manilius.
______________________
Stoicism, Astrology, Astronomy and the Meaning
of the Astronomica 12
1. Chapter One: An Examination of the Astronomica
1.1 Stoicism, Astrology, Astronomy and the Meaning of the

Astronomica
The purpose of Manilius work, an overarching framework of Stoicism,

required that a diverse range of material be incorporated into the text.
These included: Greek astronomy, Greek and Roman historical events,
mathematics, astrological procedures, praise of the Imperial system, appeals
to the readers vanity and an attempt at scientific rationality. The goal of
such a copious mix was to convince the reader that Stoicism was the
correct means by which to comprehend life and destiny.
We can begin our examination with the assumption that Manilius saw his
work as the ultimate document of humanity and as a product of the new
Augustan golden age, demonstrating his belief that everything could be
understood and explained within the belief system of Stoic astrology.
Manilius constructed the work, utilising the knowledge and background
of the contemporary Graeco-Roman world, to explain his beliefs
progressively over the course of his poem.
He began this task by devoting Book One to an introductory account of

astronomy, a subject that he believed first had to be understood before
one could encompass astrology. He also introduced Stoicism and astrology,
but in lesser detail, and he included several laudatory references to Augustus
and the Imperial system. Perhaps as an indication of Manilius true goals,
______________________
the number of references to the Imperial system declines rapidly after
Book One. His interest is Stoicism, and everything else, including Augustus,
plays a secondary role.
Book Two is devoted to astrology and opens with a declaration that all
earlier poets are now redundant and that Manilius alone composes on a
subject of worth. These opening lines also include the first detailed look
at his Stoicism. Here he states that God1 is one with, and controls, the
universe; that it is this control that makes astrology possible, as a reciprocity
exists between the heavens and the Earth. These are the beliefs that Book
Two is designed to convey. After a prooemium of one hundred and forty-nine
lines, the remainder of the Book contains a number of incomplete summaries
of astrological practices, which are presumably not intended to turn the
reader into a practising astrologer, rather to impress with the complexities
of astrological theory and Stoic belief.
This is the model followed in Books Three and Four, each of which
Manilius introduces with short, but detailed accounts of Stoicism. In Book
Three he repeats the introduction of Book Two but in greater detail. The
prooemium of Book Three emphasises the unique nature of the poem and
Stoic belief in the central role of God, the existence of fixed laws and the
reciprocity between the different components of the universe. The remainder
of the Book is devoted to a complex but flawed account of astrological
procedures. These are, once again, not designed to turn the reader into an
astrologer, but to bolster the validity of the Stoic statements by an
overwhelming display of astrological practice.
1
For the sake of clarity I shall use the following style when discussing the various
gods found in the text: the Stoic God will be referred to as God while the traditional
Roman and Greek Gods will be referred to simply as gods.
______________________
Book Four begins with a description of the futility of seeking wealth and
power and of the importance of Fate, and the history of the rise of Rome
is used as proof that Fate controls human accomplishment. There follow
700 lines of astrological theory. Book Four differs from the first two
astrological Books in that it contains a peroration, which repeats the
message that Fate is all-powerful, and it is stated clearly, for the first time
in the Astronomica, that human beings are divine; that they can become
part of the Stoic God; and that God wishes human beings to know of this
potential. This is the central argument of the Astronomica. Everything
else in the poem is designed to lead to this conclusion.
In Book Four Manilius completes his philosophical discussion. As a means

of conveying the thesis of the Astronomica Book Five is irrelevant, since
it merely contains additional accounts of astrological theory. For this
reason I suggest that Book Four was originally intended as the concluding
Book of the work.
If examined at a detailed level the Astronomica seems poorly structured

and even incomplete, but this conclusion is only viable when the authors
own goal is not taken into consideration. The work was intended to convince
the reader of the worth of Stoicism, nothing more. To this end Manilius
grouped together such a diverse range of material, designed, both inform
and to impress the reader. He had one goal, to lead the reader to the
conclusion that the peroration of Book Four contained the ultimate truth.
__________________
Summary of the Astronomica of Manilius 15
1.2 Summary of the Astronomica of Manilius
1.2.1 Introduction
This summary will review the background and provide an outline of the
Books of the Astronomica as well as prefigure the major conclusions of
this thesis. I shall be relying primarily on the text of G. P. Goold, published
in 1985 by Teubner, which follows, in the main, the A. E. Housman text.
No complete copy of the work exists.2 There are a total of twenty-two

MSS, of which only three are significant, but from these we possess a
near intact text. Only a handful of lines is missing from Book One, and
approximately one hundred and seventy-six lines from Book Five. The
subject of each lacuna can be reconstructed without great difficulty. The
tradition that there were more than five books is unsubstantiated.3 The
different MSS contain a variety of authors names: Mallius, Manlius and
even Boethius and Aratus. The first two can be attributed to a copyists
error, the last two to errors in identifying the manuscript. The name of the
author of the Astronomica was Marcus Manilius. While there is a question
as to the precise date of the work, it is reasonable to conclude that it was
composed c. 14 A.D. This topic will be examined in thesis section 1.3.
2
This discussion is intended to provide merely a brief background of the history of
the work and its editors; see Housman (1937) viilxxv, Garrod (1911) xvxcix and
Duff (1960-1) 45054 for more detail.
3
This question is discussed by Gain (1970) 12832 and Thielscher (1956) 35372.
Maranini (1994) 39-42 discusses the possibility of there being six books in the
Astronomica. The reason she advances for this is Manilius desire to emulate the six
books of Lucretius De Rerum Natura. I have found no evidence for this possibility in
the text and cannot agree with this possibility. I might add that the average length of
each book in Lucretius is approximately 1250 lines while the average in Manilius is
approximately 900 lines. If Manilius was concerned about the number of books he
would also have been concerned about the length.
__________________
Manilius clearly intended his work to convince the reader of the central
role and worth of Stoicism in life and destiny. The Astronomica has been
referred to as a didactic, astrological poem.4 This is understandable, but it
may be more accurate to refer to it as a proselytising, Stoic poem. The
nature of the work suggests that Manilius was not primarily attempting to
create a work of scholarship or even of poetic significance, rather to
convince his readers of the validity of his version of Stoicism.5 In antiquity
the work received little attention.6
The theme of Stoicism consumes deceptively little space in the Astronomica,

but this brevity disguises its true importance. The Stoic position Manilius
outlines ranges from the formation of the universe to astrology and human
destiny. These ideas reach a culmination in the conclusion to Book Four,
which is presented with logic, care and skill. Over the course of the work
each aspect of the case is clearly set out and subsequently used as a
building block to support the argument. Manilius reinforces his case by
4
This is a commonly found belief. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (1996) 917-8
begins its description of the Astronomica with this statement.
5
Manilius worth as a poet is a matter of some debate. He has been criticised by
Sikes 178 as inferior to Lucretius. Quinn (1979) 121 states he is dull and that
Housman squandered half a lifetime. Alternatively, Fletcher (1973) 137 has praised
the content of this poem and compares Manilius favourably to Ovid.
6
Goold (1977) xiv provides a list of authors whose work may have been influenced
by the Astronomica, but he suggests that the degree of influence was minor. Also
Lapidge 1393 states that later Roman Stoic cosmological authors followed Manilius
example. I feel that it is more likely that the similarity between Manilius and later
writers originated in their use of the same Greek sources rather than of Manilius.
In the Medieval world the Astronomica was mentioned a number of times, but there is
no indication that it achieved any great degree of recognition. The first modern
version of the text was by the astronomer/astrologer Regiomontanus in the late
fifteenth century. Scaliger also edited the text in 1579. In 1674 Sir Edward Sherburne
produced the first complete English translation. In 1739 Bentleys edition was
published. The next major editor was A. E. Housman whose editing and commentary on
the text is the latest and most widely respected example of Manilian scholarship. The
latest English translation is by G.P. Goold for the Loeb Classical Library, published
in 1977, accompanied for the most part by a text that follows Housman. The latest
published text is by G.P. Goold for Teubner in 1985.
__________________
repetition and by analysing the evidence from different perspectives.
Essentially, he constructs a narrative, interspersed with astrological theory
over Books One to Four, to illustrate the nature of his Stoicism. By this
means the reader is confronted with a well-crafted and convincing argument.
The astrological content of the Astronomica, though it constitutes the
bulk of the work, may be considered merely a vehicle to transport the
Stoic philosophy of Manilius.
In contrast to the concise and well-reasoned account of Stoicism, the

description of astrology is rambling, inadequate and in seeming
contradiction to his stated objective of providing the reader with the
means to predict the future by astrology. Even more surprising is the fact
that the accounts and summaries of astrological theories and practices
described are incomplete and mutually exclusive.7 Manilius does not present
a systematic account of a single astrological method, nor an analysis of
existing methods in order to determine the best, rather he gives us a
mixture of partly unrelated and contradictory beliefs, with an emphasis on
the theoretical side of the astrological methods he describes. It is clear
that Manilius did not intend to provide a practical guide to prediction,
rather to summarise (or perhaps merely list) what were possibly the
prominent astrological beliefs of his time, without any attempt at their
reconciliation.
Included amongst Manilius astrological discussions is a significant amount

of information on astronomy. Most of the earlier Greek astronomical
texts have been lost and much of our knowledge is found in the Almagest.8
7
Quinn (1979) 126 argues that didactic poets did not concern themselves with the
question of accuracy, merely with style and appeal. This seems to be the case with
Manilius astrology but not his Stoicism.
8
Sextus Empiricus 5.13 (c. 200 A.D.) clearly differentiates between astrology
and astronomy in his introduction to Adversus Astrologos, using these two terms and
examples.
__________________
The Astronomica also contains a summary of astronomy, a century and a
half earlier than the Almagest, which is of use in ascertaining the
development of astronomy in the ancient world.
The title of the work, Astronomica, is also indicative of Manilius intent,

to discuss astronomical topics. Although the term astrologia was in common
use for astrology and astronomia for astronomical works,9 and although
Manilius was writing of astrology, he avoided use of the term astrologia
and its cognates. Manilius title Astronomica, implies that the work
possesses a solid basis for belief, distinct from traditional belief in the
gods and distinct again from the taint of common astrology.10
The following summary of the Astronomica lists the major points of each
Book and the conclusions drawn from them.
1.2.2 Book One

The major objective of Book One is to provide an introduction to the
Astronomica by presenting an above average level of non-mathematical
astronomical knowledge and the basics of Stoicism to the reader. It does
not include any astrological procedures, an omission which suggests that
Manilius believed that a basic knowledge of astronomy was needed before
one could move onto the intricacies of astrology. The major theme of the
9
The Almagest was written by Claudius Ptolemy in the second century A.D. It is the
major extant work on astronomy surviving from the ancient world, cf. thesis section
2.1.4.
10
Goold (1977) xi-xii concludes that there is no doubt as to the authenticity of the
title, and suggests that Manilius was emulating Virgils Georgics when he named his
work the Astronomica, cf. Sikes (1923) 174ff.
__________________
Astronomica, Stoic astrology, is discussed only briefly, but its importance
is stressed.
Book One appears the most organised of the five Books. It performs its
introductory duties in a concise and cumulative fashion, beginning with
the formation of the universe and proceeding to explain each aspect of the
heavens in turn.11 The greater part of the text expounds astronomical
background, but Stoicism is used to justify the nature of the universe as
described by astronomy. In this fashion Manilius explanation of astronomy
reinforces his philosophical views.
The Book begins with a statement of intent, that the poem is designed to
inform human beings of their fate by giving them knowledge of astrology
(1.13). Manilius also makes a claim to originality (1.4), a claim repeated
at intervals throughout the Astronomica.12 The opening lines also include
a dedication to Caesar (most probably Augustus) 1.7ff.:
hunc mihi tu, Caesar, patriae princepsque paterque,

qui regis augustis parentem legibus orbem
concessumque patri mundum deus ipse mereris,
das animum viresque facis ad tanta canenda.
This dedication sets the political tone of the Astronomica. Manilius gives
support to the Imperial regime, praising it here and at later points in Book
One, and in the remainder of the Astronomica. Book One also provides a
brief history of astrology, crediting its discovery to the god Mercury who,
Manilius claims, gave the gift of this art to humanity via the Babylonians,
11
Ovid preserves his own brief introduction to the history of astrology in Fasti
1.295. He echoes the Manilian theme that the study of the heavens is the most noble
of callings but otherwise differs in tone and content from Manilius.
12
In the opening lines of Books One, Two, Three and Five, and in 4.1178.
__________________
who in turn reputedly taught it to the Greeks and Romans (1.25117).13
After starting his account of the universe, Manilius introduces cosmology

and astronomy, first explaining how the universe came into existence,
and then describing its structure (1.118254). He lists seven cosmological
theories, the last being the Stoic theory that the Earth is the centre of a
universe composed of the four elements, air, fire, sea and land.14 In the
remainder of the work, Stoic theory is given precedence and is assumed
to be correct. Manilius belief in the Stoic system is manifestly evident
throughout the Astronomica. On several occasions he mentions rival
philosophies but always to contrast them unfavourably with Stoicism. In
Book One he seizes two opportunities to criticise Lucretius and
Epicureanism (1.483ff. and 1.530ff.).15
Having dealt with the necessary preliminaries, Manilius now reaches the
stage of providing a detailed astronomical description of the heavens. He
begins with an catalogue of the constellations. In 1.255531, forty-four
are listed, with the twelve zodiacal signs presented first, then the northern
and southern constellations. After this, there is a brief mention of the
planets (1.538, 1.805808),16 followed by a list and description of eleven
celestial circles (1.539804). Book One concludes with a somewhat
rambling description of comets and meteors (1.809872).
13
In line 1.30 Manilius invokes Mercury as tu princeps auctorque sacri, Cyllenie,
tanti. This is a literary reference to Mercury, who, as the messenger of the Gods
carried the gift of the Gods to human beings (1.26), although the use of the terms
auctor and princeps, seem to describe more than merely a messenger. They suggest
that Mercury was the creator, or deity, in charge of the science of astrologythe God
of Astrology.
14
The other theories are those of Xenophanes, Hesiod, Leucippus, Heraclitus, Thales
and Empedocles.
15
cf. Manilius Stoicism in thesis section 2.7 for an examination of this topic.
16
A total of 5 consecutive lines: 538, 805, 806, 807, 808 following Goolds text.
__________________
This introduction is a reasonable successful attempt at a non-mathematical
summary of ancient astronomy. Manilius describes what could be called
the standard model for the classical world, a geo-centric system with the
planets, the Sun, Moon and stars circling the Earth.17
On the other hand, although Book One is intended to provide the reader
with sufficient information to comprehend the often-difficult reasoning of
subsequent Books, in this endeavour it is only moderately successful. The
astronomical discussion covers topics that are of no relevance to the later
astrological procedures, while there is inadequate coverage of areas
necessary for an understanding of astrological theory.18 Much additional
information could have been included (e.g. more information on the planets,
an explanation of the measurement of time), if only for the sake of
completeness. Manilius omission of necessary information is difficult to
comprehend unless we assume that it was merely a framework for his
version of Stoic destiny in which the precise details were unimportant.19
The other major theme of Book One is Stoicism. Here Manilius demonstrates
his skill, since the discussion of Stoicism is argued convincingly, forming
an effective basis for the philosophical theory found in later Books. Book
One outlines clearly the themes of a single god, the dominance of fate
17
Ptolemy Claudius description of the universe in the Almagest provides the most
detailed account of classical astronomy. For a modern discussion of this model see
Neugebauer (1975) 2-14 and 145-256.
18
For example, there is an extensive account of the celestial circles in Book One.
While some of these circles have a degree of relevance to astrology, others do not. Nor
does Manilius explain the 360 degree system, which would be of use in the astrological
Books. In a similar fashion, the detailed account of the non-zodiacal constellations
(except for Book Five) and of comets and meteors is not needed for any astrological
purpose.
19
It should be understood, however, that due to the varied and discordant nature of
the astrological procedures in the Astronomica, it would be difficult (but not
impossible) to create a firm astronomical basis for the work.
__________________
and of the holistic nature of the universe.
1.2.3 Book Two

Book Two is the first of Manilius astrological books and the longest
book of the Astronomica (970 lines). It begins Manilius account of a
diverse range of astrological procedures centred on the zodiac, and it
offers a framework on which to expound his view of Stoicism.
The first lines (159) are largely a dismissive summary of the mythical
poets from Hesiod to his own times, with an introductory mention of
Homer.20 Manilius places each author and work in a historical context
and concludes with the claim that his own work is original. The implication
is that the Astronomica, a work of Stoicism, is the culmination of the
poetic, didactic genre and that Manilius should be viewed as the leading
exponent of a form of Stoicism, the function of which is to explain the
nature of the universe to those chosen by fate to understand it.21
The introduction is followed by a narrow, but detailed account of Stoic

philosophy (2.60135). Manilius explains that God created and controls
the universe and that astrology is a direct consequence of Gods existence.
The poem implies that human beings are semi-divine. This account builds
on the Stoic references made in Book One, and acts to reinforce the
validity of these beliefs in the mind of the reader. The introduction concludes
with a statement by Manilius that the study of Stoic astrology is a lonely
task and, while others pursue wealth and power, the poet alone pursues
20
Quinn (1979) 125 states that the epic poem had fallen into disfavour in the late
Hellenistic period while the didactic poem had increased in popularity.
21
It is clear that Manilius saw the Astronomica as a work of primary importance,
which combined with his lack of mention of any other Stoic figure suggests that he
saw himself as the leading (if not the ultimate) figure in Stoicism.
__________________
knowledge (2.13749).
The remainder of Book Two is a detailed explanation of the zodiac.

Manilius begins by listing the nature of individual zodiacal constellations
(hereafter referred to as signs): male/female, single/double, rise angle,
diurnal/nocturnal, aquatic, fertility, posture and disfigurement
(2.150269).22 These are allocated to seasons. Next, the relationship
between each is explained (2.270432). The zodiac is depicted as laid out
in a circle with various geometric shapes (triangle, square, hexagon) linking
respective constellations. Following this, signs are allocated to gods and
then to parts of the body (2.43365). The narrative then returns to signs
and shapes by listing relationships created by parallel lines drawn between
them (2.477692). With this, the text moves to divisions within the zodiac.
Each sign is divided into twelve divisions (referred to as a dodecatemory)
of two and a half degrees with each division allotted to another sign
(2.693737). This process of division continues with planetary
dodecatemories. The dodecatemory of each sign (two and a half degrees)
is divided into five parts (half a degree) and each of the five planets is
allocated one of these divisions of half a degree (2.73848).
The zodiac is then placed within a framework, based upon four fixed
cardinal points and the space between them, through which the stars
move on their continual revolution around the Earth (2.788855). These
areas are said to modify the influence of their proximate signs. Manilius
then introduces Temples, which are the twelve divisions of the zodiac
that have no stellar counterpart. These creations are based on the position
of the cardinal points. The influence of each zodiacal sign is said to be
modified as it passes through each Temple (2.856967). The concluding
lines of this section refer to the modifying influence of the planets on the
22
These last two points are unique to Manilius (Goold 1977, xl.).
__________________
Temples. Manilius states that he will discuss the role of the planets in
astrology later in the Astronomica, and although this promise is repeated
elsewhere it is never fulfilled.23
The poem implies that the planets exercise little influence on the affairs
of human beings, a position seemingly at odds with our few other extant
accounts of ancient astrology which give precedence to the planets.24 In
an attempt to reconcile these two astrological traditions I can only suggest
that Manilius may have preferred the zodiac as the vehicle for prediction
because it was the roof of the heaven, since it lay furthest from the
Earth and thus was more perfect than the planets.
Manilius explanation of the role of the zodiac would be entirely inadequate

for any practitioner of the art of astrology. He provides an overview of its
various astrological influences but gives no detailed account of their
interrelationship, nor any indication of how these influences are to be
combined into a prediction. The astrological information presented here
seems little more than selections from various astrological procedures
rewritten into one text. Although Manilius stated aim is to provide the
means by which human beings can understand their future, neither Book
Two, nor any of the subsequent Books, provides the means to cast
predictions.25
23
2.750, 2.965, 3.1568, 3.587.
24
There are a number of lines missing from Book Five. Goold (1977) xcvii-c, 358
suggests that approximately 176 lines are missing (including chapter headings) and
that these lines may have discussed the role of the planets in astrology. If this
assumption is correct, Manilius leaves the definitive discussion of the planets to the
last section of the last Book, and to fewer than 200 lines, suggesting that he did not
place great importance upon the planets. In contrast, Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos,
devotes approximately 250 lines in his introduction to a summary of the role of the
planets. The planets are then referred to throughout his text as an intrinsic feature
of astrological influence.
__________________
In Book Two Manilius deems it necessary to explain his didactic procedure
(2.75087), stating that one must first learn the simplest elements of a
belief then build incrementally on this existing knowledge. He uses the
simile of the construction of a city to illustrate his view. This is one of the
few biographical references in the Astronomica, providing a glimpse of
the poets approach, with the lines skilfully merged with the narrative.
This didactic method is evident in his account of astrology and even more
so in his discussions of Stoicism.
The Stoic content of Book Two (2.60149) differs markedly from the
sections dealing with astrology, in that it covers a great deal of ground
and presents a solid argument to the reader. It is concisely written, well
reasoned and logically presented. It begins with God and concludes with
a Stoic justification of astrology. This account also supports the narrative,
since it links the preceding discussion of poetry with the astrological
section of Book Two immediately following. The clarity of the presentation
of the Stoic section of this Book is in contrast to the inadequate presentation
of the astrological section.
This second Book provides a model for Books Three and Four. It contains
a plethora of astrological detail and a wide range of potential influences
for an astrologer to explore, yet the practical task of casting a prediction
is ignored. In Books Three and Four other astrological theories are developed
which are equally detailed and equally incomplete. They bear no relation
to those of Book Two and even contradict them (and each other). Through
all this the discussion of Stoicism is carried forward skilfully over the
course of each Book.
25
This is in contrast to 1.25ff. where Manilius recounts the history of astrology
with the theme that gaining an understanding of the heavens is the principal goal of
human progress. This initial claim, that astrology is of primary importance, is
ignored in the text itself.
__________________
1.2.4 Book Three
Book Three provides a second detailed account of astrology. The reader
is introduced to several new astrological principles and techniques, but
there is a stylistic departure from the earlier Books with the inclusion of a
number of mathematical formulae which are used to calculate a horoscope.
This is the sole use of formulae in the poem.
Manilius begins Book Three by re-stating that his work is both original
and intrinsically difficult, while the work of other poets, on wars and
nations, is comparatively easy (3.142), a theme he referred to in the
introduction to Book Two.26 He also includes several editorial lines in
which he laments the difficulty of rendering numbers and unusual concepts
into verse (3.402).27 This statement is particularly apt as Book Three
does contain complex formulae.
After identifying the importance of his work, Manilius provides a few

lines on Stoic cosmology (3.4366), which pick up the philosophical
account begun in Books One and Two. He begins by invoking Stoicism
as a justification for astrology, and proceeds to prove this by recounting
the nature of the Stoic universe. He describes a geo-centric universe of
26
Goold (1977) lxii lists 3.235 as Manilius solitary reference to Roman literature,
the Annals of Ennius. The reference may have been motivated by Ennius discussion of
astrology (Cic. Rep. 1.18.30) and the possibility that he may have been the earliest
Latin author to compose on the topic. If so, this was no more than a minor reference
to astrology presaging its greater importance in the next century.
Cicero makes a similar statement about poets in which he refers to their work as
delirantium somnia (de Nat. Deorum 1.42). Criticising poets was not confined to
Manilius or to Stoics.
27
An alternative view is offered by Quinn (1979) 122-3 who suggests that it was
easier to compose in verse than in prose. This is a question that cannot be easily
answered. I would suggest that the relative ease of both forms may rely more on the
writers innate abilities and skills than any other factor.
__________________
centralised order where each component is in equilibrium and harmony,
governed by the laws of nature (3.4360). The concept that an event in
the heavens and an event on the Earth are manifestations of the same
underlying cause and that the latter can be predicted by the former is the
Stoic basis of astrology.
Manilius proof of astrology is that stars intrinsically control human destiny

(3.60ff.). This leads into the central importance of the zodiac, which in
turn leads into an account of athla.28 These are twelve divisions of the
zodiac, each of 30 degrees, which control different aspects of life
(3.61159). They independently rotate in a fixed order following the path
of the zodiac. The task before the diligent astrologer is to locate the
position of the athla at the moment of birth. An inadequate explanation of
how this is achieved consumes half of Book Three (3.160509). Manilius
describes several different formulae for this purpose, with a mixture of
clarity and confusion, before reaching what he considers the valid version.
These formulae are relics of earlier astronomical theories, possibly of

Babylonian origin.29 They are rule-of-thumb formulae that calculate the
changing rise-times and set-times of the zodiacal constellations. While
they are adequate for this task, they themselves can only be part of a
larger procedure that was required to calculate the position of the athla,
but this procedure has not been provided. Thus everything described in
Book Three is largely irrelevant, certainly of no use to those who wished
to learn how to use the athla to cast a prediction. So continues the marked
contrast between Manilius clarity in his accounts of Stoicism and his
almost obfuscatory approach to astrology.
28
Manilius uses a Greek term, 3.162, perhaps an indication that he has turned to
yet another source (Goold 1977 lxii). As Goold points out, the concept of Athla
contradicts the astrological procedures detailed in Book Two.
29
See chapter Six, cf Goold lxivv.
__________________
In the final section of Book Three, Manilius describes a new astrological
procedure, that of Chronocrators (3.51059).30 These are allocations of
portions of a life to astrological influences. Their utility to a student of
astrology is limited by their incompatibility with the previously described
athla and by Manilius description of two mutually exclusive means of
determining which influences are dominant. Following this, Manilius
describes how the zodiac determines the length of human life (3.560617),
and how each sign gives those under its influence a different life-span.
The final lines of Book Three describe the powers of the four tropic
signs (Cancer, Libra, Capricorn and Aries) in which the seasons change
and the two solstices and two equinoxes reside. Manilius states that these
have great power but does not elaborate (3.618682). He concludes this
account, and Book Three, by noting that the unstated powers of these
signs are controlled by either the 1st, 8th or 10th degree points of each
sign. Thus he effectively negates what he has just described (if not the
bulk of the astrological theory in the Astronomica) by claiming that the
starting-point for calculating the powers of the tropic signs is unknown.31
Book Three repeats the format of Book Two but with less consistencythe
various items of astrological theory are each irrelevant to the others and
are internally inconsistent. Again the stated aim of the Book is to enable
30
Manilius himself does not name them, but they are so named by Goold (1977,
lxxviilxxviii).
31
I did attempt to discover which degree Manilius himself uses by analysing the
paranatellonta of Book Five. Only one of these provides sufficient detail to enable an
accurate positional determination, 5.197ff., which states that Procyon rises in the
27th degree of Cancer. When Procyon is on the eastern horizon (assuming the latitude
of Rome), the ecliptic is 102 degrees distant from the First Point (assuming that the
First Point of Aries is measured at the local epoch, e.g. 10 degrees south of Beta
Aries). This gives a figure of 12 degrees for Cancer. To reach the 27th degree
requires the assumption that Manilius took the 15th degree of each constellation as
its starting point, a position not canvassed anywhere in the Astronomica. Book Five
does not shed any light upon this question.
__________________
the student to cast predictions (3.43ff.), but insufficient information is
provided to achieve this objective. From an astronomical perspective, our
interest in Book Three lies in the horoscope formulae that almost certainly
contain astronomical procedures from the late Babylonian period of
astronomy. In his presentation of Stoicism, on the other hand, Manilius
again shows care and diligence. He repeats the earlier themes of a central
influence and the unchanging order of the heavens.32
1.2.5 Book Four

In Book Four, Manilius continues his discussion of astrology with an
account of the correlation of different parts of the zodiac with different
personal characteristics and a zodiacal map of the world where signs are
allocated to different geographical areas. The major worth of Book Four
is the concluding Stoic discourse in which Manilius explains and justifies
the belief that human beings possess a divine nature and destiny.
The prooemium (4.1118) is a reiteration, in a more detailed form, of the

Stoic arguments put forward in earlier Books. Manilius avers that the
reason for studying Stoic astrology is to gain sufficient knowledge of fate
so as to be able to face the future with fortitude. His main concern is to
confirm and reinforce the belief in the dominance of fate. In doing this
Manilius uses numerous examples from Roman and Greek history.
After the prooemium Manilius returns to his account of astrology. In

4.122293, he grants to each of the twelve zodiacal signs an influence
over the career and profession of those born under their authority. In
4.294407 Manilius explains how these influences are further subdivided
32
1.24754, 2.60135, 3.4855, 4.886935.
__________________
to correspond with the division of each sign into three units. Each of
these divisions, of 10 degrees, is said to modify the influence of the sign
as a whole and further modify human character. He claims that the seeming
randomness of human behaviour is merely an illusion created by our lack
of understanding of the complexity of astrology (4.373ff.). He explains
the powers of individual degrees of the zodiac (4.408502), and the measure
of influence of specific parts of each sign (4.50384).
The next discussion concerns the relationship between geographical areas

and zodiacal signs (4.585817). Here is included a description of the
world and of the characteristics of different regional populations and a list
of different regions with their respective zodiacal sign. The astrological
discussion concludes with the effect of Lunar eclipses (4.81865), which
allegedly weaken the power of the sign within which they occur. This
discussion contains a reference to Tiberius which suggests that he was
emperor while the later Books were being composed (4.763-6).
Book Four is brought to a close by a return to the argument put forward

in the introduction. Manilius now explains how knowledge of the universe,
fate, the fact of human divinity and the unique nature of human beings
have all been created by the Stoic God and are intrinsic features of the
universe (4.866935). The goal of human social progress embraces a
divine future. It is clear that the Astronomica was intended to be a the
guidebook to this future.
The bulk of Book Four comprises descriptions of astrological procedure,

but as with Books Two and Three, these accounts bear little relation to
each other, and there is insufficient detail to render them usable. The
major significance of Book Four lies in its philosophic content. It is here
__________________
that Manilius concludes his discussion of Stoicism with a well-reasoned
argument in favour of Stoic principles and destiny.
The tone of this section and the specific statement, iam nusquam natura
latet; pervidimus omnem (4.883), suggest that the Astronomica was
originally brought to a close at this point. Books One and Four conclude
with perorations, both of which dedicate the poem to Stoicism and to
Caesar. Within the first four Books there is a clear pattern of development.
Book One provides the introduction; Books Two and Three continue the
account of Stoicism, as well as a supporting description of astrology; and
Book Four concludes the Stoic account of the universe.
1.2.6 Book Five

Book Five differs substantially from the first four Books in that it contains
no reference to Stoicism. Its astrological content is also less complex and
less mathematically grounded than that in Books Two, Three and Four,
and it contains a higher proportion of myth. The treatment of astrology in
Book Five also differs from the previous Books, since it is based upon the
non-zodiacal constellations.
The motive for Manilius having composed Book Five is unclear, since
the stated aim of the Astronomica has been reached in Book Four. The
opening lines in Book Five, however, offer a clue. Here, Manilius says
that other authors would have completed their work at the end of Book
Four, but he, however, feels that the poem would be incomplete without a
discussion of the astrological influence of the non-zodiacal constellations
(5.131). Manilius may have felt compelled to complete the summary of
what he believed were the important, non-planetary astrological theories
__________________
of his day,33 but this does not answer the question of why Stoicism has
been excluded from this Book. Perhaps the poem originally ended with
Book Four and Book Five was added at a later date, as an afterthought.
Discussion of the non-zodiacal constellations consumes most of Book

Five,34 and involves a listing of the rising-times of non-zodiacal stars with
individual degrees of zodiacal signs.35 Each group of stars is said to
produce a different personality for those born under its influence, a system
incompatible with any of the astrological systems outlined in Books Two,
Three or Four. Nor, like the earlier systems, is it presented in sufficient
detail to be of practical use to a reader. Near the end of Book Five
Manilius gives his long-promised explanation of the effect of planetary
influences on astrology, but, unfortunately, most of this has been lost.36
Following the discussion of the planets in Book Five, Manilius categorises

the constellations in a Hipparchian magnitude system.37 Unfortunately,
only twenty-three lines of this section survive, but these are enough to
identify its nature and content, and to provide the earliest extant account
of the stellar magnitude system. A similar description can also be found
in the Almagest, where it is used in Ptolemys stellar catalogue. There has
been some debate38 as to whether Hipparchus or Ptolemy created both the
magnitude system and the first stellar catalogue, but its use by Manilius
demonstrates that the system pre-dates Ptolemy and thus that Hipparchus
33
As discussed, Manilius evidently did not consider planetary astrological theories
important.
34
677 lines in total (5.32709).
35
Stars which rise and set at the same time as sections of the zodiac are referred to
as Paranatellonta.
36
Goold (1977) cvii, 358.
37
This system divides the stars into six categories of brightness: 1st brightest6th
faintest.
38
thesis section 3.6.
__________________
was the originator of the first stellar catalogue and of the magnitude
system.
The last lines of Book Five (73445) provide a glimpse of Manilius view
of society. In the poem, Manilius supports the Roman social system and
uses his philosophy to validate this order. He compares the relative
brightness of the stars, their order and hierarchy, to the social hierarchy of
a city, with plebeians, equites and the Senate. By using this heavenly
analogue, Manilius justifies contemporary social division.39
Book Five ends abruptly. It has been suggested that the text is incomplete,
since it differs in length from Book Two, the longest of the poem, by over
two hundred lines.40 This is not, however, sufficient ground for suspecting
that Book Five is incomplete, since it is not as short as Book Three (682
lines). The conclusion to Book Five is no more abrupt than that of Books
Two and Three, so it is entirely possible that the author, having found
social order in the stars, completed his work with the lines that we now
have.
39
cf. Schofield (1991) 93-4 .
40
Conte (1994) 428.
__________________
The Date of the Astronomica 34
1.3 The Date of the Astronomica
1.3.1 Introduction
It is agreed that the Astronomica was composed in the first quarter of the
first century A.D., but the precise date of the poem has been a matter of
some debate. The text itself refers to only two specific relevant historical
occasions.41 The date of the poem depends, therefore, on the interpretation
of indirect evidence. Several theories have emerged, one suggests that
Books One and Two were written under Augustus and Books Four and
Five under Tiberius (there is no internal evidence for Book Three).42
Another, and less popular, theory argues that all of the work was composed
under Augustus.43 While a third suggests that the entire work was composed
under Tiberius.44
1.3.2 Summary of Evidence and Arguments

That Book One was written under Augustus is not disputed. There is
abundant internal evidence to confirm this. The frequent references to
Augustus and to the destruction of Varus legions are the bases for this
conclusion.45 Thus Manilius may have begun Book One prior to A.D. 9
and perhaps finished it and Book Two not long after that date, as Book
41
These are the destruction of Varus legions by the Germans in A.D. 9 (1.898ff.)
and Tiberius exile on Rhodes 6 B.C.A.D. 2 (4.7636).
42
This is presented by Goold (1977) xixii, Housman (1913), Kellum (1990)
2923, Garrod (1908-2), Maranini (1994) 31-8.
43
Steele (1931) 157167.
44
Bickel (1933) 267 sq.and Gebhardt (1961) 278-286. This last argument assumes
that all of the seeming references to Augustus in Books One and Two were in fact to
Tiberius, also that the title Pater Patriae , used in Book One, was given informally to
Tiberius by Maniliius. I do not find these arguments convincing in the face of the
stronger evidence in Book One that Augustus was alive during its composition. I will
not pursue this line of research in this thesis.
__________________
Two contains a reference to Augustus implying that he is still alive.46
Book Three contains no evidence of its date of composition, while Book
Five contains only a hint of a much later date, perhaps A.D. 22 (discussed
later). It falls to the astrological references in Book Four to provide clues
as to the date of the work.
There are three passages in Book Four that refer to the emperor. In lines
4.54752, the emperors star sign is given as Libra:47
Sed, cum autumnales coeperunt surgere Chelae,

felix aequato genitus sub pondere Librae.
iudex examen sistet vitaeque necisque
imponetque iugum terris legesque rogabit.
illum urbes et regna trement nutuque regentur
unius et caeli post terras iura manebunt.
45
1.710: hunc mihi tu, Caesar, patriae princepsque paterque, / qui regis augustis
parentem legibus orbem / concessumque patri mundum deus ipse mereris, 1.385386:
Augusto, sidus nostro qui contigit orbi, / legum nunc terris post caelo maximus
auctor. 1.799800: ...descendit caelo caelumque replebit, / quod reget, Augustus,
socio per signa Tonante, 1.898900: ...foedere rupto / cum fera ductorem rapuit
Germania Varum / infectique trium legionum sanguine campos.
The inclusion of the destruction of three legions, the worst military disaster of
Augustus reign, may seem to be an insult to the emperor, but the emphasis on the
dominance of fate does remove the stigma of defeat from Augustus, and Manilius does
make frequent use of historical events to demonstrate the role of fate. The inclusion
of a contemporary event of this importance (indicating the fickleness of fate) suggests
this usage of historical examples.
1.922926: ...iam bella quiescant / atque adamanteis discordia vincta catenis /
aeternos habeat frenos in carcere clausa; / sit pater invictus patriae, sit Roma sub
illo, / cumque deum caelo dederit non quaerat in orbe.
46
2.5079 ...contra Capricornus in ipsum / convertit visus (quid enim mirabitur
ille / maius, in Augusti felix cum fulserit ortum?).
47
This passage does not refer to an individual by name, but Goold (1977) 266, n. 1
states that it does refer to the emperor. Even if this identification is wrong we are
still left with a clear statement that the sign of the emperor (Augustus or Tiberius)
is Libra in 4.7767.
__________________
In lines 4.7636, the island of Rhodes is referred to as the one-time abode
of Caesar:
Virgine sub casta felix terraque marique

est Rhodos, hospitium recturi principis orbem,
tumque domus vere Solis, cui tota sacrata est,
cum caperet lumen magni sub Caesare mundi;
In lines 4.7767 we are once again told that the emperors sign is Libra.
qua genitus Caesar melius nunc condidit urbem

et propriis frenat pendentem nutibus orbem.
The argument that Tiberius is the emperor of Books Four and Five is
based on the reference to Rhodes and the assumption that Augustus natal
sign was Capricorn, not Libra, a fact confirmed elsewhere.48 Tiberius had
resided on Rhodes and his sign was Libra.49 In this scenario Manilius was
a late Augustan author who completed his work in the reign of Tiberius
with the last Augustan Book being Book Two or possibly Book Three.
48
Suet. Aug. 94.12: tantam mox fiduciam fati Augustus habuit, ut thema suum
uulgauerit nummumque argenteum nota sideris Capricorni, quo natus est, percusserit.
Augustus affection for Capricorn is shown in a number of different areas. Manilius
refers to Capricorn as Augustus sign (1.375ff, 2.5079). Germanicus attributes
the sign Capricorn to Augustus (Germ. Phaen. 55162). Suetonius Aug. 94.12 lists
it as Augustus birth sign and the sign he placed on his coins. There are a significant
number of Augustan coins stamped with Capricorn, e.g. RIC 12 (with cornucopiae)
and RIC 330 (with globe) etc. Modern sources also comment on Capricorn. Parker
262 suggests that Legions II Augusta, XIV Gemina and XXI Rapax contained Capricorn
on their standards to signify their Augustan origins. Dwyer (1973) 62 suggests that
Octavian used Capricorn as early as the late 40s.
49
Housman (1913) (page 870 of the 1972 reprint) states that Queen Pythodoris
issued a coin associating Tiberius with Libra. This is also discussed, with the same
conclusion, by Barton (1995) 36. This coin is displayed by Waddington, Balsdon and
Reinach (1925) 22, coins 20 and 20a. Coin number 19, immediately preceding,
displays Augustus and Capricorn.
__________________
1.3.3 The Question of Augustus Birth and Sign
We must now discuss Capricorn, since the date of Books One and Two
depends upon the belief that Augustus sign was Capricorn and that Tiberius
was Libra.50 The majority of references suggest that Augustus was a
Capricorn, but these are challenged by the possibility that Augustus may
have also been associated with Libra. There is one clear reference in the
Georgics that Libra was Augustus sign. In his dedication to the emperor
Virgil states that a new star shall be made between Virgo and Scorpio for
Augustus. This is the location of Libra (Georg. I.32ff.):
anne novum tardis sidus te mensibus addas,

qua locus Erigonen inter Chelasque sequentis
panditur ipse tibi iam bracchia contrahit ardens
Scorpius et caeli iusta plus parte reliquit;
Thus Libra (Chelae) could be the sign of both emperors, and the Libran
references in Book Four could be to Augustus or to Tiberius. This is the
sole unequivocal statement associating Augustus with Libra. In itself I do
not feel it is conclusive evidence that Augustus used this as a sign. As
Barton suggests it may indicate his future translation to the heavens.51 I
will continue to canvass the possibility of Augustus taking the sign of
Libra, but I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to state conclusively
that he did so.
50
Suetonius states that Tiberius was born on 16 November 42 B.C. (Tib. 5). As with
Augustus, the determination of Tiberius sign depends on a number of factors and
interpretations; Libra is one possible sign.
51
Barton (1995) 35. There is also a reference to the Anthol. Lat. 43 that associates
Caesar with Libra, but the difficulty with this reference is discovering the identity
of the Caesar.
__________________
The means of answering the question of Augustus sign should lie with
his birth date. In Suet. Aug. 5, Augustus is said to have been born pre-sunrise,
23rd September, 63 B.C.:
Natus est Augustus M. Tullius Cicerone C. Antonio conss. VIIII.

Kal. Octob. paulo ante solis exortum.
According to modern sources, this would give Augustus the natal sign of
Libra, not Capricorn as suggested above. Housmans explanation for this
apparent difficulty is that Capricorn was Augustus Lunar sign (the zodiacal
constellation which contained the Moon at the time he was born) and that
Libra was his natal sign (the zodiacal sign rising at his birth)the more
traditional definition of a persons sign.52 Housman lists several examples
where the Moon was referred to as an astrological sign rather than the
zodiac,53 so Augustus could have used both Libra and Capricorn as his
sign. It is also possible that Libra was the sign of Augustus birth and
Capricorn (the sign the Sun was in nine months earlier) was that of his
conception,54 which would have given Augustus a legitimate claim on
both signs. While this cannot be simply dismissed, there is little evidence
that the Romans considered the date of conception important.
Octavian was born prior to the introduction of the Julian calendar (46
B.C.) which he reformed in 9-8 B.C.,55 and it is possible that his sign at
52
Housman (1913) (page 869 of the 1972 reprint). To Manilius, however, although
the Moon was an astrologically significant symbol, it was not of critical importance.
In 2.72637 the moon is said to increase a constellations influence; in 3.517, the
Moon is said to control the months of a life; in 3.590593 the moon influences
longevity. Dwyer (1973) 59 suggests that the Lunar sign was of little importance
and therefore could not be the reason for its usage here.
53
Cic. de div. 2.91 and 2.98.
54
Bowersock (1990) 385, Domenicucci (1993) 214.
__________________
the actual time of his birth was Capricorn but, after the modifications of
the calendar, that his sign became Libra.56
The sum of this and earlier discussions is that there is sufficient evidence
to suggest that Augustus was primarily associated with Capricorn, but
that for some reason, he also had a minor association with Libra. Given
this, argument for the date of the Astronomica based solely on an analysis
of the emperors sign(s) must be inconclusive, yet the weight of evidence
suggests that Capricorn is generally supportive of a reference to Augustus.57
1.3.4 The State of the Heavens

To clarify this discussion, we might take as a reference-point the state of
the heavens at the time of Octavians birth. Michels has converted Suetonius
pre-Julian date of 23rd September 63 B.C., to a range of possible dates,
the 22nd, 23rd and 24th of September 63 B.C. (Julian calendar).58 In
addition to the birthdate there are three astrological determinants that
require consideration: the position of the Sun, the Moon, and the degree
of the zodiac on the horizon. Due to the variability of the schools of
ancient astrology,59 any of these could have been used to determine
55
Samuel (1972) 156-8 discusses the meagre evidence we have of Augustus reform
of the Julian calendar.
56
Bosworth (1982) 151-70 discusses the difficulties and inaccuracies of dating
events in this period.
57
This is bolstered by the absence of any significant reference to Libra in Books One
and Two, the two Augustan Books.
58
Michels (1967) 180ff.
59
As the Astronomica makes clear, there was no single astrological method of casting
a prediction; there were in fact many conflicting means of doing so. It is possible to
surmise that there were schools of astrology, each with its own astrological procedures
and theory. To carry this further, it is also possible to speculate that each major
figure within each school developed his own particular style of astrology and passed
it on to his students, who in turn modified their teachers style. Barton (1994-1)
39 discusses the variety of astrological methods.
__________________
Augustus sign, so each of these positions will be calculated for the three
dates suggested by Michels.
For the days in question, the position of the Sun (thus the sign in which
the Sun resides) did not change significantly. The Sun in late September
is in the constellation Virgo (RA 11h 50m, Dec +1 degree)60, near the
bright star Spica. The horizon at 5.00 a.m. (one hour before sunrise)
crossed through the constellation Virgo (RA 11h 20m, Dec +7 degrees).
The Moon was the only astronomical object that changed position
significantly over the three dates. The results of its movement are given
below.
22nd September 63 B.C., 5.00 a.m.

Moon, in the constellation Capricorn (RA 19h, Dec -28 degrees)
23rd September 63 B.C., 5.00 a.m.

Moon, on the border of the constellations Capricorn and Aquarius.
(RA 20h, Dec -26 degrees)
24th September 63 B.C., 5.00 a.m.

Moon, in the constellation Aquarius (RA 21h, Dec -23 degrees)
These are the raw astronomical results. To place them (i.e. the position
of the Sun, Moon and the horizon) within an astrological context requires
further modification. As Manilius suggests, Roman astrologers may have
60
The heavens have been delineated by astronomers into divisions analogous to
terrestrial latitude and longitude. RA is Right Ascension, the number of degrees
eastwards from the point of the northern intersection of the celestial equator and the
ecliptic. The degrees of RA are divided into hours, each hour containing 15 degrees,
thus there are 24 RA hours in each 24 hour day. Dec is Declination, the number of
degrees north or south of the celestial equator.
__________________
used an initial starting-point other than the first degree of each sign,
therefore a range of off-sets needs to be determined.61 On the 23rd, the
Sun was 177 degrees from the 1st point of Aries (the starting-point of the
zodiac). This places the Sun within the sign of Libra (150180 degrees
from Aries). If we assume that the 8th degree of each sign was in common
use, then the Sun was effectively in the 169th degree of the zodiac, still
well inside the sign Libra.
The Moons movement amounts to a daily average of 12 degrees (slightly

less than one half of the 30 degree length of a sign). This makes the
determination of the Moons position more difficult than the Suns. On
the 22nd September the Moon was approximately 285 degrees from the
1st point of Aries; on the 23rd September, approximately 300 degrees; on
the 24th September, approximately 315 degrees. On the 22nd and 23rd,
both with and without the 8 degree offset, the Moon was in the sign of
Capricorn. Only on the 24th did it move into Aquarius.
The horizon is even more variable than the Moon. While the Moon moves
12 degrees per day, the horizon moves 15 degrees per hour. Thus over the
three hour period before sunrise (using the widest interpretation of
Suetonius statement that Octavian was born shortly before sunrise) the
horizon line was in the signs Leo, Virgo and Libra (the last at sunrise).
The result of this reconstruction is that Octavian could have chosen a sign
from any of Leo, Virgo, Libra, Capricorn or Aquarius. These results rely
on the accuracy of Suetonius statement of Augustus date and time of
birth and our interpretation of that date into our system.
61
Astronomica 3.680ff., 1st, 8th and 10th degree of each sign. Bicknell (1989) 97
following Brind Amour suggests that standard practice was to use the 8th degree.
__________________
To this discussion of signs must be added the suggestion put forward by
Tamsyn Barton, who canvasses the opinion that the Roman calendar was
even more irregular than any of its modern chroniclers suggest.62 She
states that Augustus birth may have fallen anywhere between July and
December of what is now the Julian calendar.63 This degree of latitude
would also give Augustus a legitimate natal sign of Capricorn
(December/January).
In addition to this irregularity, there is the wide range of astrological

interpretations possible. Ancient astrologers were not interested in
consistency.64 In the verses of Manilius, several conflicting astrological
procedures are presented side by side with no suggestion that the discrepancy
between them is important.65 Attempting to determine the correct sign
on the basis of astrological theory alone is impossible.
1.3.5 Rhodes, Tiberius, Libra and Book Four

Since the arguments over Capricorn and Libra have proven inconclusive
we are left with only three references in Book Four to determine the date
of the Astronomicas composition. These are the the reference to Rhodes
and the subsequent references to Libra and Caesar.
In the first of these references Manilius states that the princeps resided on
Rhodes 4.7636:66
Virgine sub casta felix terraque marique

62
Barton (1995), cf. Samuel 157.
63
Barton, op. cit., 36ff.
64
ibid., 39.
65
Chapter Six discusses the horoscope and gives several examples of this. There is
also the lesser importance given to the planets by Manilius.
__________________
est Rhodos, hospitium recturi principis orbem,
tumque domus vere Solis, cui tota sacrata est,
cum caperet lumen magni sub Caesare mundi;
Between 6 B.C. and A.D. 2 the future emperor Tiberius lived in semi-
voluntary exile on the island of Rhodes.67 To a Stoic, the departure into
exile, the possibility of assassination, a return in disgrace followed by the
rapid rise to rulership of the Roman world would indicate nothing more
than the guidance of fate.68 This was the theme, the fickleness of fate, that
Manilius repeated throughout the Astronomica, e.g. fata regunt orbem
4.14. This passage is usually advanced as a retrospective acknowledgement
of Tiberius rise to sole power and forms the major argument that Book
Four was written subsequent to Augustuss death.
It is possible, however, that rather than describing Tiberius rule, it could

refer to the future (recturi) assumption by Tiberius of Augustus position,
thus dating Book Four to the period A.D. 414.69 This interpretation is
possible only when the passage is viewed in isolation. If the lines 4.763-77
66
Manilius does not refer to Tiberius by name anywhere in the poem. This omission
can be explained by the assumption that Tiberius, a man intently interested in
astrology, was wary of the use of his name in astrological works. I would also suggest
the possibility that Thrasyllus discouraged other astrologers from involvement with
Tiberius.
67
Maranini (1994) 33 discusses the possibility that these lines refer to Germanicus
and not to Tiberius. I feel that this is an unlikely interpretation. The passage implies
a lengthy stay while Germanicus is not recorded as having spent much time on
Rhodes, merely having stopped at the island. Also, as I argue, the subsequent lines
in the text indicate that this passage does refer to the reigning emperor, not merely
to a possible future emperor.
68
With the second grant in A.D. 4 of tribunician power and his adoption by Augustus,
Tiberius effectively became the designated successor. From this time on Augustus
slowly withdrew from public life leaving more of his duties to Tiberius. After the
banishment of Agrippa Postumus in A.D. 7 Tiberius position was unchallenged.
69
Steele (1931) 161 uses recturi to place Book Four in the reign of Augustus. He
suggests that this refers to either Tiberius adoption or his assuming the burden of
government in the last years of Augustus life.
__________________
are considered as one continuous narrative they indicate that the emperor
who had sojourned on Rhodes was now ruling in his own right. As only
Tiberius could be referred to in 4.76366 (Rhodes and the princeps) he
must be the emperor of Book Four. This interpretation will now be examined.
The first part of this reference states the importance of Libra 4.76975:
quod potius colat Italiam, si seligat, astrum

quam quod cuncta regit, quod rerum pondera novit,
designat summas et iniquum separat aequo,
tempora quo pendent, coeunt quo noxque diesque?
Hesperiam sua Libra tenet, qua condita Roma
orbis et imperium retinet discrimina rerum,
lancibus et positas gentes tollitque premitque,
This passage demonstrates that Libra was the recognised sign of Rome.
Then in 4.7767, Manilius describes the actions of the emperor born
under Libra:
qua genitus Caesar melius nunc condidit urbem

et propriis frenat pendentem nutibus orbem.
In 4.776 Manilius is stating that the city has been refounded (and better)
by Caesar. In 4.777 Manilius is stating that the princeps is controlling in
his own individual (propriis) Stoic style the world (pendentem nutibus
orbem). The use of propriis indicates that the emperor was ruling without
a colleague. This clearly refers to Tiberius, who was then ruling in his
own right, not with Augustus. This clearly dates the passage after Augustus
death.
__________________
By this interpretation these three references demonstrate that Tiberius
was the Caesar of Book Four. They describe Manilius Stoic interpretation
of Tiberius career between his exile in 6 B.C. and his assumption of
office in A.D. 14. In the first passage (4.7636), the nadir of the princeps
career is described. He is in exile, his life endangered, but the sign Virgo
and the Sun indicate that this will not be Tiberius fate. In the second
passage (4.7765) Libra is linked with Rome. In doing so Manilius
foreshadows the greatness that awaits the princeps who has that sign. In
the third passage (4.7767), the career of the Libran princeps is followed
to its successful conclusion, the new age of Tiberius in which the City is
rebuilt and the world governed by an astrological and Stoic princeps.70
There is one other reference in Book Four which might refer to a major
figure of Tiberius reign and assist in assigning a date: 4.5426:
Erigone surgens, quae rexit saecula prisca

iustitia rursusque eadem labentia fugit,
alta per imperium tribuit fastigia summum,
rectoremque dabit legum iurisque sacrati
sancta pudicitia divorum templa colentem.
Tiberius son Drusus Caesar was born on the 10th of October. If we

assume that Tiberius sign was Libra then it is possible that Drusus sign,
one month prior to Tiberius, was correspondingly one sign prior to
Tiberius, i.e. Virgo. Thus, this reference to Virgo could in turn refer to
Drusus. Levick suggests that Drusus expected a measure of Imperial
70
Suetonius Tib. 69 states that Tiberius was neglectful of the gods as he believed in
astrological fate: Circa deos ac religiones neglegentior, quippe addictus mathematicae
plenusque persuasionis cuncta fato agi. Tiberius personal philosophical beliefs are
difficult to decipher; Levick (1976) 18 suggests he may have been a Roman amateur
picking and choosing amongst the many offerings of Greek philosophy. She does suggest,
however, that Tiberius may have leant towards the Stoic.
__________________
power after Augustus death.71 He had enjoyed a successful career and
his assumption of powers would not be an unreasonable expectation. He
was consul in A.D. 15 and A.D. 21, a general in A.D. 1720, and received
tribunicia potestas in A.D. 22. One objection to this scenario is that it
discounts the role of Germanicus, Tiberius adopted son and possible
successor. This is answered by dating this passage to the period after
A.D. 19, the year of Germanicus death. Thus the passage (and Book
Four) were composed after A.D. 19 or possibly after A.D. 22 when Drusus
became Tiberius official successor. Manilius could have been describing
Drusus in his role as the successor of Tiberius. This possibility dates
Book Four to the early 20s, prior to Drusus death in A.D. 23.
71
Levick (1976) 4950.
__________________
1.3.6 Book Five
Before bringing these arguments to a conclusion, it is worth while to
examine Book Five. As discussed in the summary of the Astronomica,
(thesis section 1.2.5 and 1.2.6) Book Five is substantially different from
the earlier four Books, and a case can be made that Book Four was
originally intended as the concluding Book of the work.
This leaves open the question of the date of Book Five as distinct from
the earlier Books. This hypothesis is also suggested by a possible reference
to Sejanus in 5.40915:
Cumque Fidis magno succedunt sidera mundo

quaesitor scelerum veniet vindexque reorum,
qui commissa suis rimabitur argumentis
in lucemque trahet tacita latitantia fraude.
hinc etiam immitis tortor poenaeque minister
et quisquis verove favet culpamve perodit
proditur atque alto qui iurgia pectore tollat.
If Sejanus is the quaesitor of line 5.410, then this dates Book Five to his
period of ascendancy, A.D. 2331.
There is also reference to the trophies of Pompey that suggests a date in

the 20s, 5.513, 510, 515.72
hinc Pompeia manent veteris monumenta triumphi

et Mithridateos vultus induta tropaea,
non exstincta die semperque recentia flammis.
72
Three consecutive lines following the 1985 Goold text.
__________________
The theatre of Pompey was restored by Tiberius in A.D. 22 after it had
been destroyed by fire.73 This passage might refer to that restoration.74
Seneca records that a statue of Sejanus was placed in the newly restored
theatre.75 These two points, the possible references to Sejanus and the
restored theatre, combined with the possibility that Book Five was composed
a significant time after Book Four, suggest that Manilius composed Book
Five in the mid-20's.
1.3.7 Conclusion
To bring these arguments and conjectures to a conclusion, let us summarise
the evidence. The major question in the dating of the Astronomica is the
identity of the emperor of the later Books. The astrological references to
Libra might refer to either Augustus or Tiberius and are thus of no assistance.
The astronomical evidence is too vague to be helpful. What we are left
with are the references to Rhodes, Libra and the emperor in Book Four.
In my interpretation they clearly refer to Tiberius, when he was sole ruler
of the Roman world, after the death of Augustus in August A.D. 14. In
addition the possible references to Drusus and Sejanus push the dates of
the later Books well into the reign of Tiberius.
I suggest that Book One was completed after A.D. 9; Book Two, before
Augustus death. Book Three was composed in the period c. A.D. 14,
straddling the reigns of the two emperors. Book Four was the first Book
begun under Tiberius. Perhaps due to the affair of Libo Drusus in A.D. 16
73
Suet. Tib. 47.
74
Steele (1931) 162 suggests other interpretations of this reference: that it may
refer to the Augustan restoration (32 B.C.) or to the items residing in storage
somewhere other than in the Temple. His main cause for objection is the interval of
time (at least eight years) between the composition of Books Four and Five.
75
Seneca Ad Marciam xxii.4.
__________________
and the consequent reaction against astrologers, Manilius may have delayed
the composition of this Book until c. A.D. 20,76 and Book Five may not
have been completed until the mid-20s.77 This scenario suggests a
composition period stretching over more than fifteen years. While this is
a long time, Manilius saw the Astronomica not merely as a work on
Stoicism or astrology but the culmination of human progress and a guide
to human destiny. Fifteen years is not so long for a work of such complexity
and lofty goals.78
76
Tac. Ann., 2.27ff, and Dio 57.15.4f. for details. M. Scribonius Libo Drusus was
brought to trial on the charge of planning the assassination of Tiberius and his sons
as well as other principes civitatis. He was accused of consulting astrologers who
advised on his future. Levick (1976) 148-51 discusses this incident.
77
Maranini (1994) 50 suggests that this range of dates is broadly accepted. She
does mention 33-4 that two schools have emerged as to the final date, one of A.D. 22,
the other of A.D. 24. While neither can be disproved I feel that attempting to date
individual Books to this level of precision is counterproductive and even misleading.
78
Virgil required seven years to write the four Books of the Georgics. If we assume
that Manilius had the same degree of poetic productivity then he would have required
approximately eleven years to create the Astronomica.
__________________
The Sources of the Astronomica 50
1.4 Sources of the Astronomica
1.4.1 Introduction
Over the next few pages I shall discuss the background material used in
the Astronomica as well as the possible sources Manilius follows. Of
particular interest is the reliance of Manilius on Aratus whose work was
similar in scope to that of Manilius and may have provided an example
for Manilius to follow. This question shall be examined first, then the
other major areas of the poem.
1.4.2 Aratus and his Influence on the Astronomica
1.4.2.1 Introduction
The most prominent popular astronomical author of early antiquity was
the third century Stoic, Aratus of Soli (c. 315c. 240 B.C.).79 Aratus was
a high-profile figure. He studied Stoicism under Zeno, was an associate
of the Macedonian king Antigonus Gonatas, studied with or knew other
prominent philosophers of the day and published works on medicine and
astronomy.80 His sole extant work, the Phaenomena, is a poetic account
of the astronomical heavens, written for a lay audience. In size, goals and
astronomical information it is similar to Book One of the Astronomica,
and it was allegedly based on the work of Eudoxus of Cnidos. (c. 390c.
340 B.C.).81 It has been suggested that Manilius relied on Aratus work as
79
On the alleged influence of Aratus see Barton (1995) 48. Clark (1971) 51
suggests that Aratus provided the median level of astronomical knowledge for the
educated person. Presumably, Manilius expected his readers to have a greater than
average knowledge of this subject. As an alternative measure, the level of astronomical
knowledge in Vitruvius (9.1-6) is greater than that of Manilius and more detailed.
80
For a brief biography of Aratus see the introduction to the Loeb Aratus (Mairs
195ff.)
__________________
a source of astronomical information.82 As the Phaenomena was used by
others as a source and as it possesses a degree of similarity to the
Astronomica, it is possible that Manilius did base his work upon it. To the
extent that Manilius used Aratus as an authority, he made a good choice.
Aratus explained astronomy in a clear and concise style, and remained a
popular author well into the Roman period, as demonstrated by the
translation of the Phaenomena into Latin by several prominent Romans,
(Cicero, Germanicus and Avienius).83
In addition to Aratus popularity, Manilius may have been motivated by

the fact that Aratus was a Stoic, even though there is no evidence of
Aratus Stoicism in the Phaenomena, which in fact has a strong secular
theme.84 The Phaenomena contains one reference to indicate Platonic
influence. In lines 456459 Aratus refers to the
when all planets will align (the
Great Platonic Year).85 There is one factor, however, that may have
deterred Manilius from relying on the Phaenomena, that Aratus
astronomical source Eudoxus (allegedly) did not believe in astrology.86
81
Hipp. Comm. in Arat. 1.2. Cic. Republic 1.14.22.
82
Goold (1977) xvi; Mair (1921); Tester (1987) 3031; Abry, (1994) 179ff.;
Dihle (1994) 111; and Hubner (1972) 249. Barton (1995) 48 claims that Manilius
saw himself as a second Aratus, writing a new didactic poem for a new era.
83
Ovid Amor. 1.15.6: Cum sole et luna semper Aratus erit, Cic. Rep. 1.14.22: sed
poetica quadam facultate versibus Aratum extulisse. Clarke (1971) 502 states the
universal appeal of the Phaenomena. Erren (1994) 194, 267-73, 280 lists recent
work on Aratus. Maranini (1994) 50-5 discusses the possible influence Germanicus
and Manilius may have had on each other. She sensibly concludes that, while they may
have known of each other, there is no indication of a strong influence.
84
While the absence of Stoicism in the Phaenomena argues against its use as a model
by Manilius it is possible that Aratus other works and his reputation as a Stoic
confirmed his Stoic credentials. Sikes (1923) 160 puts forward the argument that
Aratus was inspired by Stoicism but confined his exposition of Stoicism to prose.
85
Plato Timaeus. 39.D. The inclusion of Platonic thought is not surprising. Hahm
(1977) 209 strongly argues that both Platos and Aristotles works formed a sizable
component of the basis of the Stoic philosophy.
86
Cic. de Div. 2.22.
__________________
Since it is possible that Manilius did rely upon Aratus the the two works
need to be compared. The areas that will be investigated are: their conceptual
structures, descriptions of constellations, celestial circles, planetary
depictions and religious attitudes.
1.4.2.2 Summary of the Phaenomena

The Phaenomena of Aratus comes to us in three sub-divisions. The first,
and most lengthy is the astronomical section, a sphaera, approximately
550 lines. The second section, of 180 lines, contains a list of constellations
that rise with each zodiacal constellation. The Phaenomena concludes
with 400 lines of Weather Signs, a section describing how to predict
weather based on celestial and meteorological phenomena over the course
of the year. This latter section of course has of course no relevance to the
Astronomica.
While there is a similarity of form in their astronomical content the

Astronomica and the Phaenomena, the two works do differ markedly in
their goal. The Astronomica is a work of Stoic astrology in which astronomy
plays a role secondary to astrology. The Phaenomena is a work oriented
towards astronomy, based on the rationality of Greek science with no
mention of astrology or of Stoicism. Indeed, the inclusion of the weather
signs in the Phaenomena indicates that its orientation was to events in
the sky, not merely to the heavens.
1.4.2.3 An Overview of the Two Works

The astronomical section of the Phaenomena begins with a constellation
__________________
catalogue. Aratus divides the constellations into two groups, those found
north and those south of the zodiac. The zodiac is included in the northern
group of constellations, but merely as the divider between the northern
and southern constellations. The northern constellations are listed in order
from the north celestial pole, beginning with the Bears (Ursa Minor and
Ursa Major), moving south-west and including the zodiac and then returning
to the pole sweeping in a westerly direction, concluding with Delphinus.
The catalogue then continues with the constellations south of the zodiac,
beginning with Orion, moving to the more southern constellations, then
westerly, circling the unseen south celestial pole, and concluding with
Procyon (Canis Minor). In total, there are 47 constellations.
After describing the constellations, the Phaenomena briefly mentions the

planets (without naming them), then the celestial circles: the Milky Way,
the tropic of Cancer, the tropic of Capricorn, the celestial equator and,
lastly, the zodiac.
The Astronomica includes the same content, but in greater detail and in a
different format. Manilius divides the constellations into three groups, the
zodiac, the northern, and finally the southern constellations. His description
of the zodiac begins with Aries, the constellation that contains the point
of intersection of the celestial equator and the ecliptic, (the leading
zodiacal constellation).87 He then continues eastwards along the zodiac.
By listing the zodiac first Manilius indicates the greater importance he
attaches to it. The Astronomica continues by describing the constellations
north of the zodiac, taking as its starting point the north celestial pole and
the constellation Ursa Major. It then moves south-westerly to the zodiac
and then easterly, concluding with Heniochus (Auriga). The southern
constellations begin with Orion and then move south, circling the south
87
See Appendix A for a full description of the First Point of Aries.
__________________
celestial pole in an easterly direction, concluding with Flumina (Eridanus);
a total of 44 constellations.
Manilius then mentions the planets and the celestial circles: the arctic
circle, the tropic of Cancer, the celestial equator, the tropic of Capricorn,
the antarctic circle, the equinoctal colure, the solstitial colure, the meridian,
the horizon, the zodiac and the Milky Way. The Astronomica then concludes
Book One with a lengthy description of comets.
__________________
Table 1
Comparison of the order of the constellations in the Phaenomena and the

Astronomica .
Aratus Manilius
zodiacal constellations:
easterly
northern constellations: northern constellations:
westerly easterly
southern constellations: southern constellations:
westerly easterly
__________________
Table 2
List of Celestial Circles in the Astronomica and Phaenomena
Astronomica Phaenomena
the arctic circle

the tropic of Cancer the tropic of Cancer
the celestial equator the celestial equator
the tropic of Capricorn the tropic of Capricorn
the antarctic circle
the equinoctal colure

the solstitial colure
the meridian
the horizon
the zodiac the zodiac
the Milky Way the Milky Way
__________________
Aratuss constellations are listed in a westerly order, possibly following
the daily path of the Sun and stars in the sky. Manilius describes his
constellations in the opposite order, easterly, possibly basing his
presentation on the direction the sun, moon and planets take over the
course of a year. In this aspect may be seen a fundamental difference
between a non-astrological work, that of Aratus, and an astrological
work, that of Manilius.
Manilius also goes into more detail than Aratus in his description of the
astronomical circles, and adds to Aratus list the arctic and antarctic
circles, the colures, the meridian and the horizon.88 The Astronomica also
lists the circles in a different order from the Phaenomena, and discusses
comets, meteors, different theories as to the origin of the universe, and
the Moon (Astronomica 1.809926). These topics are not covered in the
Phaenomena (where the Moon is discussed in the meteorological
weather signs section but not in the astronomical section).
In sum, there is a general similarity in the basic structure of the two

works. The size of their astronomical sections are approximately 500
lines each and they discuss largely the same topics in near the same order.
Beyond this basic similarity the two works differ widely in detail, with
the Astronomica providing substantially more information.
1.4.2.4 An Examination of the Individual Constellations

of the Phaenomena and the Astronomica
Both authors describe the navigational attributes of the Bears (Phaen.
351-444, Astron.1.294-304) Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, both of which
88
These astronomical circles are explained in Appendix A.
__________________
lie near the north celestial pole. In the modern era, Alpha Ursa Minor
(Polaris, the Pole star) is less than a degree from the north celestial pole,
providing a sure and easy means for identifying due north. In antiquity,
the north celestial pole was not found close to a bright star. It lay between
the constellations of Draco and Ursa Minor. The closest bright star was
Beta Ursa Minor (2nd magnitude), approximately 8 degrees from the
pole. The neighbouring constellation and mythological relative, the
brighter and larger constellation of Ursa Major, was further from the
north celestial pole (20 degrees). A navigator in antiquity, by locating
Ursa Minor, would find a reasonably accurate identifier of true north.
Conversely, locating Ursa Major, while a somewhat easier task (more so
around the time of the full Moon when the Moons brightness would dim
the light of the single bright star in Ursa Minor) would be a less sure
guide to true north.
In both the Phaenomena and the Astronomica Greek sailors are said to
use Helice (Ursa Major), the brighter, but less accurate constellation, as a
guide to north, while both works claimed that the Phoenicians used the
more accurate but fainter Cynosura (Ursa Minor). However, Manilius
refers to the Phoenicians by the term, Poeni, while Aratus uses the term
Sidonian. Aratus includes mythological lore with his description,
whereas Manilius does not. Similarities exist in both accounts but this
usage of the Bears must have been common knowledge in the ancient
world. It does not necessarily indicate a linkage between Aratus and
Manilius.
Aratus makes particular mention of a star in Virgo - Epsilon Virgo, (Phaen.

13740):89
__________________
13740):
Its name, associated with the vintage, may have been derived from its
heliacal rising occurring at the beginning of the grape-gathering season.90
Manilius, however, does not mention this star, probably due to its low
brightness. This suggests that Manilius was not following Aratus in this
instance.
Hydor
In lines 3958 Aratus refers to a minor constellation in the far southern
sky, which he names Hydor (Water). This constellation (which does not
exist today) and the area of sky are not described by Manilius. It may
have been a creation of Aratus, since the constellation is mentioned nowhere
else. The two stars forming the constellation may be Alpha and either
Beta or Gamma Phoenix.
Bestia (Lupus)
The constellation Lupus is small, far southern and faint. It is correctly
referred to and located by Aratus, Phaen. 441442:
89
Mairs (1921) Loeb edition 216 refers to line 138 as being suspect, rendering
any conclusion on this matter questionable.
90
Liddel & Scot (1940) s.v. , Burnham (1978) 2069. Vitruvius refers
to this star giving it this title, Vit. de Arc. 9.4.1.
__________________
Manilius does not refer to this constellation, although Goold hypothesises
that he confused it with the Cetus.91
Corona Australis
The constellation Corona Australis is small, far southern and faint. It is
briefly referred to by Aratus but not mentioned by Manilius, Phaenomena
399401
Eridanus
Both Aratus and Manilius include the large constellation Eridanus in their
catalogues, but Manilius refers simply to Flumina (1.440), while Aratus,
in line 360, refers to it as Eridanus.92 The two poets differ in description
of Eridanus. For Aratus the constellation begins at the foot of Orion and
ends in Cetus (359-66). For Manilius the constellation also begins at
Orions foot but intersects with a stream of water from Aquarius in the
constellation Piscis Notius (1.438-42). He refers to them as two rivers.
He does not make mention of Cetus. The two accounts clearly reflect
different origins.
Delphinus
Both works give the constellation Delphinus only four stars (Phaen. 316-8,
Astron. 5.713). Delphinus comprises five bright stars, not four. As Aratus
says, there are two pairs, side by side. There is also, however, a fifth star
(Epsilon Delphinus), as bright as the third brightest star of the two pairs
(Gamma Delphinus-3rd magnitude), lying 3 degrees to the south. Neither
Aratus nor Manilius mentions this star. It is possible, therefore, that Manilius
was following Aratus in this instance, or it could mean that this star was
91
Goold (1977) xxxxxxi, Mair (1921) 241 n. f.
92
Mair (1921) 234, n. e, states that Aratus was the first to use the name Eridanus
for the constellation.
__________________
not included in any ancient constellation. Although Ptolemy in his more
extensive catalogue of Northern Constellations, Almagest Book Eight,
includes ten stars in Delphinus including Epsilon Delphinus, it is possible,
that stars not in the central four were not included in the popular constellation
definition of Delphinus.
A major different between the two poets is found in their view of the
origin of constellations. Aratus (Phaen. 367-85) informs his readers that
the men of old formed the constellations out of those brighter stars which
had an order or pattern. This criterion left a number of ungrouped stars
(catasterisms) which are not part of any constellation. The passage also
states that the constellations were formed by humans (Phaen. 371-3).
Manilius, (Astron. 456-73) taking the view of Stoic predetermination,
describes the constellations without mention of catasterisms, nor are any
such listed in his catalogue. He also credits the formation of the
constellations to natura, and not to any human activity (Astron. 463-4).
This is one clear conceptual difference between the two works.93
1.4.2.5 An Examination of Religion in the Two Works

Both the Phaenomena and the Astronomica include references to the
traditional gods, but they differ markedly in attitudes to them. To Aratus,
Zeus is the King of the Gods and a major influence on human affairs
(principally expressed in the introductory lines at Phaenomena 118).
Zeus is described as the creator and prime source of the universe. This
attitude continues through the Phaenomena where Zeus and the gods are
given a central role.
93
Montanari (1993) 56-7., Kidd (1967).
__________________
In the Astronomica Manilius states clearly that Jupiter plays a lesser role
in the universe than the Stoic God. In Astronomica 1.66112, Manilius
traces the development of humanity, during the progression of which the
central importance of Jupiter gives way to Stoic reason. This is specifically
dealt with in lines 1.1035:
...solvitque animis miracula rerum

eripuitque Iovi fulmen viresque tonandi
et sonitum ventis concessit, nubibus ignem.
This should not be considered as disbelief in the gods.94 Manilius still

grants the traditional gods respect. Jupiter plays his part in traditional
religious beliefs, but in general the gods give way to Stoic fate. This is
best described in 1.90510, where human beings investigate the gods and
then continue past them to a knowledge of astrology:
saepe domi culpa est: nescimus credere caelo.

civilis etiam motus cognataque bella
significant. nec plura alias incendia mundus
sustinuit, quam cum ducibus iurata cruentis
arma Philippeos implerunt agmine campos
94
In the Astronomica Manilius clearly views the traditional gods as near irrelevant
to his Stoic universe. This raises the possibility that Manilius did not believe in the
gods and merely included them in the poem due to poetic and political motives. One
other rationale for inclusion is found in the Derveni papyrus. This is a fourth
century B.C. Macedonian cremation scroll. The papyrus contains both an account of
the traditional gods (Zeus, Rhea etc.) and a Presocratic cosmogony where a sole god
creates the universe and the original elements. These two seemingly contradictory
accounts are presented with no perceived concern for their incompatibility. The
classicist G. Most (1997) 122 argues that they are both true - but not in the same
way. At work is a religious form of doublethink. This text suggests that it was
possible to reconcile traditional beliefs and the cosmology of Greek science. Possibly
Manilius was working in this tradition.
__________________
Aratus and Manilius also possessed different views of human history.
Manilius depicted, at some length, his version of human prehistory
(1.66112). He saw human cultural evolution as a gradual and difficult
rise from ignorance and primitive lifestyle to the contemporary world of
navigation, agriculture and above all, astrology. Aratus puts forward an
opposing history of human society. The Phaenomena (96136) tells us
the story of the Golden and Silver Ages (similar to Hesiod), and lastly of
the Age of Bronze. From Aratus we learn that the human condition grew
worse with time, not better, since human beings had originally lived in an
idyllic world where the gods (or at least Virgo/Justice) lived among men,
but then men had moved to a more violent world with the invention of
bronze and swords. These differing accounts of human development reflect
very different outlooks on the world.
1.4.2.6 References in the Astronomica to the Phaenomena

There are three passages in the Astronomica which possibly derive from
the Phaenomena. In Astronomica 1.4013 Mt. Taurus is referred to as an
observation point for the heliacal rising of Sirius. Goold suggests that this
reference was a compliment to Aratus, who was a Cilician.95
hanc qui surgentem, primo cum redditur ortu,

montis ab excelso speculantur vertice Tauri,
eventus frugum varios et tempora discunt,
This explanation is possible, but there are other explanations, the most
likely of which is that Manilius was referring to a city in the region that
was prominent in the world of astrology. Cicero states that the city of
95
Goold (1977) 37 n. a. Manilius twice refers to Mt. Taurus in Book Four 623,
675.
__________________
Telmessus in Caria was noted for its interest in astrology (de Div. 1.91),
which lies on the border of the Taurus range of mountains.
In a later passage, where Manilius places himself in a line of authors

beginning with Homer, he makes a reference to other unnamed authors.
Goold believes Aratus is included in this list 2.257.96
astrorum quidam varias dixere figuras,

signaque diffuso passim labentia caelo
in proprium cuiusque genus causasque tulere;
This interpretation may be correct, and indeed, it would be surprising if

Manilius did not make some acknowledgement of Aratus, yet this is only
a minor reference and one made indirectly. By itself, it suggests that
Aratus did not have a strong influence on Manilius.
The last reference is a curious passage referring to the relative size of the
universe. Aratus (Phaen. 5413) tells us that the distance from the Earth
to the celestial sphere is one sixth the circumference of the sphere. Manilius
gives us the same information but goes into more detail and greater
length (1.53956). The only significant difference between the two accounts
is Manilius correct statement that Pi is slightly greater than three, a fact
not mentioned by Aratus. It is difficult to reach a conclusion as to the
worth of this last point. It has little real relevance to the text of either
work. It is, however, the clearest example of a specific similarity between
the two.
96
Goold (1977) 85 n. g.
__________________
1.4.2.7 Conclusion to Aratus
The astronomical sections of both works are similar, in that each provides
a descriptive account of the heavens of approximately the same length,
but beyond this there is little similarity.
The Astronomica is Stoic and astrological, where the Phaenomena, in its

astronomical section, takes a more secular approach. They differ in historical
orientation: the Phaenomena postulates a Golden Age, while the
Astronomica views the past as a painful struggle. The Phaenomena reveres
the gods, while the Astronomica displaces them in favour of Stoicism.
The two works differ in the layout, presentation and detail of their
constellation catalogues. The major difference, however, is their differing
accounts of astronomical knowledge. The Astronomica presents more
extensive and detailed information with regard to the planets and the
celestial circles, and, having had an additional two centuries of astronomical
progress to draw upon, Manilius seems to have made use of this new
knowledge.
__________________
1.4.3 Manilius Stoic Sources
Since it is clear that Manilius made little use of the Phaenomena as a
source, we should consider what other possible sources he used. From the
text it is clear that the poet follows the Stoic creed. His major departure
from pre-existing Stoicism is his subordination of all of its other aspects
to astrology. In this it is possible to detect a logical line of development
from early Stoicism. If fate does rule all and assuming that God does
grant human beings a measure of significance in the universe, then a
means of determining fate should exist.97 The question is, who did develop
astrology to the central place it enjoys in the Astronomica? Was it Manilius
or an earlier Stoic?
It is possible that Manilius rewrote, and even perhaps carried forward the
integration of Stoicism and astronomy and added his own perception to
the field of Stoic astrology. It should be noted that Manilius was the first
Roman Stoic astrologer of note, and that his work was written for a
Roman audience. In this area, if nowhere else, Manilius should be considered
an original figure in Stoicism. Much of the integration of astrology and
Stoicism is credited to Posidonius who may have been a significant source
for the Astronomica.98 In particular, Panaetius and Posidonius adapted
Stoicism to support the Roman State. Manilius does clearly follow this
model.99 There are two specific sections of his Stoic thought that can be
attributed to other Stoics. The cosmological model used in the Astronomica
(1.14972 et al.) is identical with the model attributed to Chrysippus.100
97
Cic. de div. 1.82-3, see Long & Sedley 264-5 for a discussion of this point.
98
Sikes (1923) 174.
99
This point is discussed by Francis (1995) 4ff. Francis suggests that Panaetius
was the first Stoic figure to use Stoicism to support the Roman State. Erskine (1990)
192ff. suggests that Posidonius not only continued Panaetius Stoic support of Rome
but added to it. This is a cause for considering Panaetius and Posidonius as sources for
Manilius.
__________________
Also, many Stoics believed in a universe of periodic renewal in which
fire first destroys and then recreates the cosmos,101 but Manilius does not
state this view, and in fact he suggests the opposite. In this he was
following in the footsteps of four divergent Stoic figures: Zeno of Tarsus,
Diogenes of Babylon, Boethus of Sidon and Panaetius,102 who disagreed
with the mainstream view of the universe and suggested that the universe
was fixed.
From this brief consideration of Manilius Stoic beliefs, it is clear that he

used a range of possible sources and that he modified their beliefs to suit
himself and his audience.
100
Hahm (1977) 57ff reconstructs Chrysippus cosmology.
101
Manilius does not mention this aspect of cosmology in his major description of
Stoic cosmology (1.14972), nor does he discuss the ultimate fate of the universe in
any detail elsewhere.
102
Cicero de Div. 2.8597 and Diog. Laer. 7.142, cf. Sandbach (1975) 79.
__________________
1.4.4 Manilius Astrological Sources
The second major concern of Manilius work was astrology, and it comprises
the single largest section of the Astronomica. In composing this presentation
Manilius clearly called upon a wide variety of sources. In the astrological
Books (TwoFive), there are four major astrological theories detailed,
each different from the others, with each presented with a number of
variants. Each Book also contains snippets of other astrological theories.
The identifying theme of all of these is their reliance on the zodiac and
not the planets as major source of prediction. Manilius evidently chose to
relegate the planets to a secondary role in his astrological beliefs.
Very little is known of the history of astrology. The presence of these

different astrological theories suggests that there were different schools
of astrology which Manilius freely used. It is also possible to deduce,
from the evidence in the Astronomica, that there was a major division of
astrology into that based upon the zodiac and that upon the planets.103 This
former category is further divided into at least the four major divisions
recorded by Manilius.
There is, however, a source for one procedure. In Book Three Manilius
presents seven formulae that describe how to calculate the sign of the
zodiac rising at a particular time. The details of these formulae suggest a
Babylonian origin. This in turn suggests a reliance of astrology upon
earlier and simpler formulae (discussed in Chapter Six).
One significant astrological feature in the Astronomica is the use of the

103
This differs from most other astrologers who gave the planets a higher degree of
astrological importance. Ptolemy Tet. 2.8.55ff outlines the central importance of the
planets in his astrology. Sextus Empiricus Ad. Ast. 5 lists their significance, in
particular, and throughout his entire critique of astrology.
__________________
Hipparchian (mid-second century) astronomical magnitude system in an
astrologically adapted form (5.7107). The author of this adaptation is
unknown but its existence provides a strong argument for the reliance of
Greek and Roman astrology on astronomy. This passage suggests that
there was a significant body of astrological literature extant in Manilius
time, little of which has survived. The importance of these lines is discussed
in thesis section 3.6.
1.4.5 Manilius Astronomical Sources

The astronomical sources of the Astronomica were as varied as the
astrological. In the Sphaera of Book One Manilius takes cognisance of
several different sources. In the account of the celestial circles, two
indications of source material emerge (1.539-804). In a unique reference
in the Astronomica, a sexagesimal degree system is used to delineate the
separation of the various circles. Elsewhere, for other purposes, a 360
degree system is used (e.g. Book Threes horoscope formulae), which
suggests a source in the era of Eudoxus or later. There is also the number
of circles in the text, a full set of eleven, which suggests a date from the
mid-fourth century (cf. thesis section 3.3). In the last lines of Book One
the poet provides a garbled account of meteors and comets (1.809-926).
The style of this section is markedly different from that of the celestial
circles. It is in a mythical style while the circles are described in a
scientific manner.
There is one negative piece of information that guides us to Manilius

sources. He denies the existence of the Precession of the Equinoxes (the
slow and continual movement of the stars around their fundamental
reference points). This was a discovery made by the astronomer Hipparchus,
__________________
but Manilius, writing over a century after Hipparchus, refers to the stars
as being fixed (1.27584). This suggests that Manilius was not interested
in the mathematical science of astronomy nor in the complexities that
contradicted his own view of the heavens. Manilius probably relied on
popular publications on astronomy.
Book Three is an almost exclusive discussion (3.43509) of astrological

procedures which originate from Babylonian sources (discussed in full in
chapter Six). These procedures are clearly different from those found in
the other astrological Books. In a similar fashion the paranatellonta of
Book Five (5.32709) is a simpler form of astrology than found in the
other astrological Books. This, once again, suggests a Babylonian origin.
The Planets are one astronomical topic in which Manilius displays even
less than average interest, and he merely lists the five visible planets and
the Sun and Moon in correct sidereal order (the length of their orbit
around the Sun). All that can be said is that this reflects a source later
than the fourth century when a clear understanding of planetary sidereal
order emerged in the Greek world
There are a number of minor references to sources that confirm the wide
range of works consulted by Manilius. In 1.539-56 the poet makes a
passing reference to Euclids geometry (cf. thesis section 3.2.2). In 1.408
there is a possible reference to Aristarchus (cf. thesis section 3.2.4). In his
constellation catalogue (1.255-531) Manilius omits several minor
constellations not created till later than the 3rd century B.C. (cf. thesis
section 3.4.3)
Last within the topic of the sources for Manilius astronomy is the colour
__________________
of the star Sirius. A number of ancient authors (Homer, Cicero, Seneca
and Ptolemy) refer to the star Sirius as being red in colour. In the modern
world Sirius is blue/white, and, according to stellar theory, this should
have been its colour 2,000 years ago. In the Astronomica Manilius states
that Sirius colour is blue/white. This suggests the possibility that the
other authors were incorrect and that Manilius preserves the correct
tradition. This indicates that he did produce some of his own observations
(see Chapter Four for a discussion of this question).
1.4.6 Conclusion
It is clear that Manilius did not rely on a single source for his poem. He
had at his fingertips a wide variety of material from the ancient world that
he examined, selected and modified to suit his goals. He relied upon a
smorgasbord of sources, which, with the exception of those on Stoicism,
he assembled into one work with little attempt at reconciliation. This
demonstrates that Manilius was, to a large extent, original in his own
work. He used the material of earlier authors but he constructed his own
version of Stoicism.
______________________
A History of Astronomy and Astrology 72
2. Chapter Two: Manilius and His Intellectual
Environment
2.1 A History of Astronomy & Astrology104
2.1.1 Introduction
My purpose here is to provide an overview of the development of astronomy
and astrology in the Greek and Roman world. This will assist in placing
the Astronomica in its cultural milieu as well as providing a basis for an
investigation of Manilius views. The two subjects, astronomy and
astrology, share a closely related history in terms of the range of theories
as to their origins, primacy and rates of development. I take the view that
the Greek science of mathematical astronomy was based upon a pre-existing
body of Babylonian astrological knowledge,105 and that Greek and Roman
astrology, such as is found in the Astronomica, was in turn, built upon a
combination of Babylonian astrology and Greek astronomy.
2.1.2 The Astronomy of the Greeks

The Greeks began their investigation of the heavens with at least some of
the astronomical knowledge of Mesopotamia and Egypt.106 They used
that knowledge and their own research to create a theoretical basis for
astronomy over the course of classical civilisation.
104
A number of astronomical terms are used in this section. They are defined in
Appendix A.
105
Dicks (1970) discusses this assumption in chapter 2, Homer and Hesiod as well
as specific examples e.g. 146.
______________________
The Greek poets Homer and Hesiod were the first to incorporate
astronomical material in their works. In Iliad 18.4839 Homer describes
the heavens depicted on Achilles shield. The Earth is surrounded by
water with the stars supported by pillars, several stars and constellations
are named (Sirius, Pleiades and others). Homer makes no suggestion that
the heavens as such controlled human destiny, which is left to the gods
and fate.
Hesiods Works and Days is a didactic treatise on farming which makes

use of astronomical phenomena to guide the farmer in the agricultural
activities required over the course of the year.107 A slightly higher level of
astronomical knowledge is found in the Works and Days than in Homer,108
which may reflect nothing more than the different goals of the two works.
Hesiod includes no suggestion of astrology, nor does he discuss the the
divinity of the heavens, nor offer a theoretical basis for astronomy. Astrology
seems not to have been a potent force in this period.
The first stage of Greek scientific research into the heavens is believed to
have been carried out in Ionia and southern Italy in the sixth century B.C.
by a number of Greek philosophers known as the pre-Socratics.
Unfortunately, little hard evidence exists of their work. The first of these
philosophers were Thales,109 Anaximander and Anaximenes. The little
that can be gleaned about this period from the extant sources reveals only
106
There is sufficient evidence to posit the fact of Babylonian influence, but, the
details of this influence, its date and ultimate importance to the origins of Greek
astronomy is unclear. Barton (1994-2) 21 summarises two pieces of evidence;
first, that Hesiod includes Babylonian myths in his Theogony and second, that the
attempt to reform the calendar of Athens in 432 B.C. relied on Babylonian methods.
Neugebauer (1975) 589614 lists other possible influences of Babylonian astronomy
on its Greek counterpart: the sexagesimal system, time reckoning, a 360 degree
circle, the zodiac and numerical parameters (e.g. 30 degrees per zodiac constellation).
107
Pannekoek (1961) 95.
108
Dicks (1970) 34.
______________________
a basic level of astronomical knowledge.110 The major achievement of
this period was the continuation of the belief in a secular heaven in
which rational explanations for celestial phenomena are explored. In this
pre-Socratic era there was still no hint of astrology, and while the heavenly
bodies themselves may have been considered divine, individuals such as
Anaxagoras challenged even this belief by stating that the Sun and Moon
were not gods but merely stones.111
109
According to Dicks (1966) 37, the story by Herodotus (9.74.2) that Thales
predicted a solar eclipse (585 B.C.) is false. He bases his argument on the fact that
the prediction of the occurrence and even more so the path of visibility of a solar
eclipse are the most difficult of astronomical calculations. He believes that the level
of astronomical knowledge at that time was woefully inadequate in its dealing with
celestial mechanics and that it was not until the time of Hipparchus that such a
calculation could have been reliably made. The opposite case, that it would have been
possible for Thales to have predicted the eclipse is made by Russell 44 and assumes
that Thales relied upon Babylonian deduction of repetitive patterns of eclipses. The
answer to this question probably lies between the two extremes. Thales may have
learnt of Babylonian solar eclipse observations via Lydia. He then reexamined the
evidence and made a number of predictions. One of these predictions came true thus
granting him his reputation as an eclipse predictor.
110
A summary of the major figures and their credited theories follows:
Thales of Miletus (c. 624c. 547 B.C.), one of the wise men of Greece. He considered
that water was the first principle and that the Earth was a flat disk which floated on
the water. Anaximander (c. 611c. 546 B.C.) posited a cylindrical Earth floating in
space. Anaximenes (c. 585c. 526 B.C.) had a universe with the Earth and the Sun
and Moon shaped as a flat disks, on which the stars floated. Xenophanes (c. 570c.
480 B.C.) believed that the Sun formed anew each day. Pythagoras (c. 580c. 500
B.C.) founded the Pythagorean school, created a spherical Earth, knew of the obliquity
of the equinox and the path of planets. Heraclitus of Ephesus (c 500 B.C.) believed
that the Sun was a burning mass that was renewed and extinguished each day. Anaxagoras
of Clazomenae (c. 500c. 428 ) believed that the celestial bodies were not divine,
that the moon shone by the Suns light and saw the Earth as a cylinder. Empedocles of
Agrigentum (c. 494c. 434 B.C.) was the developer of the belief in four elements.
111
Diog. Laer. 2.112. Diogenes Laertius was a third Century A.D. compiler of Greek
philosophies and philosophers. His work, while late, does contain a great deal of
material. Book Two is the principal source for the biography of Anaxagoras. Diogenes
preserves several accounts of Anaxagoras actions and beliefs, and suggests that
Anaxagoras saw a meteor fall to Earth, which led him to develop a theory that the
celestial bodies were all merely physical and that the Sun was composed of glowing
iron.
______________________
By the end of this period the beginnings of scientific astronomy had
developed: the geo-centric model of the universe and a belief in an initial
element, fire, from which the other elements originated.112 What is not
found by the end of the pre-Socratic period is the use of detailed
observational evidence nor of mathematics to analyse the heavens.113
2.1.3 The Fourth Century

A turning point in Greek astronomy was reached in the fourth century
when the knowledge of the previous period was combined with a coherent
mathematical basis. The century begins with a clearer understanding of
astronomy. Plato, even though he was not an astronomer, discussed
astronomy in his philosophical works, giving us the earliest comprehensive
and datable account of Greek astronomy. He affirmed that the universe
was geo-centric in nature.114 Aristotle continued the discussion. His works,
while not primarily astronomical, contain a great deal of background
information derived primarily from Plato, thus also founded upon a
spherical, geo-centric universe.115
The astronomer who gave this model its mathematical basis was Eudoxus
112
Dicks (1970) 3961 and Samuel (1972) 25 discuss fifth-century Greek astronomy
and conclude that, by the end of the fifth century, the geo-centric model of the
universe was fully accepted.
113
The level of astronomical knowledge in this period is a matter of some dispute.
Dicks (1966) argues that a rigorous form of mathematical astronomy did not occur
until as late as the Hellenistic period. The alternative view is that, while it is correct
that scientific astronomy did not exist until later in Greek history, it is possible that
an intuitive form of astronomy, in which concepts are understood not by mathematics
but by speculation, existed at an earlier date. This latter view is championed by Kahn
(1970).
114
Plato was not overly concerned with astronomy, nor with the physical sciences,
yet his works do contain references to astronomical concepts. These are found in the
Timaeus 3039 and the Republic 529. In this latter work Plato stated that astronomers
should not concern themselves with the visible universe but seek the true mathematical
nature behind it.
______________________
of Cnidus (c. 390340 B.C.). He created the first mathematical model of
planetary motion, which changed astronomy from a descriptive field into
the beginnings of a rigorous science. The model Eudoxus designed had
the stars and planets attached to and rotating upon spheres.116 While this
concept was mathematically valid, it clearly did not place great importance
on observational evidence, and it could not accurately predict planetary
motion. Irrespective of its faults, the scientific astronomy of the ancient
world had begun.
2.1.4 The Hellenistic Period

The conquests of Alexander exposed Greek science to the accumulated
observational data and traditions of the Babylonians. This provided an
impetus to Greek science, which made great strides in all fields between
the time of Alexander and the Roman conquest. The earliest astronomical
and mathematical figure of this period was Aristarchus of Samos (c.
310230 B.C.), who apparently published several major works on
astronomy, of which only one survives: On the Sizes and Distances of the
Sun and Moon. His major achievement was to suggest a helio-centric
universe with the Earth, the planets and the stars circling the Sun. This
innovative hypothesis was not generally accepted and was only rarely
mentioned in later literature.117
115
Aristotles major contribution to astronomy was not his astronomical publications
but his creation of a scientific method. His formalisation of logic and its use provided
a basis for rigorous analysis of astronomical data by his successors. See Schenk
34259. Aristotles astronomical works include de Caelo (primarily Book Two),
and Metaphysics, Book Eight.
116
The ever-changing path of the planets was explained by the continuous movement
of planets between different spheres. This model is preserved in two works, in
Aristotles own Metaphysics l 8, and in a longer version by Simplicius Comm. on de
Caelo. 492.31ff. Pannekoek (1961) 109 provides a modern summary of this system;
cf. Neugebauer (1975) 67589.
117
Seneca NQ. 7.2.3. Thomas (1971) 2-5, Loeb translation discusses this point. Also
see Heath (1921) for a detailed discussion of Aristarchus and his work.
______________________
Another major figure of this period was Eratosthenes of Samos (c. 275194
B.C.), head of the Alexandrian Library and author of a number of texts on
a wide range of topics. His major astronomical achievement was the
determination of the size of the Earth and a measurement of the obliquity
of the equinox.118 In this, he continued the tradition of Eudoxus in relying
on mathematics to analyse phenomena.
The greatest astronomer of antiquity was Hipparchus of Samos (c. 190126

B.C.), whose most important discovery was the precession of the
equinoxes. He is also credited (based largely upon evidence in Ptolemys
Almagest119) with: creating the first positional stellar catalogue, improving
the epicycle theory of planetary motion, proposing a theory of the motion
of the Sun, Moon and Earth system and incorporating the astronomical
observations of the Babylonians into his research.
The last prominent astronomer of antiquity was Ptolemy Claudius

(midsecond century A.D.). He wrote thirteen books on astronomy known
collectively as the Almagest which work was preserved in the Medieval
and Arabic worlds and was considered the definitive text on astronomy.
The Almagest includes virtually all of the astronomical knowledge of the
ancient world, containing sections on: planetary motion, the Sun, Moon
and Planets, eclipses, instruments, calculations for the rising and setting
of stars and a stellar catalogue. There is some debate as to whether Ptolemys
work is original scholarship which incorporates some observations by
earlier astronomers, or whether it is a plagiarised account of the work of
earlier astronomers.120 Irrespective of the answer to this question, the
Almagest is the major source of classical astronomical knowledge. Unlike
118
Neugebauer (1975) 660, 304f., 734.
119
Alm. 7.3.
______________________
earlier Greek astronomers Ptolemy was interested in astrology. This passion
prompted him to write the Tetrabiblos, a four-book work on astrology,
the opening lines of which suggest that he considered the Almagest as a
mere introduction to this work. This, in turn, suggests that Ptolemy
considered himself more an astrologer than an astronomer.
2.1.5 The Astrology of the Greeks and Romans

There is no evidence for astrological belief in Greece prior to Alexander.
There was always a perception that the celestial bodies were divine, but
this did not translate into a belief that they affected the Earth.121 This
situation changed, however, after contact with the east, and a concept
emerged of a form of sympathy between the heavens and the Earth.122
This was seized upon by the Stoics in the third century (or possibly later)
who made it a major part of their doctrine.123
The degree to which Babylonian astrology influenced the Greeks is a

matter of debate. It is certain that at least part of Babylonian sky-lore was
incorporated into the Western tradition, but only a few names and a small
number of fragments have been associated with this transmission,124 so
120
Ptolemys position in the history of Astronomy is unclear. The belief that Ptolemy
fabricated his observations is discussed in the work of the astrophysicist Robert
Newton (1977). The alternative view, that Ptolemy was a researcher of high standards
and originality, is also held and promulgated by a number of authors. An excellent
article that argues this case is by Riley (1995) 22150.
121
Neugebauer (1975) 202-3 suggests that astrology did not gain prominence in the
Greek world until c. 200 B.C.
122
Cicero records that Eudoxus strongly criticised astrology and Babylonian astrologers
(de Div. 2.87).
123
The belief that astrology was rapidly incorporated into Stoicism is argued by Sikes
(1923) 173 who states that Stoicism was easy prey to the influence of astrology
and suggests an early adoption by the Stoics of astrological doctrine. Cumont (1912)
401 also suggests that Stoicism rapidly adopted Babylonian astrology into its
philosophy. Barton (1994-1) 34 & 37 counters this view and argues that only in
the middle of the second century was there strong Stoic interest in astrology.
______________________
there is insufficient evidence to draw-up a history of this process.
Essentially, less is known of astrology than of astronomy in the period
after Alexander. This may be attributed to the innate secrecy of astrological
procedures and the reservations the Greeks seem to have had concerning
this field. Only in the Roman period does a clearer picture of astrological
doctrine emerge.125
Astrology seems to have been introduced into Italy by the Greeks in the
second century B.C.126 Presumably it centred on Rome because of the
increasing interest of upper-class Romans in Greek culture and the
increasing number of Greeks who came to Rome as captives and teachers.127
The first prominent Roman astrologers of whom we possess definite
knowledge were Tarutius of Firmium and Publius Nigidius Figulus, both
contemporaries of Cicero.128 From this we can conclude that Roman
astrology did not come into its own until the first century B.C.
124
Democritus of Abdera third century B.C., Berossus of Cos first century B.C.,
Sudines of Babylon first century B.C. Barton (1994) chapter Two examines this
period of astrological history.
125
Barton (1994-1) 301.
126
The beginnings of Roman astrology can be dated to the late third century when the
author Ennius referred to astrologi (cf. Cic. de Re Publica, 1.18.30). A reference by
Cato the Censor suggests that astrology was prevalent at some levels of society in the
mid-second century, since he advised that an overseer should not consult an astrologer
(de Agri Cultura 1.5.4). Valerius Maximus (1.3.3) recounts the first expulsion of
astrologers from Rome in 139 B.C. These were probably non-Romans who practised
in Rome.
127
Shackleton Bailey (1979) offers an alternative translation and meaning to Goolds
interpretation of 1.512, fatis Asiae iam Graecia pressa est. Goold ad loc. suggests that
this merely means that Greece had been displaced as the ruler of the world, as Asia
had been. Shackleton Baileys interpretation places greater emphasis on Romes destiny.
First Asia (Babylonia) gained primacy in astrology, then Asia gave way to Greece,
and now Rome in turn takes over the mantle of astrology from Greece. As Manilius
carries the flame of astrology to Rome, he places his work at the centre of Roman
social thought and progress. Shackleton Baileys translation seems more in sympathy
with Manilius underlying argument.
128
Suet. Aug. 94.5, cf. Barton (1994) 37.
______________________
The development of astrology is a long and largely unknown process.129
Until the time of Augustus we possess no definite record as to the details
of astrological formulae. It is certain that astrology was popular in the
Imperial period, with all classes of society using it and other forms of
divination to foretell the future, and significant numbers of astrologers
prowled the streets of Rome and the major cities of the Empire.130
Augustus apparently made use of astrology, his own destiny being allegedly
predicted early in his life,131 and it was late in the Augustan period that
Manilius began the Astronomica. The link between the Imperial government
and astrology continued with Tiberius who possessed the first recorded
court astrologer, Thrasyllus.132 Later emperors continued this tradition
129
The growth in appeal of astrology to the Romans may be attributed to a number of
causes. Barton (19942) 33, 38 argues that it played an important part in Roman
culture in the Imperial period to the extent that it became an intrinsic feature of
Roman society. She attributes this rise in importance to the growth in influence of
individuals such as Sulla and Caesar in the first century. This would presumably be
in contrast to the traditional divination of the Republic that concerned itself with the
fate of the State and not the individual. Plutarch recorded the use of astrology by
prominent Romans in the last century of the Republic: e.g. Marius 42.45, Sulla
37.1. Watson (1992) 60 argues that the official religion of Rome was barren in
that it provided little guidance to individuals, being concerned with affairs of State.
This left the Roman populace open to the influence of foreign religions in times of
trouble. Jones (1992) 83ff. suggests that Augustus preferred Stoicism to its rival
Epicureanism. I would suggest in addition that the uncertainty caused by the civil
wars of the first century as well as a growing appreciation of Greek culture (in
particular Stoicism) also contributed to the rise of astrology.
130
MacMullan (1967) 1378 suggests that the ordinary people had access to unskilled
mathematici in the streets of Rome while the better class of astrologer was available
only to those who could afford their services.
131
Suet. Aug. 94.5. Barton (19942) 54 argues that Augustus made astrology one of
the foundations of his government in a fashion similar to Constantines adoption of
Christianity.
132
Tacitus Ann. 6.21 describes the significant influence that Thrasyllus had with
Tiberius. Thrasyllus would have provided a model for all aspiring astrologers. He
was plucked from relative obscurity, became an intimate of the emperor and then his
family remained prominent in Imperial circles for several generations. For a further
discussion of Tiberius and Thrasyllus see Levick (1976) 18, Barton (1994-1)
43-4 and Kaplan 43-9.
______________________
while displaying various degrees of credence to the art.133
Astrology was a two-edged sword due to its perceived ability both to

support and to harm the reigning emperor. It was possible for one astrologer
to assist the emperor by adding astrological lustre to his rule, while another
was aiding his opponents by predicting the emperors mortality and naming
his successor.134 At various moments of instability the emperors felt it
necessary to expel astrologers from Rome.135 These expulsions were perhaps
not always too severe and often included not just astrologers but also
philosophers, magicians and mathematicians. These practitioners may,
after a safe period of time, have returned to Rome. This dilemma, the
usage of astrologers by both emperors and their enemies, appears to have
been the problem facing Tiberius in A.D. 16 with the assassination plot of
Libo Drusus136 and the trial of Aemilia Lepida in A.D. 20 on the charge
of consulting astrologers concerning the imperial house.137 Tiberius resolved
133
On astrology under the later Empire see Barton (1994-1) 44-9.
134
In A.D. 11 the casting of astrological predictions to determine a persons longevity
was forbidden by Augustus (Dio Cass. 56.25.5). The emperor Domitian is recorded as
having cast the horoscopes of prominent men so that those whose futures indicated the
possibility of attaining the purple could be executed (Dio Cass. 67.15.6).
A description of the role of astrologers in the Roman government occurs in Tacitus
Hist. 1.22 where Tacitus alleges that astrologers urged Otho to revolt (...quod in
civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur). Astrologers seem to have gained
influence in periods of social unrest. MacMullen (1967) 131ff. argues that all
emperors had an ambiguous relationship with astrologers, alternatively using them
to bolster their rule and then avoiding the undesirable consequences of their predictions.
135
Prior to the Imperial period, but illustrative of the potential of astrological
prediction in times of difficulty, is the Sicilian slave revolt of Athenion who was
described as an astrologer and who predicted his own victory and inspired his followers
with this prediction, (Diod. Sic. 36.5). During the Imperial period, Augustus destroyed
copies of works on divination (Suet. Aug. 31.1). MacMullan (1967) 134 lists a
dozen trials in the first century concerning the use of astrology by prominent figures
who sought details of the emperors destiny. Astrologers are known to have been
expelled from Rome in the years: 139 B.C., 30 B.C., A.D. 16, A.D. 52 and A.D. 69,
also in the reign of Domitian and Marcus Aurelius.
136
Tac. Ann. 2.27-32, cf. Barton (1994-1) 44.
137
Tac. Ann. 3.22-3.
______________________
this situation by evicting all astrologers, bar his own.
It was in this period that Manilius wrote the Astronomica, a work clearly
intended for the elite. The Astronomica is careful to praise Rome, the
Imperial system, Augustus and Tiberius. Manilius astrology is similarly
cautious. He refers to fate granting Rome its place in the world but gives
no specific examples of contemporary horoscopes. He provides a number
of different astrological formulae but does not state precisely how they
are to be used. In the Astronomica we find a poet who carefully seeks to
demonstrate the usefulness of astrology to the existing political system
and dynasty without threatening it in anyway.
______________________
The Beliefs and Personality of Manilius 83
2.2 The Beliefs and Personality of Manilius
2.2.1 Introduction
The Astronomica contains virtually no autobiographical information. There
are only a few scattered, indirect references to the poet. The major clues
to Manilius personality and beliefs are the attitudes expressed in the text
of the poem. These clues, and the Astronomica itself, do make possible a
number of broad statements about the poets nature, character and
circumstance. I am aware of the difficulties and controversies surrounding
the analysis of poets and their work. In this section of my thesis I do not
wish to add to this literary debate, rather to draw what may seem obvious
conclusions from my understanding of the work.
2.2.2 Personality
The clearest indication we have of Manilius personality lies in his
dedication to his task. Whatever its failings, the Astronomica is a complex
work showing a wide-ranging knowledge of Stoicism, astrology and
astronomy. It would have required a great deal of time and commitment
to write.138 This indicates the strength of Manilius passionate belief in
Stoicism and astrology, to him, the pinnacles of human achievement.139
On a more prosaic question Manilius must have had sufficient time and
resources to devote himself to the lengthy task of composing the
Astronomica, which suggests that he may have been from a well to do
138
Horaces account of the life and dedication of a poet would be in agreement with
Manilius view (Ep. 2.1.126). Quinn (1979) 127 states that didactic poetry had
become popular in Manilius era and refers, somewhat unflatteringly, to the dilettante
poet.
139
e.g. 2.105136.
______________________
family,140 and from his name it would seem that he was of Italian/Roman
stock.141
Manilius regards his work as of great and unique worth. In his opening
lines the poet states that he follows two goals, his theme and his poetry
(1.204). He not only regards his message as important but also its
medium.142 Book Two begins with a line of descent from Homer and
Hesiod, but this catalogue is used to demonstrate that Manilius is better
than his predecessors (2.127). He places himself in a catalogue of poets,
not of philosophers. He describes himself as a teacher of humanity and
adopts a didactic tone throughout his work. He even goes so far as to
explain his didactic method (2.75187).
The one reference of a purely personal nature occurs in 1.1137. Here

Manilius asks for a long life to allow him to complete his task. Goold
believes that Manilius therefore was no more than middle-aged at the
time of composing Book One.143 Though this is conceivable, another
interpretation is that Manilius was well past middle-age and asking for
enough time to complete the Astronomica. We can say no more than the
poet was at least middle-aged c. A.D. 14, thus born perhaps c. 30 B.C.
140
There is no suggestion of a patron in the Astronomica, nor of an interlocutor.
141
cf. Goold (1977) xii-xiii. Pliny Nat. Hist. 35.199 refers to a Manilius Antiochus
as the founder of astrology in Rome. Rackman (1968), in a footnote to his Loeb
translation of Pliny (408, n. b), states that Manilius was Probably father or
grandfather of Manilius who wrote the extant Astronomica. This statement is made
without any supporting documentation. We have no evidence of our Manilius ancestry
or any reliable indication of his origin. The Prosopographia Imperii Romani 155
entry for our Manilius states that nothing, apart from his composition of the
Astronomica, is known of his life.
142
As Quinn (1979) 123-4 suggests, didactic poets saw their work not merely as a
source of information but as works of literature.
143
Goold (1977) xii.
______________________
From his use of Greek astronomical information, we can assume that
Manilius was conversant with Greek, perhaps more so than would be
common even amongst upper-class Romans. It is possible that Manilius
was part of a small group of intellectuals, possibly headed by Thrasyllus,
who were close to the Julio-Claudian court. As Goold suggests, Manilius
may have been part of a Greek professorial circle at Rome.144
There is one other possible clue to Manilius identity. In 4.15261 (in

particular 4.15860) Manilius refers to those born under Gemini as poets
and astrologers:
Mollius e Geminis studium est et mitior aetas

per varios cantus modulataque vocibus ora
et gracilis calamos et nervis insita verba
ingenitumque sonum: labor est etiam ipse voluptas.
arma procul lituosque volunt tristemque senectam,
otia et aeternam peragunt in amore iuventam.
inveniunt et in astra vias numerisque modisque
consummant orbem postque ipsos sidera linquunt:
natura ingenio minor est perque omnia servit.
in tot fecundi Gemini commenta feruntur.
It is entirely possible that Manilius considered Gemini to be the abode of

astrologers (and poets) as it was his sign.
2.2.3 The Imperial System

Manilius refers to the Roman world and its rulers a number of times,
144
id. (1961).
______________________
invariably in a laudatory manner. In 1.79, Manilius makes his first mention
of Caesar
hunc mihi tu, Caesar, patriae princepsque paterque,

qui regis augustis parentem legibus orbem
concessumque patri mundum deus ipse mereris,
In this Manilius may be compared to Virgil who dedicates his Georgics

to Augustus.145 Manilius shows his support for the Imperial regime,146 and
praises it repeatedly throughout the Astronomica. The Roman Empire is
praised not merely because it is a desirable goal, but because Stoicism
requires its existence.The Roman State is fated, as is everything else.
Manilius illustrates this by using the hierarchy of faint and bright stars as
a simile for the social hierarchy present in Roman society 5.7349:147
145
Georg. 24ff.
146
The format of these references changes but the central message is clear. Manilius
refers to Augustus and the Imperial system both directly and indirectly in the course
of his work. A summary is included here:
1.710 Introduction and dedication to Augustus.
1.3856 The major difference between the unseen southern world
and the northern is Augustus.
1.7989 Julius Caesar has a divine nature.
1.8001 Augustus has a divine nature.
1.9226 Augustus brought peace.
4.54752 Libra is the sign of the emperor.
4.76377 Rhodes, Libra and (indirectly) Tiberius.
4.935 Augustus as ruler of heaven.
5.509 Augustus as giver of gold to temples.
Ovid Ex Pont. praises the imperial family in a similar fashion, e.g. 4.6.17 and
4.9.131-4 where he refers to Augustus deification and 4.9.39-54. where Ovid
describes the consul offering thanks to the Caesars.
147
These lines clearly refer to the Roman State, but, they make no mention of the
emperor. It is possible that, as Augustus restored the Republic, there was no need
nor place for him in this list of the Roman hierarchy. His presence was implied and
known to all.
______________________
utque per ingentis populus discribitur urbes,
principiumque patres retinent et proximum equester
ordo locum, populumque equiti populoque subire
vulgus iners videas et iam sine nomine turbam,
sic etiam magno quaedam res publica mundo est
quam natura facit, quae caelo condidit urbem
Manilius also uses astrology to prove that human nature is intrinsically

evil, justifying the presence of a strong ruler who can prevent the anarchy
that is always waiting to emerge (2.579607). This is a sublimated theme
in the dedicatory lines of Book One, where Manilius praises Augustus for
bringing peace, since only in times of peace is a work such as his possible
(1.13; hoc sub pace vacat tantum ...). 148
In the closing lines of Book One, Manilius also asks fate for a continued
cessation of wars and indirectly praises Augustus for this achievement,
1.9226:
148
There is a belief that there was a Republican movement of Stoics in the early
Empire (Jocelyn (1977) 3267). Brunt (1975) 735 discusses the history of the
Stoics during the principate at some length. He finds a somewhat ambivalent relationship
between the two. He states that Cato the Youngers life was a model for Stoics such as
Seneca and that a purge of Stoics occurred under Nero (Manilius 4.87 refers to Cato
favourably). Evidently there was no one Stoic view of the Empire. Individuals found
their own version of Stoicism.
A somewhat critical statement concerning the pro-Imperial nature of Roman Stoicism
is made by Arnold (1911) 303 who states that after Panaetius and his successors,
The daring moral theories and bold paradoxes of the founders of Stoicism tend to
disappear from sight and are replaced by shrewd good sense and worldly wisdom: in
short by the doctrine of making the best of both worlds.
______________________
...iam bella quiescant
atque adamanteis discordia vincta catenis
aeternos habeat frenos in carcere clausa;
sit pater invictus patriae, sit Roma sub illo,
cumque deum caelo dederit non quaerat in orbe.
Such an attitude towards Augustus is not surprising. Those who grew to

maturity during or at the end of the civil wars (Manilius was possibly a
generation younger than Augustus) would appreciate the stability and
security of the Augustan achievement.149 This conclusion does make
possible one further interpretation of Manilius attitude to the regime. It is
clear that he held Augustus and his system in high regard, but the text
also indicates that support of the State was not Manilius ultimate goal.
Manilius reserves his most ardent and direct homage of Augustus for
Book One. Then Manilius begins his true work, expounding Stoic destiny.
From here, the frequency and magnitude of the references to the Imperial
system decrease.150 This suggests that Manilius, grateful as he was, saw
the Augustan era as merely the historical epoch which allowed him to
expound Stoicism.
2.2.4 Manilius as an Observer of the Heavens

Both modern and medieval astrologers relied more on tables and charts
than on actual observations of the heavens for their calculations. This
separation of observation from prediction is a natural consequence of a
highly ritualised style of astrology that did not rely exclusively on the
actual appearance of the heavens but used the heavens as a starting point
149
Praise of Augustus is found in every major work of this period, Sikes 88ff.
150
Domenicucci (1993) 222 comments on the less than expected number of references
to the divine aspects of the Imperial family.
______________________
for the subtle calculations based around astrological concepts such as the
athla described in chapter Six. The astrological theories outlined in Books
Two to Five could be implemented without actual observation, using data
derived from charts of the heavens and tables of phenomena.151
There is evidence in the Astronomica, however, that Manilius did observe

the heavens. Manilius was not primarily an astrologer, but a Stoic. As he
believed that the heavens were divine, an interest in their actual appearance
might have resulted from his philosophy. The first example of Manilius
observational interest is his discussion of the dimming effect of a full
Moon 1.46973:
praecipue, medio cum luna implebitur orbe,

certa nitent mundo tum lumina: conditur omne
stellarum vulgus; fugiunt sine nomine turba.
pura licet vacuo tum cernere sidera caelo,
nec fallunt numero, parvis nec mixta feruntur.
The full Moons bright light (and that at least five days before and after
the full Moon) drowns the light of the fainter stars, making the pattern of
the constellations more easily discernible to the unskilled eye. This was
no doubt a well-known observational technique in the ancient world.152
The poet could have added it to the Astronomica merely from the reports
of others, yet its inclusion does suggest the possibility of its use, or at
least its verification as a technique by Manilius himself.
151
We can surmise, based upon the accuracy of the calculations of astronomers such
as Hipparchus and upon a few surviving examples, that ephemerides of similar
accuracy and detail existed at least from the second century B.C. Jones (1995)
255-8 describes one such ephemeris (dated to c. A.D. 100), which may describe the
daily position of four planets.
152
It is a technique used in the modern world.
______________________
Another indication of Manilius observations is his description of the
colour of the star Sirius.153 There are a number of ancient authors who
state the belief that Sirius was red. This is due to its colour at its often
observed heliacal rising (when its colour is caused by atmospheric
scintillation), and its astrologically perceived evil nature. Manilius does
not follow this belief and states that Sirius was blue/white, its (modern)
true colour (1.409): frigida caeruleo contorquet lumina vultu. As Manilius
was an astrologer, it would have been reasonable for him to repeat the
claim that Sirius was red, indicating its evil effect. As he did not, his
statement strongly suggests that he was familiar with, and took account
of, the true appearance of the heavens, to the extent that this took precedence
over belief.
These points suggest that Manilius did take the trouble to look at the
sky,154 and may have even enjoyed doing so, however, they also tell us
that he was not concerned with the mechanics of actual observation.
Manilius did not include any basic information about his own observing
habits. There is no mention of the instruments (if any) he used to observe
the stars, there is no description of his location, nor is there a reference to
charts or tables available to an astrologer. His general attitude to astronomy
is that of a theoretician, not of an active observer.
While none of these arguments is conclusive, they do suggest the possibility

that Manilius was, at least to some extent, an observer of the heavens. If
so, he differs from later Stoic authors who moved into a more abstract
world where belief controlled observation and not vice versa.
153
This is discussed fully in chapter Four, The Colour of the Star Sirius.
154
Manilius states that Venus appears as both an evening and a morning star in the
course of the same day (1.177ff.). This is incorrect, but he uses it to bolster his
argument. This obvious error does argue against Manilius diligence as an observer.
______________________
2.2.5 Manilius and Mathematics
One may also conclude that Manilius was not fluent in mathematics.
While he clearly drew on a number of mathematically oriented astronomical
sources for the Astronomica, he created a sphaera, not a catalogue. His
decision to compose in verse, and not prose, would have reduced the
amount of mathematics that could have been included in the Astronomica,
but, if he had wished, Manilius could have included far more in his
discussion of astronomical and/or astrological calculations.
On one occasion, Manilius illustrates his work with a mathematical example.

In lines 1.53956, he describes the Euclidian relationship of the
circumference of a circle to its diameter in order to describe the relative
size of the universe. A simple method of incrementation is used to describe
the horoscope formulae of Book Three, but the level of mathematics used
is not very sophisticated, and its inclusion does not suggest a high degree
of proficiency by the author.
On other occasions when mathematics could have been used to better

illustrate a point, or to explain astrological calculations, they are not.155
The impression here is that Manilius knew just enough mathematics to
carry out basic astrological procedures and no more.
155
An example of this is the description of equilateral triangles given in 2.273-8.
Manilius in a clumsy fashion describes the equal angle possessed by each corner of
such a triangle. While this is correct it would have been simpler to specify the angle
of each intersection and the length (in signs) of each side of the triangle.
______________________
2.2.6 Manilius as an Astronomer
In chapter Three I will discuss Manilius astronomical knowledge. As a
background to this I shall now look at his attitude to the field as a distinct
whole.
What is immediately clear from the astronomical information supplied in

Book One is that Manilius did have a good, though somewhat varied,
understanding of most aspects of ancient astronomy. His weakness seems
to lie in his understanding of mathematical astronomy and in areas that
might undermine his belief in astrology. This conclusion should not be
taken as an indication that the poet had no personal interest in the field.
Manilius does include a few points that indicate his attitude to astronomy.
The first of these is in lines 1.135:
hoc sub pace vacat tantum. iuvat ire per ipsum

aera et immenso spatiantem vivere caelo
signaque et adversos stellarum noscere cursus.
Manilius seems to be saying that he enjoys or finds delightful the study of

the heaven, which is hardly surprising. The Astronomica was an immense
work, and its author must have had a strong motivation to begin and to
complete the text. The reference to signs and planets (1.15) suggests
the possibility that Manilius may have been describing his interest in
either astrology or astronomy, although, the two lines immediately
following resolve this question (1.1617):
quod solum novisse parum est. impensius ipsa

scire iuvat magni penitus praecordia mundi
______________________
These lines clearly refer to astrology. Thus in the four lines 1.157,
Manilius was describing his affection for both astronomy and astrology,
and thereby indicating an awareness of a degree of distinction between
the two. Manilius also separates the two in lines 1.11821, where he
states that he must first describe the true appearance of the heavens before
he can discuss astrology. Manilius possibly divided the two into the
observational side of astronomy and the theoretical calculations of
astrology. Assuming this to be the case, we can conclude that Manilius
had an interest in the observation of the heavens in itself, which is a
sentiment implied throughout the Astronomica. In this, Manilius differs
from other Roman astronomical authors. While both Cicero and Seneca
composed astronomical writings, neither was overly involved in
observational astronomy. Ciceros astronomical writings are based around
Aratus, while Seneca, with references to astronomically impossible red
comets, (NQ. 7.15.1 Primo igneus ac rubicundus orbis fuit clarumque
lumen emittens) did not describe the visual appearance of what he saw.
Another factor that suggests Manilius appreciation of astronomy is the

abundance of astronomical information in Book One that is superfluous
to the astrology of the later books. As discussed in the summary of Book
One (thesis section 1.2), much of the astronomical information could be
removed from the text with no effect on the astrological matter. Its inclusion
suggests that Manilius had an interest in astronomical matters, beyond
that which underpinned his astrology. This is further suggested by the
wide range of sources he uses in his astronomical writings.
This interest in astronomy by Manilius should not be taken as an indicator

that he was an astronomer lurking beneath the guise of astrologer. Manilius
______________________
was first and foremost a Stoic astrologer, and astronomy was completely
subordinated to this end. If we consider that there were two schools of
thought in the ancient world,156 one scientific, as typified by Eudoxus
and Hipparchus, the other mystic as typified by Pythagoras and Plato,
we can see that Manilius falls into the latter. Plato lists astronomy as one
of the five mathematical disciplines necessary for a good education.157 It
is clear from this description that observational astronomy was not the
goal of Platos exercise, and the philosopher Kings were to gain knowledge
of divinity by looking for the higher truths behind the display of the
heavens. In the Timaeus Plato states that astronomersmen who look to
the visible heavens for truthare reincarnated as birds for their
foolishness.158 This is the view that Manilius shared of the heavens. By
investigating the motions of the stars and planets one could look past
them and discover the true nature of the universe. It is unstated in the
Astronomica but I feel that Manilius shared Platos attitude to astronomers.
2.2.7 Manilius Stoicism

This discussion provides an overview of the philosophical thought found
in the Astronomica in order to determine its substance and gaols, to
identify its Stoic nature clearly, as well as to place Manilius in the
development of Stoic thought.
156
The division of Greek thinkers into two schools is to a large extent an arbitrary
one. Many, such as Eudoxus, a student of Plato, had a foot in both camps. It is
possible, however, to detect a secular and a divine approach in Greek thought to
understanding the universe. From the above paragraph there is also the question of
the correct interpretation of Platos writings. Plato was limited by the tools of his
day and should be seen as a thinker situated at the beginning of the astronomical era.
Taking this into account it is still clear that Plato saw the heavens, not as significant
in themselves but as representing the hidden divinity of the universe. Manilius is
squarely placed in this category.
157
Plato Republic. 529530c.
158
Plato Timaeus. 91.D.
______________________
What first emerges from an examination of the text is the central importance
of Stoicism to the poem and the clear indication that Manilius was an
ardent Stoic, since all aspects are presented and interpreted from a
demonstrably Stoic perspective. Manilius seems to have seen Stoicism as
the peak of human achievement and to have viewed astrology as the
philosophys greatest manifestation. He constructed the poem as a vehicle
for these beliefs. Thus the Stoic information provided is designed to
achieve two goals: first, that of explaining and describing the divine
destiny that awaits enlightened human beings; and secondly, that of
providing a rationale for astrology.
Stoicism was divided into three categories; physics, logic and ethics,159
but of these three, logic is not mentioned in the Astronomica and ethics is
discussed only briefly.160 Manilius evidently concentrated only on the areas
that interested him: physics and, in particular, Stoic astrology and the
related themes of astronomy and cosmology.161 This approach seems to
have placed Manilius at odds with earlier Stoic authors, since it is said
that the major Stoic figures taught all three areas and considered each to
be necessary for an understanding of the whole.162 Thus the philosophy
found in the Astronomica should be viewed only as a component of the
complete corpus of Stoic thought.163 We might conclude that Manilius
159
Diog. Laer. 7.3941 describes the triple division of Stoic belief.
160
One question emerging from a belief in a completely fatalistic universe is the
nature of good and evil. If human actions are fated, can a person be truly good or evil?
Manilius answered this question in his one discussion of ethics. He states that good
deeds should be doubly praised, as they are ordained by fata and caelum and that the
reverse is true for evil deeds (4.11021). This was an early question in Stoicism,
as Diogenes Laertius records Zeno dealing with this very matter (7.23). Manilius
also criticises human preoccupation with luxury (4.4025) but his argument suggests
that he is concerned that material interests might detract from an interest in Stoicism
and astrology.
161
Colish (1985) vol. 1, 223.
162
Diog. Laer. 7.3941.
______________________
viewed human destiny via astrology as the only significant component of
Stoicism. The poem was clearly intended to convey this brand of Stoicism
to the reader and, however narrow the perspective of the Astronomica, it
still casts a measure of light on the nature of Roman Stoicism.164
As well as presenting Stoicism and astrology to the world, the Astronomica

may be viewed in the light of a contemporary controversy. Manilius
might have intended the Astronomica to be a rebuttal to the De Rerum
Natura of the Epicurean author Lucretius, whose work was diametrically
opposed to the creed of Stoicism and to astrology. This philosophical
conflict had historical roots. From their beginnings proponents of Stoicism
and Epicureanism had engaged in debate and rivalry.165 Manilius almost
certainly saw his work as a further polemic (if not the final word) in this
debate.166 A wide chasm existed between the Epicurean astronomer
Lucretius, who saw a random universe as a manifestation of blind chance,
and the astrologer Manilius, who perceived it as the creation and
manifestation of divine order.167
163
Hahm (1977) 231 suggests that Chrysippus wrote over 750 volumes of Stoic
beliefs.
164
Manilius lies in an intermediate stage in Stoic development. The Middle Stoa
ended with Posidonius, the Roman Stoa began with Seneca. Between the two, the only
extant Stoic author of note is Manilius. The Middle Stoa was concerned with the full
range of Stoic thought, but the Roman period became preoccupied almost exclusively
with the question of ethics. Manilius seems to chart a third course, concentrating on
astrology and fate.
165
Hahm (1977) 1201 argues that Lucretius specifically intended his work to be a
rebuttal of Zenos and (in general) Stoicisms cosmology. This animosity is based
upon the long-existing rivalry between two of the major philosophical systems of the
classical world. See Colish (1985) 1.9 for an introduction to this conflict. This
criticism of Epicureanism and in particular its atomic nature may have placed
Manilius at odds with Thrasyllus who apparently edited both Platos (Diog. Laer.
3.56ff, cf 9.45) and Democritus works (Diog. Laer. 9.41ff.).
166
cf. Sikes (1923) 172, 176 who states that Epicureanism had fallen from favour
in the Augustan period and views the Astronomica as a political attack on de Rerum
Natura. An example of Manilius antagonism is found at I.48694 where he criticises
Epicurean beliefs.
______________________
One feature of Manilius Stoic poem is that, while it does acknowledge
Greek and Roman military and political heroes, it lacks any reference or
recognition of any debt to earlier Stoics. The only mention of philosophers
lies in Book One where Manilius lists as having animi vires: Solon,
Lycurgus, Plato, Socrates and Themistocles (1.7716). This omission
suggests that Manilius saw himself and his work as a substantial
improvement upon the work of his predecessors to such an extent that he
felt no need to mention any by name. 168
2.2.7.1 Stoicism in the Astronomica

The theory of Stoicism is presented in five separate sections of the text
totalling approximately 700 lines, or 15 per cent of the work. The first
section in lines 1.25254 provides an overview of Manilius Stoicism.
Here the Stoic God is introduced, as is a history of humanity, cosmology
and a presentation of astronomy. The topics that are found throughout the
rest of the Astronomica are first discussed at an introductory level in
Book One.
The second discussion occurs in the opening lines of Book Two (2.60-87).
Here Manilius places his poem and himself at the peak of classical poetry.
He discusses the dominance of God and the divine potential of human
beings. It is here that Manilius first looks at fate and astrology in detail.
167
Sikes (1923) 1623 states that Lucretius saw the universe in purely scientific
terms. This would be in sharp contrast to Manilius and the Stoics.
168
We might surmise that the first four were included as Manilius considered them
the founders and protectors of the Greek philosophical world. Hahm (1977) 209
argues that Stoic physics was based upon the work of Plato and Aristotle. This may
have been the specific motivation for the inclusion of Plato. Themistocles was included
as Manilius considered him responsible for defeating the Persian invasion and saving
the Greek world, 1.776.
______________________
The third discussion is found in lines 3.195, which concentrates on
astrology, explaining its place in the Stoic universe.
The next area of Stoic exposition is found in lines 4.1121, where Manilius
expounds upon fate in great detail, depicting it as pervasive and fickle.
The last philosophical discussion in the Astronomica is found at the end
of Book Four, lines 866935, which provide a summary and conclusion
to the work.169 It reiterates the case concerning Stoicism and astrology and
then argues for the divinity of human beings and their relationship to
God. The tone of this statement and its placement in the conclusion
suggest that this last point is the aim of the work (cf. thesis section 1.2.5,
1.2.6). Book Five contains no Stoic references.
2.2.7.2 Manilius Means of Argument

From the discussions of Stoicism in the Astronomica, several comments
can be made concerning the means Manilius has used to present his
beliefs and his competence in doing so. The methodology used by the
poet is described in 2.75187. It is a didactic, educative system, one he
believed would best convey his beliefs by presenting the reader with
consecutive accounts of a topic with each successive account becoming
more complex and providing greater detail than its predecessor.
In his work Manilius used this approach as a basis for his account of
Stoicism. Each of the five separate Stoic discussions centres around one
or more main topics, but each includes other, complementary, information.
The discussions are constructed so that what first appears as a minor topic
becomes a major topic in a following discussion, and then it is found
169
As discussed in the summary of the Astronomica, Book Four forms a natural
conclusion to the work.
______________________
restated in different guise and with a different emphasis in subsequent
discussions as a minor topic again. The opening lines of Book Four, for
example, discuss fate as their primary argument. Fate has been discussed
in earlier sections, but now it is repeated in greater detail and with more
emphasis. Manilius seems to have broken down each argument into its
smallest components and then placed these together in such a way that
they reinforce each other without contradiction. There is also an emotional
belief created by this style of presentation. A reader, who might not grasp
the work intellectually, might find that the continual, unobtrusive repetition
of material, reinforced a belief in the conclusions of the work.
Another aspect of Manilius methodology is the relative allocation of

attention to each topic in accordance with its importance to the poem.
Cosmology, for example, is primarily treated in Book One, with minor
references to it in the remainder of the work. This suggests that, while a
knowledge of cosmology is necessary to the reader, it is not the central
message that Manilius is wishing to communicate. Fate, by contrast, is
discussed throughout the Astronomica with the final discussion occurring
in Book Four, suggesting that it has a far greater importance.
Another major feature of Manilius means of argument is the creation of

an internally logical and even ecumenical argument with respect to Stoicism.
In his model of the universe, Manilius has created not a linear but a
circular hierarchy. It begins with God, and proceeds through various aspects
of the universe, including cosmology, fate, astrology and then human
beings. Humans are then linked back to God to complete the circle of the
Stoic universe. This circular unity of the universe would be enticing to
those looking for a belief based upon logical certainty.
______________________
To summarise, Manilius uses repetition and a structure of accumulation
to create a persuasive argument for belief in his brand of Stoicism. The
interested reader would find this in itself compelling. When we add to it
the complex astrological theories, the engaging belief that human beings
are in some way divine (and immortal) and the elitist nature of the work,170
then the same reader might be overwhelmed by the barrage of convincing
argument for the worth of the Astronomica. Manilius talent as a didactic
poet is no better illustrated than by his ability to create a convincing
argument for Stoicism.
2.2.8 Conclusion to Manilius Beliefs and Personality

Due to the limited nature of the evidence in the Astronomica, it is difficult
to reach firm conclusions regarding Manilius biography. It is clear though
that, in the Astronomica, Manilius dedicates his work to Stoicism and
astrology. He sees himself as being present in a new era of humanity, one
in which his account of destiny is to be disseminated amongst those few
who can appreciate it. He rejects material wealth as unimportant compared
to Stoic, astrological divinity. He indicates the rarity of morality in human
beings and the fickleness of friendship, and he expresses a harsh view on
crime and punishment. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Manilius
saw human society as a mere precursor of its ultimate fate, that Stoic
destiny which he expounded in the Astronomica, or that he very likely
saw himself as a lone, prophetic figure carrying the light of truth to
humanity.
Manilius account of Stoicism is consistent and studied. He introduces his

170
In 2.137ff. Manilius states that he composes only for a few and not the many, nec
in turba nec turbae carmina condam sed solus.
______________________
subject, argues its validity, and then carries the argument to a higher level
of understanding as he progresses through his work. At each stage argument,
rhetorical questions and answers, examples, appeals to reason, comparisons
and a variety of other techniques are used to persuade the reader to accept
his beliefs.
In his discussion of Stoic concepts there are obvious minor inconsistencies,

but these can be accounted for as questions of cultural context. We can
conclude that Manilius believed that the existence of humanity was central
to Stoicism; that human beings were unique in the universe, possessing
and forming a part of the Stoic divinity of the universe; and that animals
were not part of this divinity. The greatest human achievement lay in
humanitys comprehension of the Stoic universe and of the central role of
humanity and the existence of a divinity in human beings. Manilius
universe begins with the Stoic God who created the universe, the Earth
and human beings. The human beings who first lived in this universe
existed in fear and ignorance, unknowing of their divine origins and
potential. After a long struggle to master lesser arts, human beings managed
to find their path to heaven by their study of, and devotion to, Stoicism
and Stoic astrology. The conclusion of this knowledge is the discovery
that human beings possess a component of the Stoic divinity and are
themselves divine. In achieving this understanding, the Stoic has closed a
circle that began with God.
It is also possible to conclude that Manilius did have an appreciation of

the heavens over and above that required for astrology. Manilius was an
observer of the heavens, a practice not necessary for his astrology, and
his knowledge of astronomy was greater than that necessary for astrology.
There are also indications in the Astronomica that Manilius did differentiate,
______________________
to a certain extent, between astronomy and astrology. The extent of this
separation is unclear. It is unlikely however, that Manilius saw two separate
disciplines; his obsession with astrology would preclude the appreciation
that astronomy could be a goal in itself. To Manilius, astronomy was an
important but subordinate component of the art of astrology.
The Astronomica is a reasonable but somewhat jumbled explanation of

the non-mathematical basics of ancient astronomy. By comparison, the
level of knowledge presented is greater but less consistent than that found
in Aratus.171 The ostensible purpose of Manilius astronomy was to provide
a basis for his astrology. In this, it does provide a starting point, but only
just.
The cause of Manilius failure as an astronomical poet is his lack of a

comprehensive and coherent structure for the topic. This reflects his
approach to astronomy and his work in general. The aim of the Astronomica,
however, was to convince the reader of the worth of Stoicism, everything
else was secondary. In his account of astronomy, there are gaping holes,
which to him were not only unimportant, but invisible. Manilius used
whatever information he felt necessary at each section of the work to
prove what he was discussing.
171
Cicero used Aratus as his source of astronomical information. Presumably Manilius
expected his readers to have a greater knowledge than might be thought sufficient for
the average well-educated Roman.
____________________________
Astronomy in the Astronomica 103
3. Chapter Three: Astronomy in the Astronomica
3.1 Introduction
The primary goal of the Astronomica is to explain the divine nature of
human destiny in Manilius Stoic universe to a small group of savants.
This explanation revolves around a belief in fate, the mechanics of which
are made known to human beings by astrology. Thus the bulk of the
Astronomica is given over to a discussion of astrology within a Stoic
context. Books Two to Five contain exhaustive descriptions of astrological
theory and technique. This relegates the discussion of astronomy to a
distant place compared to the dominant theme of the Astronomica, yet
Manilius did believe that an understanding of astronomical theory was
necessary before a mastery of astrological theory could be achieved
(1.1201):
ipsa mihi primum naturae forma canenda est

ponendusque sua totus sub imagine mundus
It is evident that Manilius considered astronomy to be an essential

prerequisite to astrology. In this he is not alone. Ptolemy, writing more
than a century after Manilius, adopted the same approach, albeit in far
greater depth. Ptolemys astronomical Almagest provides the foundation
for the study of astrology in the Tetrabiblos. This attitude to astronomy
and astrology is not universal. Cicero provides an alternative view. In de
Div. 2.10, he states that those who practise divination would not know
astronomy. This, given in the context of an argument against divination,
may reflect the capabilities of the less than philosophic soothsayer rather
than the Stoic astrologer. Manilius saw the heavens as a manifestation of
____________________________
than the Stoic astrologer. Manilius saw the heavens as a manifestation of
God and reasoned thus, that to know the heavens is to know God, but to
know the heavens one must first learn the basics, and this is what he
attempts to impart in his accounts of astronomy.
As well as a theoretical presentation of astronomy, the poem includes a

substantial amount of astronomical background material relating to the
astrological procedures of the later Books. The sum of this material provides
a wide-ranging account of ancient astronomy which permits us the potential
for an examination of the state of astronomical knowledge of the time.
Before we can examine this material in detail, it is desirable to review the
precise nature of Manilius astronomy to determine its reliability and
worth.
The most consistent account of astronomy is found in Book One, yet even
in this account, intended to be the major presentation of astronomy, there
are significant omissions and variations in quality. The principal component
of this introduction is a discussion of positional astronomy in the form of
a descriptive account of the heavens, a sphaera. A number of important
topics are discussed, which include: cosmological theories (1.118254), a
constellation catalogue (1.255531), the celestial circles (1.539804) and
a rambling and confused description of comets and meteors (1.809926),172
but other topics that would prove useful to the reader are ignored. These
gaps include mathematics, observational techniques, the use of charts and
tables, astronomical instruments and a detailed account of the planets and
eclipses.
Manilius was equally cavalier in his use of sources and consistency of

approach in Book One. For example, the description of celestial circles
172
In this account, Manilius seems to have confused comets and meteors, two separate
phenomena.
____________________________
(1.539-804) uses a sexagesimal degree system, while elsewhere in the
poem a 360 degree system is in use. The planets are only briefly mentioned.
The descriptions of the Milky Way (1.684-804), and of comets and meteors
(1.809-926), are distinctly different from the description of the celestial
circles, being both astrological and mythological in orientation. The
summary form of the astronomy in Book One would not provide the
interested reader with a grounding in astronomy sufficient to understand
the astrology of the later Books, yet this is its stated intention (1.120-1),
and this is the most comprehensive and systematic account of astronomy
in the Astronomica.
Moving beyond the sphaera of Book One, we find an even more varied
selection of astronomical information. It is clear that these later accounts
are not part of a systematic description of astronomy, since each discussion
is complete in itself as it describes and supports a particular astrological
procedure. The best example of this is the horoscope formulae of Book
Three. Manilius lists several formulae for calculating the horoscope. They
make use of information that is found in or can be based upon the sphaera
of Book One, but this information is not referred to as an aid in the
mastery of these formulae. Equally, the sphaera of Book One could have
included additional information and emphasis that would have made it of
greater use as an aid to the understanding of the horoscope formulae, but
it does not. In a similar fashion the list of magnitudes of constellations at
the end of Book Five stands alone. The categorisation of constellations by
brightness could have been incorporated into the constellation catalogue
of Book One as an aid to the visual identification of the constellations,
but once again, this was not done.
Book Two provides an astrological description of the seasons and of the
____________________________
Suns progress through the zodiac (2.175265). In Book Three there is
one short but significant reference to the planets (3.61-4), but the
astronomical importance of the book lies in its lengthy and detailed
discussion of the means by which the horoscope (that degree of the zodiac
rising at the time of the subjects birth) is calculated (3.160509). This is
an important calculation for astrologers as it was believed, by some schools
of astrology, that this was the key determinant of fate. Book Four contains
only one definite astronomical reference, in which Manilius restates the
fact that a Lunar eclipse is caused by the Earth blocking the Suns light
(4.8417).
Book Five contains a number of astronomical sections, the first being a

brief list of the planets (5.27). The bulk of the Book is taken up with an
account of the risings of the non-zodiacal constellations (paranatellonta),
the degree of the zodiac rising with them and their influence over human
destiny (5.32709). Book Five, and thus the Astronomica, concludes with
a catalogue of constellations in order of brightness (5.710722). This
catalogue uses the Hipparchian magnitude system.
The result of his approach to astronomy is a disjointed account of the

subject with some topics ignored and others covered to different depths.
This is understandable, if it is remembered that, to Manilius, the provision
of astronomical knowledge was several levels of importance down from
his goal of Stoic destiny. Book One effectively tells us that Manilius did
not consider a unified account of astronomy to be of great importance.
My goal in this chapter is to place Manilius in the history of astronomy

and to determine what light the poem can shed on the astronomical
development of his time. To this effect this chapter will analyse the
____________________________
astronomical information found in the Astronomica by identifying the
major topics and then examining the passages relevant to that topic. The
starting points are the topics found in the sphaera of Book One. They
begin with the spherical universe, the shape Manilius believed to be divine.
Every astronomical object in his universe was based upon the sphere and
moved in a circular path. The spherical universe leads into the related
field of the celestial circles, arcs projected onto the sky by terrestrial
astronomy to categorise and delimit the format of the sky. Manilius
described a full complement of circles, indicating an effective grasp of
the fundamentals of positional astronomy. The circles then lead into
Manilius catalogue of forty-four constellations. This is a near complete
and well-presented catalogue of the constellations of the ancient world.
Following this are the planets, amongst which Manilius includes the Sun
and Moon along with the five, visible real planets. These form the seven
planets of Manilius astronomy.173
The comets and meteors discussed at the end of Book One will not be
examined as a distinct topic. As each of these topics is largely distinct in
itself, I have provided a separate conclusion to each discussion. The
summary of Manilius astronomy given above provides an overview of
his astronomical beliefs. These four topics (spherical universe, celestial
circles, constellations and the planets) cover the major areas of non-
mathematical ancient astronomy. The final topic of this chapter is a re-
examination of the question of the authorship of the stellar magnitude
system.
173
For the sake of simplicity, I will include the Sun and Moon along with the five
real planets in the term planets. This is in keeping with Manilius usage and
reduces the redundant descriptions of the objects themselves.
___________________
Astronomy - The Spherical Universe 108
3.2 The Spherical Universe
3.2.1 Introduction
The ancients interpretation of the heavens was based on the belief that
the universe was perfect and that the Earth and human beings were of
major importance in it.174 Thus the Greeks constructed a model of the
universe based on a geo-centric design, with the heavens moving in perfect
circular paths. This model was composed of eight spheres centred on the
Earth: the stars, the five planets, the Sun and Moon.175 The stellar sphere
was the furthermost, with each planet attached to a sphere successively
closer to the Earth. The eight spheres rotated around the Earth producing
the apparent movement of the stars, planets, the Sun and the Moon. To
explain the complex and non-circular motion of the planets, additional
spheres were ascribed to each planet, with planets moving successively
from sphere to sphere, changing direction and speed in their journey
through the sky.176 As an astronomical concept, the celestial sphere is a
174
Dicks (1970) 51 argues that the Pythagoreans were the first to deduce a spherical
Earth and universe. This belief became a central feature of Greek astronomical thought.
The origin of this concept of the universe may have arisen from the visual appearance
of the night sky as is a concave bowl, centred upon the Earth. In addition, the daily
paths of the Sun and Moon across the sky appear curved, fitting the shape of this
bowl. There are also a number of terrestrial phenomena suggestive of a spherical
Earth. These include the crows-nest of a ship appearing over the horizon as the ship
sails into port, before lower parts of the ship. Neugebauer (1975) 576 suggests that
the Greeks deduced the sphericity of the earth by, amongst other things, the change in
altitude of circumpolar stars as the observer moves north and south. The belief that
the heavens are in some sense divine is present in virtually every human culture.
The Greek belief that the circle is perfect has its origins in the visual appearance of
the heavens, the aesthetic appeal of this concept and its ease of mathematical
manipulation.
175
Simplicius, Comm. in Arist. de Caelo 1.12.221, gives a summary of Eudoxus
version of this model. Dicks (1970) 176ff. contains a modern discussion of the
Eudoxan system, the most complex model of which is preserved by Ptolemy.
176
Manilius does not elaborate on this point. The complexities of planetary behaviour
were evidently not of interest to him.
___________________
useful representation of the sky, and it is still used thus in modern
astronomybut it cannot explain the full range of planetary motion.177
The concept of the geo-centric celestial sphere is accepted without question

in the Astronomica. The heavens and everything found within are described
in this context.178 This belief is expounded to the point where it is not only
the shape of the universe but an intrinsic feature demonstrating the perfection
of the Stoic universe. The principal description of this belief lies in
1.173246, where examples and argument are supplied in support.
3.2.2 The Overall Shape and Path of the Seven Planets

In keeping with its usage as a piece of background evidence, Manilius
provides only a brief, though comprehensive, description of the exact
structure of the spherical universe. The first mention of this is found in
the introductory lines of Book One (323). Here, as part of a general
description of the universe and Stoicism, Manilius mentions perfunctorily
that the Earth is surrounded by paths:179
sublimis aperire vias imumque sub orbem

et per inane suis parentia finibus astra
This is part of the belief, further described in later lines, that the Earth is
177
The geo-centric model of the universe is still in use (navigation, geography etc.)
because of its simplicity and ease of use, as compared to models that are more
accurate in their depiction of the heavens.
178
Manilius 1.1478 states: sed facies quacumque tamen sub origine rerum / convenit
et certo digestum est ordine corpus.
179
I have made a conscious decision to refer to the movement of Manilius planets as
paths, not as orbits. The modern term orbit carries with it the baggage of
modern scientific understanding and a view of astronomy vastly different from
Manilius. To use orbit would be to ascribe to Manilius an understanding of astronomy
that he did not possess and would not have agreed with.
___________________
surrounded by the stars and planets. Its usage here, in the introductory
lines, suggests that it is an accepted fact, included merely to further
illustrate the impressive nature of the Stoic universe. A few lines further
on, in his account of the creation of the universe, Manilius places the
Earth at the centre (1.16870):
idcircoque manet stabilis, quia totus ab illo

tantundem refugit mundus fecitque cadendo
undique, ne caderet medium totius et imum.
The major description of the universes shape, however, is found later

(1.17381), where Manilius augments his case with observational evidence,
examples and argument. He states that the planets and stars must circle
the Earth, alternately rising above and then setting below the horizon
every day, because otherwise the heavens would have a different
appearance. Manilius believed that this continual rising and setting could
occur only if the celestial bodies travelled under the Earth in the course of
each day (1.179ff.)
After explaining his belief as to the movement of the heavens, Manilius

dismisses two other theories. The first of these is that the heavens move
by chance, and the second, that the heavens are reborn every day (1.1824):
nam neque fortuitos ortus surgentibus astris

nec totiens possum nascentem credere mundum
solisve assiduos partus et fata diurna,
As in his introduction to cosmology, the contending theories are only

superficially listed.180 In the subsequent lines (1.182-93), Manilius argues
___________________
against these theories by stating that the apparent regularity of the heavens
demonstrates the ordered nature of the universe. This is in keeping with
Stoic doctrine, and the lines reflect Manilius use of astronomy as a tool
to explain the Stoic universe. This is essential for astrology, which requires
a predictable universe, and also for Stoicism which rests on the assumption
that the universe, as a whole, is controlled by and composed of one spirit.
Manilius constructs a coherent and consistent argument.
After his dismissal of rival explanations, Manilius continues his description

of the spherical universe, repeating and reinforcing some of the points
made earlier. In 1.194ff., he describes how the Sun moves unsupported
(i.e. without a base), maintaining its various meta presumably referring
to the celestial circles described in 1.539804.181 The Moon and stars are
also described as moving unsupported through the heavens in a similar
fashion to the Sun. The Earth itself is clearly placed at the centre of this
celestial sphere (1.2023):
est igitur tellus mediam sortita cavernam

aeris, e toto pariter sublata profundo
After providing an observational and theoretical basis for the spherical

universe, the poem concludes with a Stoic justification (1.206167).182 It
refers to a sphere as, haec est naturae facies (1.206) and continues by
stating that the sphere is the shape of the gods and thus perfect (1.211).
180
Manilius account of cosmological theory takes place in 1.11870.
181
The precise meaning of this statement and of meta is unclear. Manilius could be
referring to the Suns path through the zodiac and thus to the points of the solstice
and equinox, or he could be referring to the celestial poles. He could also be using
meta as a generic term for celestial boundariesthe limits of the paths the seven
planets move through. Meta could also refer to the spheres the planets rotate around.
It is likely, though, that Manilius is referring to a combination of all of these
celestial reference points, as the general controlling points of the celestial sphere.
182
Line 1.167 follows line 1.214.
___________________
These lines (1.173214) present a well-argued justification for a spherical
universe. Observation, theory and Stoic philosophy are mixed in a skilful
fashion to this end, so that the accumulated astronomical thought of the
ancient world proves the Astronomicas account of Stoicism. Once proven,
this belief becomes an axiom that is used in other areas of astrology and
Stoic thought found in the Astronomica.
Later in Book One this description of the structure of the universe is

repeated. After the account of the constellations (1.256455) and prior to
an explanation of the celestial circles (1.539-804), the poem summarises
the movements of the heavens (1.532808).183 The stars line the sky
(caelum laqueantia) with the Earth at the centre and the planets between.
Haec igitur texunt aequali sidera tractu

ignibus in varias caelum laqueantia formas.
altius his nihil est; haec sunt fastigia mundi;
publica naturae domus his contenta tenetur
finibus, amplectens pontum terrasque iacentis.
omnia concordi tractu veniuntque caduntque,
qua semel incubuit caelum versumque resurgit.
sunt alia adverso pugnantia sidera mundo,
quae terram caelumque inter volitantia pendent,
Saturni, Iovis et Martis Solisque, sub illis
Mercurius Venerem inter agit Lunamque volatus.
This is not the last account of the sphericity of the Earth or of the universe.
In what seems to be an attempt to add greater credence, Manilius provides
183
Eleven lines.
___________________
a little Euclidian geometry to prove the relative size of the heavens. In
1.53956, we are effectively told that the Earth is two signs distant from
both the top and the bottom of the celestial sphere. This rests on the
Euclidian theorem (Elem. 4.15) that one side of a regular hexagon is
equal to the radius of a circle coincident with that hexagon. Thus the
radius of the Stoic universe is two signs.184
The relevance of these lines to the text is debatable, as they only marginally
relate to the discussion of the heavens taking place in Book One. A
clearer presentation of the same information would be a statement that the
Earth is one radius distant from the celestial sphere, so the inclusion of
these lines has been more of an indicator of Manilius mediocre level of
mathematical ability and knowledge, and of his use of scientific material
to bolster his Stoicism than a useful addition to the account.185
In its entirety this account of sphericity seems to have been the standard
of the Stoics. Diogenes Laertius gives a brief description of Zenos
astronomy (7.1446), referring to the stars and the earth as possessing
spherical shapes (7.145). Diogenes summary, however, does not dwell
on the innate superiority of this shape or its divine nature. Manilius on the
184
To explain this in a more detailed fashion: Manilius is measuring the universe in
terms of the zodiac, which has twelve signs circling the skygiving the sky a
circumference of twelve signs. The diameter of a circle is 1/3 of its circumference
(ignoring the slight inaccuracy of Pi equalling 3). As the circumference of the
celestial sphere is twelve signs, one third of this number is four signs, giving a
radius of two signs. As Manilius notes, but does not correct, Pi is slightly greater
than three.
185
The universe is presented in a descriptive format, mathematics playing no part. In
these few lines, Manilius departs from this style and describes one component of the
universe in a mathematical fashion. Such an isolated example of mathematical modelling
does not add to our understanding of the universe. What it does suggest is that Manilius
included this mathematical example as a device to impress his readers, which in turn
suggests that Manilius did not have a detailed grasp of mathematics.
___________________
other hand saw a reflection of Gods perfection in the shape of the heavens,
which both demonstrated the nature of God and also became one more
component of the structure of astrology.
3.2.3 The Spherical Shape of the Earth

Manilius regards the Earth as spherical and goes to some lengths to prove
this with examples scattered through the more general discussion of the
shape of the universe. It may be that he felt a specific need to demonstrate
the Earths true nature because its perceived appearance is that of a flat
surface. Also, he may have reasoned that, if he could demonstrate the
sphericity of the Earth, then the rest of his argument concerning the
sphericity of the universe would be more easily believed.
The first of these is given in an explanation of Stoic cosmology, where

the Earth is described without qualification as glomerato pondere tellus
(1.159) and orbis (1.165). The first major account of the Earths shape is
found a few lines further on within the discussion of the constancy of the
universe. Manilius states that the Sun progressively lights different regions
of the Earth as it travels around the Earth in the course of each day
(1.189ff.). It is then stated that, as the observer apparently moves towards
the sunrise or the sunset, he or she actually moves further away from both
(1.192).186 This evidence is offered to the reader to prove that the Earth is
a sphere, which causes different regions to experience night and day at
different times. The poet then answers what must have been a common
186
These two lines are difficult to explain fully (1.1923): semper et ulterior
vadentibus ortus ad ortum / occasumve obitus, caelum et cum sole perennet.
This is correct in the case of the sunset. By moving west, the observer is moving
towards the sunset and, as the line (the terminator) of sunset moves considerably
faster than any human could, the sunset will always appear to move away. This is not
the case with sunrise. In moving east, the observer is moving in the opposite direction
to the line of sunrise; sunrise will arrive sooner.
___________________
objectionbut the Earth is flat. Manilius states that the flat appearance
of the Earth is not its true shape: nec patulas distenta plagas (1.204) that
the Earth is a sphere, sed condita in orbem (1.204). This leads into a
discussion of the general shape of the universe (1.20613), which concludes
by restating that the Earth is a sphere: sic tellus golmerata manet (1.214).
After providing a theoretical demonstration of the Earths sphericity,

Manilius then attempts to prove this argument by observational evidence.
He begins by stating that the entire sky is not visible from one location,
using the example of the southern star Canopus (approximately 53 degrees
south declination in A.D. 14), which is not visible north of the latitude of
Rhodes (36 degrees north) (1.216ff.).187 This does demonstrate, simply
and convincingly, the correct shape of the Earth. In a similar vein Manilius
continues that those who live in the far south will not see the northern
circumpolar constellations of the Bears: Ursa Major and Minor (1.218ff.).
Lunar eclipses are given as further evidence. First, the poem states that
Lunar eclipses, by displaying a round terrestrial shadow on the Moons
surface, demonstrate the sphericity of the Earth (1.221ff.) Secondly,
referring to the widespread visibility of a Lunar eclipse (1.22835), Manilius
argues that if the Earth were flat, then the eclipsed Moon would rise at
one moment over the entire Earth. As it does not, then the Earth must be
spherical.188 This point is a practical example of the Earths sphericity
based upon the model described in 1.189ff. which describes the Suns
daily circling of the Earth. Manilius concludes his account with a repetition
of his claim that the Sun rises and sets at different times over different
areas of the Earth (1.23647).
187
These figures, after allowing a small variation for the height of the observer and
refraction, are correct. This observation, however, cannot be used in dating the
Astronomica as Canopus was visible from a latitude equal to or south of that of
Rhodes, for the entire Classical period.
___________________
The three pieces of evidence advanced by Manilius: the latitude of the
observer, the appearance and then the rising-time of the eclipsed Moon,
are each good arguments for the Earths sphericity.
188
Manilius is referring to the apparent rising-time of the eclipsed Moon. This could
be determined by reports of the Moons rising over the length of the Mediterranean
basin. For example, (all measurements are made from the meridian of Greenwich) in
the eastern Mediterranean (30 degrees east) a fully eclipsed Moon may rise at
sunset; however, in the middle Mediterranean (15 degrees east), the same Moon
would rise an hour later when the eclipse was partially over, while at the western
end of the Mediterranean (0 degrees east) the Moon would rise an hour later than in
the middle Mediterranean, in the last stages of eclipse. Thus, the varying level of
eclipse of the rising Moon would prove the Earths sphericity.
___________________
3.2.4 Suggestions of a Non-spherical Celestial Sphere
In the matter of celestial spheres, Manilius agrees with the general thrust
of ancient argument, but there are two lines in Book One which contradict
this conclusion. In 1.394, stars are said to be of different brightness, non
quod clara minus sed quod magis alta recedant. This statement runs
counter to others by Manilius that the stars are all on one celestial sphere
and are thus all equidistant from the Earth. The difficulty in interpreting
this line lies in its validity, since it is not found in all copies of the
manuscript, a fact that renders its usefulness questionable.189 There is one
other line that suggests the idea of relative distances and brightness. In
1.408, Sirius is vix sole minor, nisi quod procul haerens. Sirius is fainter
than the Sun merely because of its greater distance, not because it is
intrinsically fainter. This does not directly contradict the concept of the
stellar sphere, but it does suggest the idea of relative distance.
The belief that the stars varied in distance from the Earth is impossible to
reconcile with any other area of the Astronomica. Its inclusion does not
suggest that Manilius was pursuing an independent line of astronomical
inquiry, rather that he was preserving a tradition from an unknown source
(possibly Aristarchus of Samos). This, once again, demonstrates that
Manilius used a number of diverse sources and traditions without attempting
to reconcile them.
3.2.5 Conclusion
Without doubt, Manilius accepts the general opinion of Hellenistic science
as to the geo-centric design of the heavens. This concept of the spherical
189
Goold (1977) 34, n. a.
___________________
Astronomy - The Celestial Circles 118
universe derived from several centuries of mathematical and astronomical
thought. All celestial bodies are spherical and move in circular paths
around the central, spherical Earth. This is the system within which Manilius
explains the remainder of his astronomical information and astrological
theory, yet he did not expect his audience to accept it without evidence.
His frequent use of observations and examples suggests some adherence
to observational science and the wish to prove to his readers his beliefs,
not merely ask them to believe by faith alone. Manilius discussion of the
spherical universe also demonstrates his holistic view of the universe:
there is a reason for everything and that reason is substantiated both by
Stoic thought and by observational evidence.
___________________
3.3 The Celestial Circles
3.3.1 Introduction
The appearance of the heavens at night (and to a lesser extent during the
day) is that of a vast, circular dome covering the Earth. While this appearance
is illusory, it is part of the basis for our conceptualisation of the night sky.
To measure and divide this sphere, the astronomers of antiquity projected
lines, referred to as celestial circles, on to the sphere of the sky. These
circles vary in nature and cause, but each represents an astronomical
concept. Manilius provides an extensive list of celestial circles in Book
One, where he describes the circles in detail.190 Some of these circles, in
particular the zodiac, are then used in the later astrological Books to
convey astrological procedures.
The principal description of celestial circles is found in 1.565717.

Unfortunately, there is a lacuna in the beginning of this section of an
estimated six lines.191 This leaves us without an introduction to Manilius
list, though we still possess the bulk of the section. In his account, Manilius
describes all the significant circlesincluding the Milky Way (which is
not placed in that category by modern astronomy). His list describes the
five parallel circles: the arctic, tropic of Cancer, the celestial equator,
the tropic of Capricorn and the antarctic circle. It continues with the
equinoctal colure and the solstitial colure. He lists the meridian, the horizon
and the zodiac, and concludes the section with a lengthy, mythical discussion
of the Milky Way. In summary, he describes a total of eleven circles.
This detailed account of celestial circles suggests a sound grasp of positional
astronomy.192
190
A full description of celestial circles is found in Appendix A.
191
Goold (1977) xxxii.
___________________
3.3.2 Manilius Celestial Circles
The following discussion will examine each of the circles described by
the poem. The first of the extant lines begins with a description of the five
parallel circles (1.566602), so called, because these circles run parallel
to each other. Manilius begins with the arctic circle (1.5667), lying 6
sexagesimal degrees (36 degrees)193 from the north celestial pole. This is
followed by the tropic of Cancer (1.56874), lying 5 sexagesimal degrees
(30 degrees) from the arctic circle. Then Manilius reaches the centre of
the sky with the celestial equator (1.57581), lying 4 sexagesimal degrees
(24 degrees) from the tropic of Cancer. This is followed by the tropic of
Capricorn (1.58288), which lies 4 sexagesimal degrees (24 degrees)
from the celestial equator. Manilius then describes the antarctic circle
which lies 5 sexagesimal degrees (30 degrees) from the tropic of Capricorn
(1.591). Lastly, he indirectly refers to the existence of the south celestial
pole (1.5923). Manilius correctly labels and places these circles, yet
there are a number of questions raised by their descriptions. He includes
no reference to his source(s), though he provides two clues as to their
origin: the use of the sexagesimal degree system and the provision of a
full complement of celestial circles.
192
It is difficult to date the development of the idea of celestial circles. Some, such as
the tropics, are more readily apparent and would have been discovered before more
subtle circles such as the colures. Neugebauer (1975) 34 suggests that it is reasonable
to assume that by the time of Aristarchus (c. 310250 B.C.) a full complement of
celestial circle was present. It is possible that Eudoxus, the author of the first
mathematical model of the universe, either created or used the full range of circles
found in the Astronomica.
193
To avoid confusion, when the sexagesimal degree system is used it will be noted as
such, e.g. 6 sexagesimal degrees (= 36 standard degrees). If there is no indicator,
it should be assumed that the standard 360 degree system is in use.
___________________
To indicate the separation of the circles, Manilius gives a figure in degrees
measured against the background of the celestial sphere. In so doing, he
uses a system which contains only 60 degrees in a complete circle.194 This
usage runs counter to that found elsewhere in the Astronomica where
Manilius uses a system of 360 degrees.195
A reconstruction of the development of the degree system in the Greek

world suggests that the Greeks first referred to angles as fractions of other
angles: of a 90-degree quadrant, a fraction of a zodiacal sign (30 degrees)
or of a complete circle.196 Then c. 300250 B.C. a 60degree system was
adopted, as illustrated by Eratosthenes usage.197 The first known use of a
360-degree system were by the contemporaneous figures of Hipparchus
and Hypsicles, in the mid-second century B.C.198 The 60 and 360degree
systems coexisted throughout the ancient era, with the sexagesimal system
falling into disuse only in the Byzantine era.199 This allows us to date
Manilius source for his account of the Celestial Circles to a period no
earlier than c. 300 B.C.
194
This is illustrated by his description of the separation of the Tropic of Cancer and
the celestial equator. Measured in a 360 degree system, the separation of these two
celestial circles is 24 degrees but Manilius lists it as only 4 degrees (1.57581):
tertius in media mundi regione locatus / ingenti spira totum praecingit Olympum /
parte ab utraque videns axem, qua lumine Phoebus / componit paribus numeris
noctemque diemque / veris et autumni currens per tempora mixta, / cum medium
aequali distinguit limite caelum; / quattuor et gradibus sua fila reducit ab aestu.
195
In Book Two, for example, when describing the zodiac, which completes a full
circle through the sky, Manilius states that it covers 360 degrees, not 60 degrees
(2.3078): nam, cum sint partes orbis per signa trecentae / et ter vicenae, quas
Phoebi circuit ardor.
196
Dicks (1966) 27.
197
Strabo Geog. 1134, cf. Neugebauer (1975) 590ff.
198
Hipparchus was the first known astronomer to use the 360 degree system. cf.
Neugebauer (1975) 590ff. and Dicks (1977) 2728.
199
Neugebauer (1975) 591. Sextus Empiricus Ad. Astrol. 5.57 states that astrologers
divided a degree into 60 arc minutes. This level of accuracy is never approached by
Manilius.
___________________
The second clue as to the circles origin is found in the detailed list
Manilius gives. Hipparchus, in his Commentary on Aratus, states that
Eudoxus listed seven circles in his astronomy: the summer tropic, winter
tropic, the celestial equator, the solstitial and equinoctal colures, and the
arctic and antarctic circles.200 The Astronomica has all these plus the
additional circles of the meridian, the horizon, the Milky Way and the
zodiac. The presence of additional circles suggests a source later than
Eudoxus (mid-fourth century).
One additional piece of evidence lies in the description of the two tropics
as lying 4 sexagesimal degrees (24 degrees) from the celestial equator.
This figure is essentially correct, but the precise figure is slightly less.
The question is, why did Manilius not give a more accurate figure?201 The
figure of 24 degrees may have originated as early as the fifth century with
Oinopides of Chios.202 Geminius (? c. 70 B.C.) provides an account of the
celestial circles similar to Manilius, also enumerating them in the
sexagesimal system and giving an ecliptic obliquity of 4 degrees (24
degrees). Manilius was attempting here to give no more than an overview
of the state of the circles, so an approximate figure of 24 degrees was
adequate for his purpose.203
All we can conclude, based upon the number of circles and the use of the
sexagesimal system, is that Manilius ultimately relied on a source dated c.
200
Hipparchus Comm. 1.2.1, 10.1.11.
201
Ptolemy, Alm. 1.12. Manilius was not averse to using fractions of a degree. In his
astrological writings he discusses measurements as small as 1/720 of a circle, half
of a degree (e.g. 3.275300). Pannekoek (1961) 124 grants the 24 degree figure to
Eudoxus, and 23 degrees and 51 minutes of arc to Eratosthenes.
202
Dicks (1970) 88, 1578 suggests that Oinopedes (a contemporary of Anaxagoras)
may have made the first crude determination of the obliquity of the equinox.
203
Neugebauer (1975) 7334 suggests that a figure of 24 degrees was used throughout
later antiquity as a round figure for the angle of the ecliptic.
___________________
300 B.C. or later.
A further question which arises from Manilius description of the five

parallel circles concerns his placement of the arctic and antarctic circles.
Manilius lists both as being 6 sexagesimal degrees from the pole, although
each has no intrinsic location.204 These circles are defined as arcs, circling
the celestial pole, which contain an area of sky that never sets. The
problem with this definition is that the diameter of this circle varies with
the observers latitude. As the observer approaches the pole, a larger area
of the sky never sets; as the observer moves away from the pole, a
smaller area remains above the horizon each day. The definition given by
Maniliusan Arctic and Antarctic circle drawn 36 degrees from the
polewould result from an observation made from the 36th degree of
latitude.205
3.3.3 The Zodiac

The zodiac plays a central role in Manilius astrology. This is explicitly
stated in Book Three where the zodiac is referred to as the mundi praecordia
(3.61) and is granted dominance by nature (God), his regimen natura
dedit (3.64). This importance is not reflected in the discussion of the
zodiac in Book One, where the zodiac is the tenth circle in a list of
eleven. The circles are presented in a progressive fashion, with the position
204
In comparison to the other three parallel circles that do have a fixed location.
205
This corresponds to the latitude of Rhodes, which is associated with a number of
prominent figures, such as Panaetius, Posidonius, Hipparchus and Thrasyllus. It also
bears noting that this latitude also corresponds to that of northern Mesopotamiathe
source of some of Manilius astrology.
Goold (1977) xxxii has made a minor error in listing the latitude of Rhodes as 54
degrees north, rather than 36 degrees north. This is probably due to a confusion over
Rhodes true latitude and its reciprocal, which is used to calculate the location of the
celestial circle.
___________________
of each circle described in terms of its relationship to previously described
circles and constellations. The zodiac is described merely as bordered by
the constellations Crab and Capricorn and as intersecting the celestial
equator (1.672ff.).206 It is not granted any significance in the catalogue of
celestial circles.
This divergence between astrological importance and astronomical

insignificance can be explained if we assume that this section was based
upon an astronomical source that did not place great importance on the
zodiac and that Manilius used the source without serious modification.
3.3.4 The Precession of the Equinoxes

Two sections in the Astronomica reflect the achievements of Hipparchus
of Samos,207 one of these in a negative sense, since it concerns a significant
astronomical error found in the Astronomica, suggesting a pre-Hipparchian
level of astronomical knowledge. The two intersection-points of the celestial
equator (the projection of the Earths equator onto the sky) and the ecliptic,
(the annual path of the Sun) are important reference points in astronomy.
Prior to the time of Hipparchus, it was believed that these two points
were fixed, but Hipparchus proved that they were not, and that in fact
they slowly and regularly moved.208 His discovery of this phenomenon,
known as the precession of the equinoxes, was one of the great discoveries
of classical astronomy. In the Astronomica, however, the intersection
point is stated as fixed (1.27584), and so Manilius does not recognise
206
1.672 hunc tenet a summo Cancer, Capricornus ab imo, 1.675 sic per tris gyros
inflexus ducitur orbis.
207
The role and importance of Hipparchus is discussed in A History of Astronomy and
Astrology (thesis section 1.2).
208
For a full discussion of the precession of the equinoxes see Appendix A. Ptolemy
Alm. 7.3, mentions Hipparchus discovery.
___________________
the existence of precession.
There are three possible reasons why Manilius did not use Hipparchus
discovery. The first rests upon one component of Stoic dogma, the belief
that the universe was perfect and unchanging. Hipparchus precession of
the equinoxes, a constant varying of the heavens, suggests a less-than-
perfect universe that runs counter to Stoic belief. Secondly, there are a
number of mathematical statements in the Astronomica which suggest
that Manilius had only a limited grasp of mathematics.209 The calculation
of precession would, arguably, be the most complex mathematical task of
antiquity. While it seems likely that Manilius possessed some degree of
awareness of Hipparchus discovery, it is unlikely that he fully understood
or even wished to grasp its significance. Lastly, there is a statement
attributed to Hipparchus by Ptolemy, to the effect that Hipparchus did not
believe that the current state of astronomical knowledge was sufficient to
devise a valid model of the solar system.210 Such a statement would not
be well regarded by an astrologer whose understanding of astrological
divination was based upon the assumption that the universe could be, and
was, understood.
From Manilius perspective Hipparchus was not a suitable source for

astronomical thought. Also precession was rarely mentioned in later
astronomical writings, since it was a difficult concept. This suggests that
Manilius did not rely on the most up-to-date astronomical theories, but
upon earlier and possibly simpler, Stoic sources.
209
See thesis section 2.2.5, which deals with Manilius as an mathematician, for a full
discussion of this point.
210
Ptolemy Alma. 9.2.
___________________
3.3.5 The Location of the Colure Points
As the Sun moves along the ecliptic (its path through the sky) in the
course of each year, the Earth experiences variations in the length of day
and night. These are the result of the 23.5 degree apparent swing north
and south of the equator by the Sun. This movement has four defining
points. The first two of which are the points at which the Sun crosses the
celestial equator, occurring in the constellations of Libra and Aries. When
the Sun reaches these points, the Earth experiences days and nights of
equal length. These periods of time are known as the equinoxes and their
positions on the celestial equator are referred to as the equinoctal points.
The arc drawn between these points and the celestial poles is the equinoctal
colure.
The second two of the defining points of the Suns annual movement
occur when the Sun reaches the extreme north and south points in its
journey along the ecliptic, occurring in the constellations of Capricorn
and Cancer. In the northern hemisphere, when the Sun enters Cancer, the
longest day and shortest night occur. The opposite is true for the southern
hemisphere. These events are known as the solstices and these two positions
on the celestial equator are referred to as the solstitial points. As with the
equinoctal points, there is a celestial circle that runs through these two
points and the celestial poles, which is called the solstitial colure. Manilius
includes the equinoctal and solstitial circles in his tally of celestial circles.
These points have a definite location in the sky in relation to the celestial
equator and the ecliptic. The question that arises concerns their location
with reference to the zodiacal constellations. In the main, Manilius places
these colure points at the beginning (the first degree) of the relevant
constellations but there are indications that he sometimes placed them
___________________
within the constellations.
First, let us look at the three references that suggest the use of the first
degree. The primary placement of the equinoctal and solstitial colures
describes the location of these circles via the constellations.(1.610ff.) The
first equinoctal point is placed on the boundary of Libra: ...dividit Arctos /
et iuga Chelarum medio volitantia gyro (1.6101); and the second on the
border of Aries: Lanigerique notat fines clarumque Trigonum (1.615).
This last reference clearly indicates that the border of the constellation
lies on the equinoctal point.
In lines 2.178ff. Manilius describes the tropical signs as: Aries, Libra,
Cancer and Capricorn 2.1789.211
idcirco tropicis praecedunt omnibus astra

bina, ut Lanigero, Chelis Cancroque Caproque,212
These lines clearly identify the boundaries of the constellations as the

indicators of the tropic and equinoctal points. This is also the definition
assumed in lines 3.27893, where Manilius discusses the rising of the
signs (zodiacal constellations) and in 3.395ff. and 3.443ff., and where the
varying length of the day is discussed. While none of these latter examples
specifically states that the colure points lie at the beginning of the
constellations, it is implied.
211
Line 2.177 seems to indicate that the change of season begins in the middle of the
constellation incipit autumnus media sub Virgine utrimque. This could simply be a
poor choice of phrase on Manilius part.
212
It should be mentioned here that Manilius use of the term tropic (tropicis
2.178) is technically inaccurate. The signs described are both the tropic and equinoctal,
but, Manilius may have used the term tropic as a generic term for these four
points.
___________________
Lastly, in a discussion of the effects of the zodiacal constellations, Manilius
assigns each to its respective season. In doing this, he again confirms the
location of the colure points as lying at the beginning of each constellation
(2.2669):
aestas a Geminis, autumnus Virgine surgit,

bruma Sagittifero, ver Piscibus incipit esse,
quattuor in partes scribuntur sidera terna;
hiberna aestivis, autumni verna repugnant.
___________________
This passage is best displayed in the following table.
Table 3
Seasons Ascribed to Zodiacal Constellations: 2.2669
___________________________________
Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Pisces Gemini Virgo Sagittarius
Aries Cancer Libra Capricorn
Taurus Leo Scorpio Aquarius
___________________________________
The above three references would seem to indicate that Manilius used the
first degree as the indicator of the colures, but in two other references the
colure points are found elsewhere. The first of these is part of an extended
discussion that consumes approximately one half of Book Three, in which
Manilius explains various methods of deriving the rising-times of the
zodiacal constellations (3.203504). The reference states that the shortest
day in the northern hemisphere occurs when the Sun is in the eighth
degree of the constellation Capricorn, fulget in octava Capricorni parte
biformis (3.257). The reference to the eighth degree differs from that
implied in other parts of this same discussion. For example, the indicator
of equal days and nights is given as Libra ...in Libra cum lucem vincere
noctes (3.252); summer is reached (with the longest day in the northern
hemisphere) when the Sun is in Cancer ...ad ardentis pugnarunt sidera
Cancri (3.264). Thus the reference to the eighth degrees is unique, even
___________________
contradictory, within its own context.
The second and last reference to the colure points lying other than in the
first degree is in the last lines of Book Three.213 Here Manilius refers to a
range of opinion (reflecting a range of sources and traditions) as to where
the colure points may be placed, whether in the eighth, tenth or also the
first degree of the constellation (3.6802):
has quidam vires octava in parte reponunt ;

sunt quibus esse placet decimae; nec defuit auctor
qui primae momenta daret frenosque dierum.
This discussion illustrates again the diversity of sources at Manilius

fingertips and the ease with which he combined these sources with no
comprehensive attempt at reconciliation. His statement that the winter
solstitial point occurs at the eighth degree of Capricorn is an anomaly
(3.257). It may have been an error on his part, but it is more likely that
Manilius simply did not care.
213
There are two other references to the placement of the colure points. In the first
of these, Manilius places the longest day in Cancer (3.6257) Cancer ad aestivae
fulget fastigia zonae / extenditque diem summum parvoque recessu / destruit et,
quanto fraudavit tempore luces. In the following reference, the shortest (northern)
day occurs when the Sun is in Capricorn (3.6379) Parte ex adversa brumam
Capricornus inertem / per minimas cogit luces et maxima noctis / tempora, producitque
diem tenebrasque resolvit.
Both of these descriptions are correct, but there is nothing in either reference to
indicate where Manilius placed the Sun. It could lie at the mid-point or at the first
degree of the constellation. As other references are similarly vague about the exact
location of the colure points (3.27893, 3.395436 and 3.44382), there is little
reason to assume that in these later references they occur elsewhere than at the first
degree. If this is the case, then the only clear reference to other than the first degree
is in 3.257 and in the end of Book Three.
___________________
3.3.6 Conclusion
Manilius provided a full and comprehensive account of the celestial circles
known to ancient astronomy. His only major omission was the precession
of the equinoxes. The evidence suggests that Manilius source is later
than c. 300 B.C., and was astronomical, not astrological.
The format of this account also provides an insight into Manilius goal.
His full account of the circles contained more than was needed for an
understanding of the astrological theories found in the Astronomica. It
would have been possible to edit this into an astrological framework and
provide only that information necessary for astrology, but this Manilius
does not do. He is content merely to copy an account of the celestial
circles from an astronomical source without modification. Manilius is not
concerned with providing a correct account, which could be used as the
basis of his work. The Astronomica reflects a diversity of sources with
little attempt at reconciliation; Manilius exposition of the celestial circles
is typical of this approach.
___________________
Astronomy - The Constellations 132
3.4 Constellations
3.4.1 Introduction
The constellations are groupings of the stars into recognisable patterns.
The precise origin of many of the constellations is not known but the
majority of the modern constellations derived from a combination of
Babylonian and Greek traditions.214 The motivating idea for many
constellations is indicated by their name (e.g. Canis Major and Draco).
Other constellations were named for myth and religion (e.g. Perseus and
Andromeda) while others have a more mundane origin (e.g. Eridanus).
The function of constellations in astronomy (apart from their aesthetic
role) is to identify stars (e.g. Alpha Librathe brightest star in Libra). In
the field of astrology, however, constellations in themselves are believed
to possess influence over human destiny.
In Book One, Manilius includes a constellation catalogue, and its inclusion

raises two issues which deserve further examination. The first of these is
its bias, since although the catalogue is comprehensive, it clearly reflects
an astrological orientation. The second issue is the relevance of the catalogue
to the text. Manilius astrology relies upon the zodiac, and so the non-
zodiacal constellations are irrelevant, yet the catalogue includes a near
full list of constellations.215
3.4.2 The Constellation Catalogue of Manilius

214
For a discussion of the origins and history of the constellations see Allen (1963)
(a discussion of the origin of each constellation forms the introduction to the description
of the constellation).
215
Book Five uses non-zodiacal constellations in astrology. The astrology of Book Five
is fundamentally different from that found in the first four Books.
___________________
The constellation catalogue in the Astronomica (1.255531) is a descriptive
catalogue, in that the position of the stars and constellations are described
in a pictorial form. This differs from the description of celestial circles
(1.539804), where a coordinate system based upon angular separation
measured in degrees is used. The earliest known constellation catalogue
is that of Eudoxus, and from its account in Hipparchus commentary, it
too was a descriptive catalogue, similar to the surviving catalogue of
Aratus. It was probably Hipparchus who first created a coordinate
catalogue,216 but the only surviving example of such a coordinate catalogue
is found in Ptolemys Almagest. Manilius decision to follow Eudoxus
model and not that of Hipparchus most probably reflects the relative ease
of turning a descriptive account into poetry as opposed to the obvious
difficulty of converting tabular, numerical information into verse. The
poet was probably also influenced by his previously mentioned avoidance
of Hipparchus work. Manilius catalogue also contains a large amount of
myth, describing, for example, the legend of Jupiter and Leda (1.337-40).
This suggests a poetic or astrological origin for the catalogue as opposed
to the more scientific origin of the catalogue of celestial circles.
The constellation catalogue is divided into three parts. The first and smallest
is an account of the zodiacal constellations (1.263274), beginning with
Aries and listing the constellations in an easterly direction. Aries was
presumably chosen as the starting point as it contained the equinox in
Manilius era. The second part of the catalogue describes the constellations
lying to the north of the zodiac (1.294370). These begin with Ursa
Major, move south-westerly to the zodiac and then easterly, concluding
with Heniochus (Auriga). The last part contains the constellations lying to
216
There is some controversy as to whether Hipparchus or Ptolemy created the
coordinate system. This question is discussed in the section of this chapter on Stellar
Magnitudes (thesis section 3.6).
___________________
the south of the zodiac (1.387442). This description begins with Orion,
moves south, circling the unseen region surrounding the south celestial
pole, then turns to a easterly direction, concluding with Flumina (Eridanus).
The catalogue contains 19 northern and 13 southern constellations, which,
combined with the 12 zodiacal constellations, give Manilius a total of 44
constellations.
Manilius catalogue reflects his appreciation of the zodiac. In the lines

preceding his catalogue, he states that the zodiac is the indicator of fate: e
quibus et ratio fatorum ducitur omnis (1.261). Also, he claims that the
zodiac holds the heavens together, ut sit idem mundi primum quod continet
arcem (1.262). The zodiac was all important to Manilius and he thus used
it as the starting point for his explanation of the constellations. His decision
to list the zodiac as a separate group in the catalogue and to use the
zodiac as the divider of northern and southern constellations differs from
some earlier catalogues. Aratus used the zodiac to divide the sky into two
groups, north and south, without listing the zodiac as a distinct group.217
Ptolemys decision, with regard to the placement of the zodiac, is a mixture
of both systems.218
217
Aratus first and northern constellation group (Phaen. 26318) includes the
entire zodiac and all of the constellations north of the zodiac. His southern group
(Phaen. 322450) are the remaining constellations found south of the zodiac. In
lines 31921, Aratus states that he uses the Suns path (the ecliptic) as the divider
between the two groups of constellations. Thus, Aratus recognises the existence of the
zodiac but not as a group of constellations, rather in an astronomical sense as the
path of the Sun. He does not grant significance to the zodiacal constellations themselves.
Aratus is examined in detail in 1.4.2.
218
Ptolemys catalogue begins with the northern constellations at the end of Book
Seven and concludes, in the beginning of Book Eight, with a catalogue of southern
constellations. The zodiac is divided between these two categories, but the northern
half of the zodiac lies at the end of the northern catalogue and the southern half at the
beginning of the southern catalogue. Thus Ptolemy both divides the sky at the celestial
equator and recognises the zodiac as a divider between north and south.
___________________
There may well have been two traditions in the construction of constellation
catalogues, one reflecting an astrological tradition, the other an astronomical
tradition. The difference between the two meant more than the choice of a
different divider, since the placement of approximately one quarter of the
constellations had to be changed.219 As a guide to the catalogue Manilius
constellations are listed, along with Aratus, in appendix B in the order
found in the Astronomica.
3.4.3 Anomalies in Manilius Catalogue

Manilius catalogue is a comprehensive but not complete account of the
constellations known in the ancient world. It is the omitted constellations,
Coma Bernices, Corona Australis, Equuleus and Lupus, that provide clues
as to Manilius sources (an potentially, as to his intent in writing the
poem).
The first of these, Coma Bernices,220 is a small and faint constellation to

the east of Leo. Aratus (writing prior to its naming) alluded to this group
of stars in the Phaenomena (146), which suggests that the stars had a
recognisable existence and symmetry.221 Nevertheless, even after the naming
of the constellation, it was not always acknowledged until the Renaissance.222
The second missing constellation is Corona Australis, a constellation
found south of Sagittarius. Neither Aratus nor Vitruvius mention this
219
See Goold (1977) xxivxxxi.
220
It was named after Berenice, the wife of the 3rd Ptolemy, Euergetes, c. 245 B.C.
The third century B.C. mathematician and astronomer Conon is credited with the
creation of this constellation, Allen (1963) 1689.
221
The visual image of the constellation is not impressive. Its brightest star is only
of 4th magnitude, nor is it prominent in any other fashion, thus its late creation is
not surprising. There is also a strong possibility that its creation had political
motives. The prestige of the Ptolemaic dynasty would be reflected in the heavens by
this new constellation.
222
Allen (1963) 168ff. lists Eratosthenes, Geminus, Hyginus, Pliny and Ptolemy as
authors who referred to the constellation.
___________________
constellation, but it was known to Ptolemy who includes it in his list of
constellations of the southern hemisphere (Book Eight). It is possible that
Manilius omission of this constellation simply reflects its insignificance
or, equally possibly, its lack of wide-spread recognition prior to Ptolemys
era. The third constellation is Equuleus, a small and faint grouping west
of Pegasus. Geminus (3.8) states that it was named by Hipparchus, a
century and a half prior to Manilius.223 It was not included in the catalogues
of Aratus, Hyginus or Vitruvius, yet Ptolemy includes it in his list of
constellations of the northern hemisphere. The last of the missing four is
the constellation Lupus, a faint, small constellation located next to
Centaurus, between Ara and Scorpius. It is pictured as a small animal
held by Centaurus. Aratus includes it in his catalogue (442) as dies Vitruvius
(9.5.1) (Aratus listing of this constellation suggests that it was well known),
and as Goold suggests (xxx), Manilius could have considered this
constellation as an intrinsic part of the constellation Centaurus.
The omission by Manilius of these four constellations could be due to no

more than their faintness and insignificance, yet Manilius does include
other small and faint constellations in the catalogue (e.g. Sagitta, Triangulum
and Crater, although all of these are somewhat more distinctive than the
four missing constellations). The exclusion of these constellations, all
perhaps known in the time of Manilius, suggests both a neglect of minor
constellations and a reliance on earlier sources, possibly from the early
third century. In this Manilius seems to have ignored Hipparchus stellar
catalogue and its successors. There is also the possibility that the ommission
of these constellations is due, as with other aspects of the work, to an
indifference to minor details.
223
Geminus wrote an Introduction to Astronomy. The date of Geminus is an unresolved
question. Neugebauer (1975) 578ff. gives a date of c. A.D. 50. This is one, small
additional piece of evidence that Manilius did not use Hipparchus as a source.
___________________
3.4.4 Conclusion
Manilius catalogue is a comprehensive and well-presented summary of
the constellations known in the ancient world. It clearly possesses an
astrological orientation, indicated by the prominent role assigned to the
zodiac. The date of the sources of the catalogue is impossible to determine
precisely, but a date in the third century is likely. As with much of
Manilius astronomical information, its utility is questionable. Apart from
Book Five, Manilius concentrates his astrological attention solely on the
zodiac and there is no need for this level of information on the non-zodiacal
constellations.
___________________
Astronomy - The Planets 138
3.5. The Planets
3.5.1 Introduction
The Earth is surrounded by fixed stars, so named as they remain in
fixed positions in the sky. Against the backdrop of these stars move the
five planets visible to the naked eye, and the Sun and the Moon. The
planets move amongst the stars in slow but complex patterns, while the
Sun and the Moon share the distinction of an obvious, circular shape and
unidirectional motion. Manilius recognises the existence of the planets
and provides two essentially identical lists (1.807808224 and 5.67),
including the Sun and the Moon in his tally. He briefly outlines their
nature as follows (1.807808):
Saturni, Iovis et Martis Solisque, sub illis

Mercurius Venerem inter agit Lunamque volatus.225
This description follows the geo-centric model used in Greek astronomy.

In their travels around the Earth, the planets keep to a narrow band of sky
known as the zodiac.226 It is, however, very difficult to reconcile observation
of the complex heliocentric movement of the planets with predictions
based on a geo-centric model.227
224
Housman moved 1.8058 to 1.538.
225
It should be noted that 1.807 is identical with 5.6.
226
The planets orbit around the Sun in a near flat plane. As such, as viewed from the
Earth, the planets appear to move along the sky in a narrow path, the zodiac. In
reality, the planets do not share an identical plane; some are angled above and
below the average. This added complexity of planetary motion made the task of
predicting the planets movement more difficult.
227
The observed motion of the planets is discussed later in thesis section (2.5.3).
___________________
3.5.2 The Order of the Planets
Manilius lists the seven planets in their correct sidereal order (the duration
of the orbital period of each planet). The order given in 1.807808 and
repeated in 5.67 228, begins with the planet Saturn, the planet most distant
from the Earth, followed by Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, then Venus, Mercury,
and lastly the Moon. The time taken for each planet to circle the Earth
was held (not altogether incorrectly) to be its relative distance from the
Earth.
This description of the planets indicates that Manilius knew the astronomical
theories of his day, since his planetary order reflects a knowledge of
astronomy defined only in the fourth century B.C. by Eudoxus and
confirmed by Hipparchus in the second century.229 The planetary order
given in earlier periods varied,230 and it would seem that the Greeks did
not recognise the existence of the planets as clearly distinct from the
fixed stars until the fifth century.231
Manilius description omits an account of the orbital periods of the planets,

facts known in his day.232 Since he is willing to include numbers in the
228
There is a lacuna in Book Five, which Goold (1977) xcviic believes described the
astrological significance of the planets. This astrological account may have included,
as background material, additional astronomical information.
229
Dicks (1970) 153.
230
Plato linked the inferior planets, Mercury and Venus, with the Suns annual
motion (Timaeus 38).
The Egyptians most often used the order: Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Mercury and Venus
Old Babylonian order: Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Mars.
New Babylonian order (Persian/Hellenistic period): Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury
and Saturn.
cf. Neugebauer (1975) 6902.
231
Dicks (1970) 30 provides a brief discussion of this point. Plato, when describing
the planets in Timaeus 38, recognises their circular motion but provides no definite
information about the orbital period or position.
232
It is difficult to determine when the Greeks measured the orbital periods of the
planets, but, by the time of Eudoxus, they must have been known, as they were
essential to his planetary theory.
___________________
Astronomica when circumstances call for them (astrological discussions
sometimes revolve around measures as small as 0.5 degrees) , the omission
of the sidereal period may reflect Manilius lack of interest in the planets.
3.5.3 Retrograde Planetary Motion

Because the Sun (and not the Earth) lies at the centre of the solar system,
and the Earth itself is merely one of five (visible) planets orbiting the
Sun, the path of the planets in the sky appears complex. Over the course
of a year the planets move eastwards, slow, halt, and then move westwards,
halt again and then loop back over their previous courses, progressively
moving westwards. The exact movement of each planet varies due to its
distance from the Sun and its orbital variability. The backward motion
of the planets is referred to as retrograde motion. Any attempt to explain
this behaviour in terms of a geo-centric solar system is understandably
difficult and was a task that consumed much of the energy of ancient
astronomy.233
Manilius was aware of the existence of retrograde motion. He describes

the planets as struggling against the background stars (1.15):234 ...stellarum
noscere cursus, a clear depiction of the retrograde motion of the planets
as they move with, then against, and at varying speeds with respect to the
background stars. Manilius, however, makes no attempt to explain
retrograde motion. In his era, there was a large body of work that explained
the phenomenon by postulating an ever increasing number of conjoint
233
Each successive era of ancient astronomy, concluding with Ptolemy, created ever
more complex models in an attempt to portray the motion of the planets accurately,
but none of these was entirely successful.
234
Also: 1.309 per bis sena volant contra nitentia signa, 1.805 (following line
1.538) sunt alia adverso pugnantia sidera mundo, 1.670 et quinque adverso luctantia
sidera mundo, 5.1-2 ... signisque relatis / quis adversa meant stellarum numina
quinque
___________________
spheres upon which each planet moved. Manilius omission probably
stems from his desire to provide only an overview of astronomy to his
readers. A discussion of planetary astronomical theory would be a
challenging and time-consuming task. It is also possible that, as this
theory was complex and depended upon a knowledge of mathematics,
Manilius, who nowhere demonstrates a grasp of advanced mathematics,
may have felt the task beyond him.
The motion of the Sun and Moon differs from that of the five true planets
in that they do not undergo retrograde motion, but rather they move in
uninterrupted paths around the Earth. Manilius distinguishes between these
two groups of planets. In 3.623, the Sun and Moon are distinguished
from the wandering stars:
disposita, obtineant, Phoebum Lunamque vagasque

evincunt stellas nec non vincuntur et ipsa,
This distinction of the Sun and Moon is repeated in 5.23, where Manilius
lists the planets for the second time:
quis adversa meant stellarum numina quinque

quadriiugis et Phoebus equis et Delia bigis
In these references, Manilius clearly divides the seven planets into two
groups based on the criterion of retrograde motion. He also indicates an
awareness of a further division of the planets. In modern astronomy the
five true planets are divided into two categories by their orbital position:
those lying further from the Sun than the Earth (Saturn, Jupiter and Mars)
are known as the superior planets; and those closer (Venus and Mercury)
are referred to as the inferior planets. Both groups display some form of
___________________
are referred to as the inferior planets. Both groups display some form of
retrograde motion. The superior planets display a more complex form as

they orbit around the entire sky, while the inferior planets display a far
simpler variation and never move far from the Sun. Although, by the time
of Manilius these two forms of retrograde motion had been recognised,
he does not clearly differentiate the two categories, although he does
make two references which indicate the difference. In 1.8713, within his
account of comets and meteors Manilius refers to Mercury and Venus
merging into the Suns light and then reappearing:
ac modo dimittit, sicut Cyllenius orbis

et Venus, accenso cum ducit vespere noctem
saepe latent falluntque oculos rursusque revisunt;
His reference to the two inferior planets recognises their unique movement.
Similarly, a recognition of the orbital difference between the inferior and
superior planets is found in the statement that Venus is an evening and
morning star (1.1778):
nec matutinis fulgeret Lucifer horis,

Hesperos emenso dederat qui lumen Olympo.235
This reference implies that Venus, unlike the superior planets, could be
only a morning or an evening star. It could never travel far from the Sun.
3.5.4 Conclusion
235
Seneca makes a statement on this point, claiming that successive ages uncover
more of the mysteries of the heavens and that the knowledge of planetary movement,
retrograde motion and morning and evening stars, had only been discovered relatively
recently (NQ. 7.25.5). As Seneca apparently believed that astrological research
stretched back thousands of years relatively recently could refer to the Hellenistic
era, a mere three centuries in the past.
___________________
Manilius extant accounts of the planets amount to no more than a few
lines scattered throughout the Astronomica. These lines provide a reasonable
summary of planetary behaviour while avoiding complex or mathematical
discussion. Manilius lists the planets in correct sidereal order but their
orbital periods are not given. He describes planetary retrograde motion
but provides no discussion of its cause or variants. It is clear that, even
though a theory of planetary motion had been in existence for two centuries,
Manilius saw the planets as of little importance in his schema and, therefore,
they received little attention from him.236
236
His interest in planets should be compared to his account of comets and meteors at
the end of Book One. This runs to over a hundred lines, but Manilius does not make
use of this knowledge in the subsequent text.
___________________
Astronomy - Stellar Magnitudes 144
3.6 Stellar Magnitude
3.6.1 Introduction
The stars in the night sky vary in brightness. In order to categorise the
different levels of brightness, a system was devised in antiquity that is
still in use today (with modifications). This is the stellar magnitude
system in which there are six categories of brightness each termed
magnitude. The brightest stars in the heavens are of the first magnitude
while the faintest stars visible to the human eye are of the sixth. The
creator of this system is believed to have been Hipparchus of Samos.237 It
is believed that the magnitude system formed part of his stellar catalogue,
but, this is not certain. Regrettably, his catalogue has not survived, and
we must rely on fragments and the stellar catalogue in the Almagest. A
suspicion exists that Ptolemy was the creator of the magnitude system,
but Manilius use of the magnitude system predates Ptolemys and provides
evidence as to its earlier date, since the stellar magnitude system is preserved
in Book Five of the Astronomica.
3.6.2 Manilius Text

In 5.7107 (with an estimated initial 30 lines missing) Manilius lists the
constellations in their order of relative brightness, using Hipparchus
237
A key reference is from Pliny the younger, who states in Nat. Hist. 2.95:
(Hipparchus) adnumerare posteris stellas ac sidera ad nomen expungere organis
excogitatus, per quae singularum loca atque magnitudines signaret. As Pliny died (c.
A.D 112) a generation prior to Ptolemys birth (c. A.D. 127) his reference to
Hipparchian magnitudes does suggest that the concept predated Ptolemy.
The suggestion that Hipparchus did not create the magnitude system is based on the
absence of any specific mention of the stellar magnitude in Hipparchus commentary
on Aratus and Eudoxus, Neugebauer (1975) 2912, 27788. This is not conclusive,
as the commentary could have been written earlier in Hipparchus career. This is
suggested by Dicks (1970) 1623.
___________________
magnitude system.238 The surviving lines, which list the constellations of
the third to sixth magnitude, are enough to indicate that Manilius categorised
the constellations into six orders of brightness, beginning with the first
magnitude. What is noteworthy, however, is their lack of relevance to the
text. They are found at the end of the work and are unrelated to any
section of astrological theory found in the Astronomica. Their only relevance
is to the lines immediately following (5.73442, the concluding lines of
Book Five), that describe the social hierarchy of the Roman state and
compare it to the hierarchy of stellar magnitudes.239 Thus, the constellation
magnitude catalogue is used as a metaphor that grants divine approval
upon the social structure of Rome. Cicero mentions that the Stoics used
the metaphor of a city as a model of the world (de Fin. 3.63).240 As these
lines are the earliest extant expression of a magnitude system, they deserve
examination.
3.6.3 Constellations v. Stars v. Brightness

The first point to make about the constellation magnitude catalogue is its
formatthe cataloguing of constellations by magnitude. Ptolemys, and
presumably Hipparchus magnitude system described the magnitude of
stars, not of constellations. As a general distinction, constellations are
238
5.7107 tertia Pleiadas dotavit forma sorores / femineum rubro vultum suffusa
pyropo / invenitque parem sub te, Cynosura, colorem, / et quos Delphinus iaculatur
quattuor ignes / Deltotonque tribus facibus, similique nitentem / luce Aquilam et
flexos per lubrica terga dracones / tum quartum sextumque genus discernitur omni /
e numero, summamque gradus qui iungit utramque.
239
It is possible, though there is no indication of it in any extant source, that the
constellation magnitude system played a role in the ease of identifying constellations.
A constellation could be referred to as bright or faint but with this system it
would be possible to indicate its relative brightness directly.
240
Schofield (1991) devotes an entire monograph to discussing the Stoic cosmic
city. A detailed discussion of its usage is not called for here. Essentially, the Stoics
saw the cosmic order reflected in the order of the city. The details varied widely
between different Stoics and different eras.
___________________
central to astrology, while stars are central to astronomy.241 This suggests
an astrological, not an astronomical source for Manilius catalogue.242 It
would be reasonable to conclude that an astrologer, somewhere in the
century and a half between Hipparchus and Manilius, devised a magnitude
system for constellations based on the Hipparchus stellar magnitude
system.243
There is also the question of the lack of relevance of this catalogue to

astrology. It is a constellations position that determines its astrological
influence, not its brightness. Nowhere in the Astronomica does Manilius
refer to the brightness of a constellation as a factor of its astrological
significance, and the catalogue becomes less relevant because of the
inclusion of non-zodiacal constellations. The zodiac is central to Manilius
astrology; but only in Book Five, with the description of the rising and
setting of non-zodiacal constellations, is this challenged. What the catalogue
does indicate is the relationship between astrology and astronomy. There
is a question in the study of these two disciplines as to their origins and
relative primacy. I believe, that the inclusion of these lines discussing
constellation magnitudes in a work of astrology sheds some light on this
241
Astrology revolved around the zodiacal constellations and the planets. Predictions
were made on the basis of their changing relationships, and individual stars played
only a small role in astrology. As opposed to this, astronomers relied on accurate
measurements of the positions of individual stars and planets. For example, Hipparchus
discovery of the precession of the equinoxes relied on a very large number of accurate
stellar observations. During the course of the development of astronomy, constellations
would have become mere labels for the stars they contained.
242
There is a suggestion from some ancient sources that Hipparchus was an astrologer
as well as an astronomer. As such, there is a possibility that Hipparchus produced
both a stellar and constellation magnitude system. While this is possible, there is no
support for this in any reliable source. Also Neugebauer (1975) 3312 denounces
the belief that Hipparchus was an astrologer.
243
One could ask why might this hypothetical astrologer not be Manilius? If, however,
the author of this system were Manilius, it would be reasonable to assume that it
would occupy a far larger and more significant position in the Astronomica than it
does.
___________________
question.
In devising a constellation magnitude system and including it in a work

of astrology, astrologers in general, and Manilius in particular, were copying
an astronomical procedure. This suggests a degree of intellectual
dependence of astrology on astronomy. The existence of the catalogue
also suggests (or confirms) the existence of a large body of astrological
literature. Considering the popularity of astrology in the Hellenistic world
and even more so in the Roman, the latter is not a surprising finding.
3.6.4 Hipparchus, Ptolemy and the Stellar Catalogue

As mentioned earlier, the authorship of the first positional stellar catalogue,
in which the stars are individually located by a coordinate system, is in
dispute.244 Both Hipparchus and Ptolemy are credited with such a catalogue.
The debate revolves around two questions: the question as to the worth of
Hipparchus catalogue as compared to Ptolemys and, assuming that
Hipparchus catalogue was of sufficient quality, the dependence of
Ptolemys catalogue upon that of Hipparchus. The presence of the
magnitude system in the Astronomica provides evidence that Hipparchus
was the author of a positional stellar catalogue. The Astronomica contains
no discernible evidence on the second question.
To answer the question as to the quality of Hipparchus catalogue, we can

take as a starting point his recognised mathematical ability and his dedication
to his research. The fact of discovery of the precession of the equinoxes
alone suggests this.
244
Neugebauer (1975) 275ff., cf. the introduction to the Teubner edition of the
Almagest, Newton (1977) 10-25, Riley (1995).
___________________
This fact also constitutes the first link in a chain of evidence to suggest
that Hipparchus created the first stellar catalogue. The calculations
revealing precession would also require accurate measurements of the
position of the planets and the Moon. This, in turn, would require an
accurate knowledge of the position of a number of reference stars, from
which the changing position of the planets and Moon could be measured.
As the planets, in their movement through the zodiac, cover the entire
circumference of the sky, a range of reference stars spanning a significant
percentage of the sky would be required to measure their movement.245
Thus, the means by which Hipparchus carried out his observations of the
planets formed the basis for a stellar catalogue in itself.
The magnitude system itself is a second argument for Hipparchus

authorship of the first stellar catalogue. The creation of an accurate
magnitude system would require observing the relative brightness of stars
across the entire sky. It is a limitation of the human eye that only a few
degrees of our field of sight is clearly distinguishable at any one moment.
245
Neugebauer (1975) 280 suggests that a few main stars would suffice once the
invariance of all relative positions between fixed stars is established. This case,
argues that Hipparchus needed, and knew, the positions of only a few starsthe
discovery of the precession of the equinoxes did not require the basis of a stellar
catalogue.
I feel that this argument is weak in two areas. First, as Neugebauer states, Hipparchus
would first need to determine that the main stars do not change their relative
position. To achieve this, the position of the main stars would need to be measured
from at least two or three of their neighbouring stars over a period of time. Thus,
this observation alone would result in the determination of the position of a far
larger number of stars than merely the main stars.
My second objection to Neugebauers conclusion is his suggestion that only a few
stars are needed as reference stars. In theory, an astronomer would need only two
reference stars to measure the position of a planet, but, practical considerations
urge a knowledge and use of more than two. During the course of observation, the
accuracy of any measures can be increased by increasing the number of measures and
averaging the result (and removing any obviously incorrect measures). Also, due to
weather effects (cloud, fog, haze etc.) a portion of the reference stars may not be
visible when needed. By having a larger number of stars to draw upon, the chance of
accurately measuring the planets position is increased.
___________________
With this in mind, the procedure by which Hipparchus may have measured
the brightness of the stars, may have been to estimate the relative magnitude
of each star in each constellation (or in the case of the larger constellations,
a section of the constellation) and then compare the brightness of stars of
adjacent constellations. This procedure would be repeated until an even
measure of stellar magnitude existed over the entire sky. Thus a fair
percentage of the visible stars would have had to have been observed to
produce the magnitude system. If we assume that Hipparchus was as
methodical in the development of his magnitude system as he was with
his known work, then he would have accurately located the stars whose
magnitude he was measuring. The result of this procedure would not only
be a catalogue of stellar magnitude but also a catalogue of stellar positions.
Both the accurate measurement of planetary and Lunar movement and the
development of a magnitude system required a knowledge of the accurate
position of stars spread across a sizable area of the sky. This is the basis
for a positional stellar catalogue. It would be reasonable to assume that
Hipparchus would not stop at this point, with a major potential work only
partially complete, but would carry out whatever additional observations
were needed to complete the first stellar positional catalogue with a
magnitude system. As Neugebauer argues, however, there is no strong
evidence as to the nature of the coordinate system used by Hipparchus.246
He further argues that, while Hipparchus may have developed the magnitude
system, Ptolemy added to it by including divisions to the system above
and below full magnitude values.
246
Neugebauer (1975) 280 argues that Hipparchus catalogue did not use orthogonal
coordinates but merely a latitude system based around the number of degrees a star
was distant from a celestial circle and an ecliptical system where a stars position
was identified in relation to the ecliptic. He suggests that the orthogonal coordinate
system was the invention of Ptolemy.
___________________
It seems, though, that Hipparchus can be credited with the creation of the
magnitude system and a stellar catalogue of some description. How superior
Ptolemys catalogue was to Hipparchus and its degree of dependence,
are questions to which Manilius can provide no answers.
___________________
3.6.5 Conclusion
Book Five of the Astronomica contains the earliest extant reference to a
stellar magnitude system. This evidence of the systems existence prior to
the time of Ptolemy247 suggests that Hipparchus was its author. This
conclusion in turn suggests that Hipparchus also constructed a stellar
catalogue of some degree of sophistication. These conclusions are not an
indication that Manilius was directly familiar with the work of Hipparchus.
On the contrary, this usage (constellation magnitude and not stellar) suggests
an astrological intermediary between Hipparchus and Manilius.
247
The Almagest catalogue contains 154 stars (out of 1008) which are given a
magnitude greater or lesser than a specific integer, e.g. 3+, i.e. slightly brighter
than 3rd magnitude. This development is likely to be Ptolemys contribution to the
magnitude system.
___________________
The Colour of the Star Sirius in Antiquity 152
Chapter Four: The Colour of the Star Sirius in
Antiquity
4.1 Introduction
The star Sirius is the brightest star in the Earths sky and for all of
recorded history it must have been so, but while its brightness has not
changed, its observed colour may have. In the modern era Sirius is blue-
white in colour, but in antiquity some authors referred to it as a red
star.248 Theories of stellar evolution tell us that Sirius in its current stage
of development is white, and should have been white for the last one to
three million years, while before this period Sirius was a red star. Therefore,
248
The visual colour of a star is dependent on two attributes: its surface temperature
and its brightness. The first of these, the surface temperature, directly controls the
stars colour. A cool star is reddish in colour, a hot star, whitish in colour
(analogous to a piece of burning wood, which changes colour from red to white as its
temperature increases). The second factor is the stars brightness. Human colour
vision is effective only when an object is above a sufficient level of brightness. For
the human eye to perceive a stars colour, the star must have a high intrinsic
brightness. If a faint star were to be red in colour, humans would not detect its
colour, it would be perceived as white. Only a few stars are bright enough for humans
to perceive their true colour, and Sirius is one of these. For a discussion of the
human eye for astronomical purposes see the article by Jooste.
Sirius is an A1 type star with a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees kelvin,
approximately twice the surface brightness of the Earths Sun. This is sufficient to
give it a colour of white (the blue is an artifact of human vision).
Dr. P. Bicknell (Monash University) has supplied me with the following information
concerning Sirius colour. Patrick Moore (a British populariser of astronomy) asked
English viewers of his astronomy programs to tell him the colour they believed
Sirius to be. He received over 5,000 replies. Seventy-five per cent of the replies
stated that Sirius was white or blue, while the remaining 25 per cent gave a colour
of red, orange, yellow, green or flashing in colour. This last clearly refers to Sirius
appearance when near the horizon and subject to scintillation. If we assume that
Moores viewers possess an above average knowledge of astronomy, then we find that
25 per cent of astronomically aware people in the modern world believe that Sirius
true colour is that of its rising or setting. This suggests that it would not be impossible
for ancient authors also to mistakenly believe that Sirius was red.
___________________
unless something is drastically wrong with current astronomical theory,
Sirius could not have been red a mere two thousand years ago.
___________________
4.2 Modern Discussion
The question of the discrepancy between ancient comment and modern
observation has been discussed in a casual way over the last two hundred
years. The first modern reference to Sirius ancient colour was by the
Rev. Stukeley in 1760 and since then the matter has been discussed
periodically to the present day.249 To explain its apparent redness modern
astronomers have proposed a number of different mechanisms: changes
to human colour perception, visual impairment of observers and dust
clouds reddening Siriuss light. With one exception none of these have
been offered with any great deal of plausibility.
The one and only proposed mechanism that does not stretch the realm of
credibility was outlined in a letter to Nature in 1986.250 Here the authors
suggest that a small explosion occurred on Sirius surface ejecting debris
into space. These ejecta would have filtered Sirius light, colouring it red.
While this is possible it has not been observed elsewhere, merely deduced
as a mechanism to explain the observations of antiquity. If, however,
such an explosion did occur on Sirius, it would have happened rapidly,
and over the space of a few months Sirius would have become brighter
and changed from a white to a red star. There is no suggestion of such a
dramatic change in any of the ancient sources. Also, the red appearance
of Sirius resulting from this event would exist for no more than two and a
half centuries, not the approximately one thousand year period suggested
by classical sources. Thus, while this mechanism is not impossible, there
is no observational support, nor does it agree with the purported records
of a red Sirius.
249
Rev. Baker (1760).
250
Frederick C. Bruhweiler, Yoji Kondo, Edward M. Sion (1986).
___________________
4.3 Ancient Sources
Sirius is part of the constellation Canis Major which shares the honour of
being one of the two hunting dogs of Orion the Hunter. Sirius itself has
received prominent mention in classical cultures. To the Egyptians, its
heliacal rising indicated the imminent Nile flood; but to the Greeks and
Romans its appearance heralded the heat of summer, and with it, many
associated ill events. This tradition has continued to the present day with
such expressions as dog days.
The belief in Sirius ill effects stems from three factors, the first being the
date of its heliacal rising in mid-July. When Sirius rises, the heat of the
northern summer is upon the Earth. Secondly, at its heliacal rising Sirius
appears as a bright red, flashing object. It is this time that Sirius seems
to have been most observed.251 Lastly, there is the factor of Sirius intrinsic
brightness. It is not only the brightest star, but it is also very bright. To
the astrologically inclined these factors create both the astrological
prominence of Sirius and its ill-fated nature.
Five classical authors, Homer, Cicero, Horace, Seneca and Ptolemy, seem
to have identified Sirius as being red in colour, but, Sirius is also mentioned
by several writers who do not give a colour.252
I offer, as the first piece of evidence as to Sirius true, ancient colour, the
fact that only five authors suggests its redness, while the majority are
silent on its colour. There are only five bright red stars in the sky, so the
251
This is an important point. If Sirius was generally observed at its heliacal rising,
this (red) appearance would have become part of its popular image, and thus the
question of Sirius colour is more easily answered.
252
A partial list follows: Hesiod Works and Days 58788, Aeschylus Agamemnon,
967, Horace Satires I.7.256, Virgil Georgics II.353, Hyginus Fabulae 2.35.
___________________
normal colour of stars is white. If Sirius was white, then there would be
little need to describe its colour. If it was red, then this redness would be
mentioned far more frequently than in the few references listed here.
The Greeks and Romans were not the only peoples to watch the sky. The
various Mesopotamian civilisations and the Chinese empires recorded the
movements of the stars and planets for astrological purposes. Their
observations should be able to assist us with this question, but unfortunately
they do not; Mesopotamian and Chinese sources are inconclusive. Let us
therefore turn in more detail to the Classical authors who describe Sirius
as red in colour as red to see if we may interpret their claims in any other
way.253
4.3.1 Homer
Homer is the earliest author allegedly to label Sirius red. Since in three
passages in the Iliad he compares Sirius with bronze armour, his
comparisons have led several astronomical authors to conclude that Homer
considered Sirius to be the colour of bronze, i.e. reddish. Let us look at
these passages in question.
The first of these is found in Iliad, Book Five, lines 47. Diomedes is
given bronze armour by Athena from which a fire shone, like that of the
autumn starSirius.
253
Bonnet-Bidaud (1990), Tang, Tong B. (1986).
___________________
In line 7 Sirius is referred to as washed by the Ocean. This suggests that
Homer is describing Sirius at its moment of rising.254 As Sirius is subject
to atmospheric scintillation when it is rising or setting, its appearance at
this moment would be red. Thus Homer was comparing Sirius to bronze
armour during a moment when Sirius was perceptibly red.255
The second reference from the Iliad occurs in 11.6166, where it is now
Hector who is compared to Sirius.
To begin the discussion, we should first ask if we can even be sure that
Sirius is referred to here, since the phrase , could also be
applied to a comet, but we shall assume for the sake of argument that
Homer is referring to Sirius.256 The passage tells us that Hector flashed
across the field of combat as this evil star flashes in the sky. Homer then
tells us that, like the lightning of Zeus, Hector flashes in his bronze
armour. There is only an imputed suggestion linking the colour of Sirius
to that of Homers bronze armour. There is no clear comparison, but no
254
Kirk (1990) 53 does not provide an indication as to Sirius colour. He does
suggest that washing implies brightness without providing an indication as to the
position of the star.
255
Rather than interpret this as a colour, it is possible that Homer was indicating the
belief that Diomedes armour was now the possessor of the power (that of the
brightest star) of Sirius. If this is so, it renders invalid any conclusion that the
passage indicates Sirius colour.
256
Kirk (1993) 226 takes the view that Sirius is referred to here.
___________________
other star is likely to be the one which is compared to him here.
The third and final Homeric reference to Sirius is found in Iliad 22.2532.
Here, Achilles prepares to fight Hector, and to indicate how Priam viewed
the approaching hero, Achilles armour is described as shining in the
same fashion as the light of Sirius - an evil, fever bringing star with a
coppery colour ( ). The worth of this statement of colour should be
tempered by line 27 that refers to Sirius as the star of harvest-time, i.e. in
mid-July when Sirius experiences its helical rising.257 Thus, as with the
first Homeric reference, the third suggests that Sirius was popularly
perceived as a red star, rising with the Sun.258
Thus, none of the references to Sirius by Homer proves conclusively that

Sirius was red at all times. The first and third references by Homer seem
only to suggest the redness of Sirius at its rising, while the second gives
no hint as to Sirius colour.
257
Richardson (1993) vol vi 109 states that Homer is referring to Sirius helical
rising.
258
Kirk (1993) 108-9 states that Achilles now has the nature of Sirius but does not
comment on the colour of the star.
___________________
4.3.2 Cicero
The next author whose works have been used as a basis for the claim that
Sirius was red is the Roman statesman Cicero. In his translation of Aratus
Phaenomena Cicero clearly describes Sirius as deep bronze colour, rutilo
cum lumine claret feruidus Canis.259 However, he also mentions Sirius in
two of his later works without giving it a colour.260
The source of Ciceros astronomical knowledge was Aratus, who discusses

Sirius in lines 326-36. Of interest is the context of the description, where
Sirius appearance is described at its heliacal rising (332ff.) This supports
the suggestion that Sirius popular image was that of its heliacal rising.
Aratus himself makes no claim for a red Sirius either in the precise
reference to Sirius (330-1) or in the complete passage.
Two possible means of reconciling the inconsistency between Aratus and

Cicero present themselves. The first is that Sirius changed colour, from
white to red, between the third and first centuries. This hypothesis would
require positive verification by later authors, which does not exist. The
second, that Cicero made a slight error in translation, possibly influenced
by Aratus description of Sirius at its heliacal rising and by contemporary
tradition which perceived Sirius as red/evil.261 Perhaps it should be noted
in passing that Cicero tells us that he did translate Aratus when he was a
young man (admodum adulescentulus).262 Whatever the reason for this
divergence between Aratus Phaenomena and its Latin translation, Ciceros
259
Cic. Arat. 1078. Ciceros colour of rutilus does differ from the subsequent red
colours of Horace, Seneca and Ptolemy. He seems to agree with Homer in giving
Sirius a coppery colour. Here, possibly, Cicero is following his Homer.
260
de Nat. Deorum 2.114.2 fervidus ille canis stellarum luce refulget and de Div.
1.130, where there is a discussion of how the people of Ceos observed the heliacal
rising once a year to determine the health of the year. There is no mention of colour.
261
It has been suggested that Cicero was not attempting a word for word translation,
but that rather he was interpreting Aratus, Montanari 62.
262
de Nat. Deorum 2.104, Ad. Att. 2.1.11
___________________
unsupported evidence cannot be taken as a reliable statement of Sirius
colour.
4.3.3 Horace
We now turn to Horace, a prolific poet of the Augustan era. In c. 30 B.C.
he published his second Book of Satires, in which he mentions the star
Sirius and calls it red (Satires 2.5.3940): ...seu rubra canicula findet /
infantis statuas. While this clearly states that Sirius is red, the reference
comes to us not as a deliberate attempt at describing the heavens but in
the middle of a satire on the legal process in which he is describing a
means to obtain a large inheritance. The allusion to Sirius may have been
no more than a minor illustrative indicator of social evil, using the popularly
red Sirius as a comparison. It also has been suggested that this line is not
pure Horace but a quote or parody of the poet Furius Bibaculus.263 There
is also the possibility that, as Sirius seems to be associated with the
change of seasons, this line in Horace may refer to its heliacal rising
during the winter months.264 The nature of the work itself makes questionable
the validity of Horaces comment.265
4.3.4 Seneca
The next author who calls Sirius red is the Stoic statesman Seneca. In his
Quaestiones Naturales, Seneca refers to Sirius as a red star, speaking of
Caniculae rubor.266 If this is examined in isolation from the rest of Senecas
work, it would be strong evidence for a red Sirius, but in the same line
Seneca describes the colour of two other astronomical objects that raise
263
Rudd (1966) 120, cf. Fairclough 200-1, fn c.
264
Astron. 1.397-9, Sirius is associated with winter and summer. The lines following
the above suggest this.
___________________
the question of his overall reliability.
Following the description of Sirius, Seneca describes Mars as Martis

remissor. Here the redness of Mars is considered less than that of Sirius,
yet, Mars has a strong, red colour. If Sirius were redder than Mars, then
Sirius would be red indeed. A description of Jupiter follows that of Mars,
which is even more puzzling. Seneca states that Jupiter has no colour, its
colour being pure light, Iovis (rubor) nullus in lucem puram nitore perducto.
This last certainly raises a question as to the validity of Senecas testimony.

The planet Jupiter is white in colour, (with a slight red/orange tinge). If
Seneca is speaking from an astronomical perspective, then he has made at
least one possible error in assigning colour by stating that Jupiter is white.
If we assume that he is speaking from a Stoic viewpoint, then his assignment
of colours is based on the astrological significance of these three objects.
Sirius is evil,267 therefore it is the reddest of the three; Mars is not evil,
265
Dr Bicknell has suggested that the satirical nature of this reference provides
insufficient cause to dismiss its evidence. In defence of my suggestion that the
observational validity of Horaces astronomical references cannot be taken at face
value, I offer the following list of modern poets who have referred to Sirius as red:
Martin, Martha E. The Friendly Stars, 1907 (referenced from Burnham 682)
Sirius rising:He comes richly dight in many colors...from tints of ruby and sapphire
and emerald and amethyst.
Willis, Scholar of Thebet ben Khorat
'Mild Sirius tinct with dewy violet'
Tennyson, The Princess 5.262
the fiery Sirius alters hue
And bickers into red and emerald
These three authors call Sirius red or multi-coloured, yet there is no question as to
the colour of Sirius in the modern world. These three use poetic licence to give them
a more interesting and colourful star to describe. Scientific accuracy should not be
sought in poetry. I conclude that popular, non-astronomical works cannot be trusted,
either in the ancient or modern world, to render astronomical observations accurately.
266
NQ. I.1.78: ...sed acrior / sit Caniculae rubor, Martis remissor, Iovis nullus in /
lucem puram nitore perducto
267
Seneca refers to Sirius as fire-like. NQ. 7.1.5 ... si rarus et insolitae figurae
ignis apparuit ...
___________________
but it is associated with the God of War and thus is red, although not as
red as Sirius; and Jupiter, being pure, has no colour and so it is white.
The possibility of an astrological bias is raised also by three Senecan

references to allegedly red comets.268 These three passages are important
as comets do not have any colour. They are white, and no comet has ever
been red. It is clear that Seneca was describing comets in their astrological
sense as bringers of evil and bad tidings, and he was not providing an
astronomically accurate description. This being the case, it is highly possible
that Senecas description of Sirius as red equally reflects an astrological
bias.
268
NQ. 7.11.3: ita ait aut lucidiorem ese aut rubicundiorem et crines aut in interiora
reductos aut in latera demissos. NQ. 7.15.1: Primo igneus ac rubicundus orbis fuit
clarumque lumen emittens, quanto vinceret noctem. This comet is associated with the
death of Demetrius Soter (151 B.C.) and the Achaean War. NQ. 7. 16.3: Comets ...
Multi variique sunt, dispares magnitudine, dissimiles colore; aliis rubor est sine
ulla luce, aliis candor et purum liquidumque lumen. This last view of comets may be
that of Apollonius of Myndus and not of Seneca himself.
___________________
4.3.5 Claudius Ptolemy
We now turn to the work of Ptolemy, whose reputation rests on a summary
of Greek astronomical thought, written in the first half of the second
century A.D. His work, popularly known as the Almagest, covered every
aspect of ancient astronomy in thirteen Books.
One section of the Almagest is a stellar catalogue describing the location

of the constellations and brighter stars. In his stellar catalogue, Ptolemy
tells us that Sirius is red, . 269 This, from the most important
astronomer in antiquity, would seem to settle the question of Sirius colour.
Stellar Catalogue, The Dog (Almagest 8.1):
The belief, however, that Ptolemy was a great astronomer is only one
view of his contribution to astronomy and the possibility has emerged
that Ptolemys observations were fabrications, based upon earlier works,
and his calculations fraudulent. One of the major points discrediting Ptolemy
is his attribution of the colour red to Sirius, since it is clear that his claim
refers to an observation of the heliacal rising of Sirius, in conjunction
with an astrological consideration of Sirius as an evil (red) star.270
Thus Ptolemys reference to Sirius should be considered in the context of

his motivation for writing the Almagest. Ptolemy was an astrologer, and
he considered the Almagest an introductory work for his Tetrabiblos, a
269
There is a question as to the precise colour indicated by . According to
Liddell and Scott (1940) 1884 this generally denotes yellow, except when it refers
to stars when it does indicate the colour red - the sole example of this usage being
Ptolemy. To clarify this matter it is clear that Ptolemy does used this word to
indicate the colour red as he uses it to describe five stars that he correctly labels as
red in his catalogue: Alpha Boo., Alpha Tau., Alpha Sco., Alpha Ori., Beta Gem.
270
Newton (1977) 249.
___________________
work on astrology. While this does not invalidate his catalogue, it does
call into question his impartiality.271
In the larger context of the number and the importance of the questions
raised against his work, it is not possible to assume, without objections,
that his report of Sirius colour is valid.
4.3.6 Manilius
Manilius has the potential to cast significant light on the question of
Sirius colour, since in the Astronomica Manilius refers to the star on
three occasions. The first is a lengthy description of the star and its
astrological effects (1.396411), the second and third references occur
much later in his work, where he describes the star in a strictly astrological
context (5.17, 5.207).
In an attempt to answer this question we must look at each statement in

the first reference in detail. Lines 1.396400 refer to the violence of the
star. This must clearly refer to Sirius and not to the constellation; as noted
above, Canis Major is not a prominent constellation in itself. Lines 1.4016
also clearly refer to Sirius, because they discuss the astrological effect of
Sirius heliacal rising on the Earth. Line 1.407 refers to the fire of Sirius.
Line 1.408 states that Sirius is as bright as the Sun but that its light comes
from a great distance. Skipping over 1.409 (the line that refers to it as
271
Dr P. Bicknell has made the observation that Ptolemys stellar catalogue was
translated by Arab astronomers during the period of the European Middle Ages, and
that Sirius continued to be listed as red in these translations. It is assumed that
Sirius colour was white, and known to be white, in this later period. If so, the
question arises as to why Arab astronomers did not correct the catalogue and list
Sirius as a white star? As this error went uncorrected it does suggest that an error
of this type could be overlooked or accepted, or that the translaters preferred to
repeat what the original document said, rather than rewrite it.
___________________
caeruleus) we come to the concluding lines of this passage, 1.4101.
Here Manilius refers to Sirius as the brightest star in the heavens and
once again describes its appearance at its rising and setting.272
In line 1.409, Manilius refers to Sirius (canicula) as having frigida lumina

with a caeruleus vultu.273 This description matches the visual impression
of Sirius as it is today (cold brightness in a blue face). In a dark, clear sky
Sirius brightness does appear cold and penetrating. The sea-blue colour
is equally accurate. While Sirius predominant colour is white, after a few
moments observation, definite tinges of blue become apparent.
As a counterpoint to this, and an illustration of the possibility of colour

ambiguity, in the same passage Manilius refers to ... micantis ignis ad os,
(1.4078)quivering ... fire ... in its face. Here, Manilius is referring to
the burning brightness of Sirius at its heliacal rising viewed from Mt.
Taurus (1.402). It is possible however, were it not for caeruleo, to interpret
this as a suggestion that Sirius is red or burning. As mentioned previously,
other ancient authors use such ambiguous descriptions of Sirius. Here it
can be seen that such apparent ambiguity in an ancient author is not in
itself sufficient to create a convincing argument for a classical red Sirius.274
With the possible exception of 1.409, this passage consistently refers to

272
Manilius also refers to Sirius at its heliacal rising at 5.218ff.
273
1.396411: subsequitur rapido contenta Canicula cursu, / qua nullum terris
violentius advenit astrum / nec gravius cedit. nunc horrida frigore surgit, / nunc
vacuum soli fulgentem deserit orbem: / sic in utrumque movet mundum et contraria
reddit. / hanc qui surgentem, primo cum redditur ortu, / montis ab excelso speculantur
vertice Tauri, / eventus frugum varios et tempora discunt, / quaeque valetudo veniat,
concordia quanta. / bella facit pacemque refert, varieque revertens / sic movet, ut
vidit, mundum vultuque gubernat. / magna fides hoc posse color cursusque micantis /
ignis ad os. vix sole minor, nisi quod procul haerens / frigida caeruleo contorquet
lumina vultu. / cetera vincuntur specie, nec clarius astrum / tingitur oceano caelumque
revisit ab undis.
___________________
Sirius. The question of 1.409 is difficult to answer. Dr Bicknell has stated
that it does not refer to the star but to the night sky within the constellation.275
Two points can be made in response to this. Even though Manilius uses
caerulis in Book One to refer to the colour of the night sky there is no
reason why he cannot use the same term for a different purpose. The
second point is that it does seem unlikely that Manilius begins this passage
with a description of Sirius, then for one line refers to the constellation
before switching back to Sirius and his earlier discussion.It is my conclusion
that this passage does describe Sirius colour as blue-white.
There are two later references that discuss the nature of Sirius in terms
that could be interpreted incorrectly. In 5.17 Manilius refers to Sirius as
et Canis in totum portans incendia mundum. Later, in 5.207, he gives a
four line description of the astrologically destructive effects of Sirius
(Canicula). Here he uses terms such as candens, flammas, rabit, radio
and cinerus, all terms that could be interpreted as indicating a red Sirius.
These indicate that a simple statement of Sirius blazing, burning nature
and its resultant ill effects, are not sufficient unto themselves to convincingly
argue for a red Sirius.
In summary it can be seen that the Astronomica encompasses much of the

debate as to Sirius colour and assists in reaching a conclusion as to its
274
An alternative translation and explanation for these lines comes from Dr Bicknell
of Monash University. He has suggested that 1.409 refers not to Sirius itself, but to
the constellation Canis Major. His argument is that Sirius is the tongue of the Dog and
that the Dog hurls cold light from its dark-blue constellation. Bicknell suggests
that caeruleo ...vultu is the ablative of origin, linking the dark-blue colour with the
face of the constellation Canis Major, the colour of the night sky, not that of Sirius.
Manilius does use caerulis to refer to the night sky in Book One. Saccheti (1993)
105 suggests that Manilius uses caerulis in contrast to the bright, white stars. The
question is whether he was using the same meaning in 1.409.
275
In 1.647 Manilius refers to the Suns light as cold et gelidum extremo lumen
sentimus ab igni. This is a similar sentiment to which is expressed in 1.409 and
suggests that Manilius can refer to a bright (and white) object in such terms.
___________________
colour. It contains a line which suggests that Sirius was white in the first
century A.D. It also refers to Sirius in terms that could be interpreted as
suggesting that it was red. Manilius work contained a preponderance of
astrological material. It would have suited him if Sirius was red, thus
agreeing with its astrological effect. If an unambiguous statement that
Sirius true colour was red was to be made it would have been made here,
but it is not. This combined with Manilius (likely) statement that Sirius
is blue-white argues very strongly against a red Sirius.
4.4 Conclusion
The evidence that suggests that Sirius was red in antiquity is capable of
varying interpretation. Homers evidence is questionable and can be equally
interpreted as an argument for a white Sirius. Ciceros translation of
Aratus contradicts the original. Horaces satires are a poor astronomical
source. Seneca clearly reflects an astrological orientation. Ptolemy,
notwithstanding his reputation as an astronomer, was also an astrologer.
Weighed against these sources are the far larger number of authors who
describe Sirius nature as scorching and evil but do not assign a colour,
and the testimony of Manilius who states that Sirius was white.
On the balance of probabilities, there is insufficient evidence from Greek

or Roman sources to prove that Sirius was red in antiquity.
___________________
The Astrology of the Astronomica 168
Chapter Five: The Astrology of the Astronomica
5.1 Introduction
For Manilius, astrology is the means by which human beings may learn
their fate. By observing the heavens and using the appropriate astrological
skills imparted, however imperfectly, in Books Two, Three, Four and
Five, a student of Manilius may uncover what fate has in store. While
astrological technique consumes the bulk of the Astronomica, the theoretical
basis for astrology occupies only a few lines. It is these lines, involving
Manilius justification and explanation for astrology, that will be examined
in this section.
While Manilius followed a Stoic interpretation of astrology, there is also

evident an indication of what may be called a scientific approach.
Astrology was justified not only by Stoicism but also by empirical
evidence.276 It is also clear that Manilius viewed astrology as the greatest
form of divination, superior to all others. It was also more than merely a
way of foretelling the future, since it was a means by which human
beings could aspire to learn the mind of God and a step in the process of
achieving their own form of divinity. It is also clear that Manilius did not
view astrological procedures in themselves as being of prime importance.
5.2 A Philosophical Basis for Astrology

There are four major descriptions of the philosophical basis for astrology
276
Sikes (1923) 174 suggests that Posidonius was responsible for the final unification
of Stoicism and astrology, since Posidonius was a researcher who travelled extensively
and wrote on a wide variety of topics in a scientific fashion.
___________________
in the Astronomica, found within the larger discussion of the nature of
Manilius Stoicism. Each will be individually examined to determine the
common themes and their specific rationale for astrology.
The first description is found in Book One, lines 25117, and constitute
Manilius first history of humanity, in which he outlines human
development. The specific reference to astrology occurs in 1.10712, a
passage which gives a brief overview and rationale for astrology, asserting
its existence and ascribing the determination of lifes rules to the universe
(the Stoic Godnumen mundi, 1.111). Here the poet grants to the
constellations an expression of fate and human life, stating that fate follows
fixed rules (certa sub sorte) which are displayed by the stars (1.112).
The next major discussion is found in the opening lines of Book Two
(2.80ff.), where Manilius explains this linkage between the stars and the
Earth. The linkage is based on the harmony and interrelationship of the
different components of the universe and on the centralised control exercised
by God, described earlier in lines 2.6081. By virtue of this harmony and
control, what appears in the heavens influences what occurs on the Earth,
as we see in 2.823.
hic igitur deus et ratio, quae cuncta gubernat,

ducit ab aetheriis terrena animalia signis,
Manilius then answers what may have been a question in the minds of
many of his readers: How can something as far away as the stars affect
my life on Earth?.277 He points out that it is Gods plan that the stars may
effect life on the Earth. Their distance is irrelevant (2.845).
277
It should be mentioned that Manilius had placed the stars at the farthest possible
point from the Earth in his account of Stoic cosmology (1.150ff.)
___________________
quae, quamquam longo, cogit, summota recessu,
sentiri tamen, ...
Finally, Manilius specifically states that the stars furnish knowledge of

lives, destiny and character (2.856).
...ut vitas ac fata ministrent

gentibus ac proprios per singula corpora mores.
These lines suggest that God totally controls the lives of nations and of
individuals.278 The lines can be read as an introduction to the detailed
astrological information found in the remaining four Books of the
Astronomica. This introduction serves as a concise explanation for
astrology, stating that astrology exists as an intrinsic component of the
Stoic universe, and affecting everyone in every way.
These themes are repeated in 3.43ff., where Manilius recounts a second

history of the creation of the universe.279 He repeats his argument that the
various components of the universe are controlled by God (natura, 3.47)
and are in harmony (concordia, 3.54). We see this in 3.50-1: ...diversaque
membra / ordinibus certis sociaret corpus in unum, and in 3.545: ut tot
pugnantis regeret concordia causas / staretque alterno religatus foedere
mundus ...
The work argues again for the interrelationship of everything in the universe:
the stars, the planets, the Earth and human beings. Manilius states
specifically that human beings are subject to this interrelationship. He
278
cf. Colish (1985) vol. 1, 32ff., Sikes (1923) 173.
279
The first account of the creation of the universe occurs in 1.14972.
___________________
does this in two parts. First, he states that nothing should exist outside
this scheme, exceptum a summa nequid ratione maneret (3.56); secondly,
that, as human beings are born of the heavens, they should in turn be
controlled by the heavens, et quod erat mundi mundo regeretur ab ipso
(3.57). This leads directly to the next line, that nature made human
destiny dependent upon the stars: fata quoque et vitas hominum suspendit
ab astris (3.58).
These lines repeat the argument of the first two passages,280 that the
universe was created and is controlled by God who wishes human beings
to know their fate. To this end, God makes human fate visible to us
through the changing appearance of the heavensthe rationale for
astrology. This is restated in 3.5960.
quae summas operum partes, quae lucis honorem,

quae famam assererent, quae numquam fessa volarent.
In this passage Manilius has skilfully and concisely woven each facet of
the Stoic universe into an irrevocable conclusion that astrology is an
intrinsic part of the universe. He explains the history of the universe from
its inception through to this conclusion (3.4366) which is in agreement
with what we know of the Stoic attitude to divination,281 which is similar
in intent to Manilius conception. Their major difference lies in the absence
of astrology. Diogenes refers to divination in general: Manilius specifies
280
This description of astrology, given in lines 3.43ff., provides another important
piece of information. In lines 3.614, Manilius explains that natura gave to special
stars (the zodiac) the controlling influence over fate. This is significant as Manilius
astrology does revolve around the zodiac (per mediam, mundi praecordia, partem,
3.61) with the planets having a far smaller role.
281
Diog. Laert. 7.149 (using Zeno, Chrysippus, Posidonius, and Boethius) describes
the Stoic rationale for divination as the result of a chain of causation: God to fate to
divination.
___________________
the art of astrology.282 A different rationale for astrology can be found in
Cicero, who lists the arguments put forward by the Stoics to demonstrate
that the gods created the signs for human understanding (de Div. 1.823).
This suggests that astrology was not fully merged into Stoicism until a
later period, possibly the Roman period (1st century B.C. cf. thesis section
2.1.5) of Stoicism.
The final account of astrology, in the conclusion of Book Four, takes a

different emphasis in its argument for astrological truth. Manilius does
not discuss the details of how astrology works but assumes that the reader
has already absorbed this information. Now he tackles the why of
struggling to learn astrology, asking the rhetorical question, Can human
beings learn the secrets of nature? Lines 4.87683 form an answer to this
question. Human beings may learn these secrets by gaining an understanding
of the heavens (mundi ...census, 4.878).283 This is the essence of astrology,
that it is the means to learn of the Stoic universe. The concluding discussion
is a blanket statement which argues the benefits of the arduous task of
mastering astrologyknowledge of ones fate and spiritual divinity.
5.3 Empirical Arguments for Astrology284
282
Diog. Laert. 7.4 records how Zeno wrote a work entitled . The exact
meaning of the title is debatable but it may refer to a sign from heaven, or an omen.
It is possible that Zeno recognised the existence of astrology as part of Stoicism, but
this work is only one of nineteen of Zenos cited by Diogenes Laertius. If Zeno
believed in astrology he did so without the single-minded emphasis found in the
Astronomica. To add to the difficulty of determining the nature of Zenos work we can
compare it to Philodemus work of the same title. This, however, was concerned with
Epicurean methods of inference and not divination, Wigodsky (1995) 65. Philodemus
based his upon Zeno of Sidons teachings.
283
Goold translates census as treasures. This is a free but appropriate translation.
Manilius is clearly attempting to prove the great benefits that a knowledge of Stoic
astrology can bestow.
___________________
There are two other explanations for astrology found in the text. One is of
an eastern origin, while the other has an scientific basis. Both depart
from the general tone of the Astronomica. These two rationales for astrology
will be examined here, as well as the means by which Manilius interprets
them to support his dominant philosophical view of astrology.
The traditional argument for astrology is found in Book One, 4065.

Manilius states that astrology was developed by long and painstaking
research by Egyptian and Babylonian priests. The adepts uncovered the
secrets of astrology by correlating an individuals birth-time with the
subsequent events of life. This notion argues for an empirical basis to
astrology. This stated origin must be compared with Manilius primary
argument. Stoicism originated only three centuries before Manilius.
Between the time of Zeno and Manilius, we may assume that Stoics
worked to incorporate astrology into their fate-driven creed (thesis section
2.1.5). Lines 1.4665 suggest that, even after this lapse of time, a purely
Stoic justification for astrology did not exist. The ancient mysticism of
the east needed to be invoked to bolster the Stoic-astrological doctrine.
By including 1.4665 in his introduction, Manilius recognises this past.
The scientific argument for astrology can be found in 2.82ff., where

Manilius provides a two-part explanation of astrology: the first, that
astrology is derived from the Stoic God; the second, beginning at line
2.87, nec nimis est quaerenda fides. He explains that the evidence he is
about to give is the proof that God controls fate and astrology. The
evidence includes several examples of a causal link between heaven and
Earth: the effects of the heavens on agriculture, the tides, sea life and
ranching. All of these examples are readily discernible to the untrained
284
There is also a discussion of the use of historical example as a scientific basis for
astrology in the thesis section on fate (2.4).
___________________
eye.285 Manilius apparently feels the need to support his theoretical Stoic
argument for astrology with readily observable evidence.
This argument is in accord with the defence of Stoic astrology preserved

by Cicero (de Div. 1.34), that there are two forms of divination: the first
relying on observation and conjecture, the second on dreaming. The
Astronomica clearly favours the former, and Cicero provides an example
of this with the statement that a man born under the star Sirius will not
die at sea (de Fat. 1215). The validity of this prediction can only be
ascertained by observing the lives of men born under the influence of
Sirius and discovering if any, do in fact, die at sea. This method is
repeated by Cicero in de Div. 1.118 where he lists incorrect predictions.
To this school of divination, knowing the future requires study, skill and
a firm empirical basis.
A scientific approach (though not to astrology) is further documented in

Book One. As part of his introduction to Stoic cosmology, Manilius first
discusses six non-Stoic cosmological theories (1.12244). By setting out
these theories, he was perhaps suggesting to his readers that he had examined
them and found them wanting, thus producing, in the mind of the reader,
the conclusion that all of the non-Stoic theories had been discussed, debated
and proven incorrect. The reader was being asked to believe that the Stoic
cosmological theory had passed these tests and was correct. Manilius was
suggesting that Stoicism was the only valid result of centuries of research
by the learned minds of the classical world.
By calling upon the cognizance of eastern mysticism and of the scientific

285
There are a number of easily observable celestial phenomena that clearly correlate
with Earthly events. These include, for example: the tides and the moon; the appearance
of the Moon, Sun and some starssuch as the seven sistersas guides to subsequent
weather patterns. These phenomena existed in popular lore.
___________________
heritage of the Hellenistic period that were present in Roman society,
Manilius attempted to counter every challenge and fulfil every expectation
in the mind of his readers. To those who followed astrology he acknowledged
their beliefs and added to it a more reputable Stoic justification. For
those who appreciated Greek science Book One subsumed astronomy
into astrology.
These examples of a scientific basis for astrology and the Astronomica

form no more than a minor alternative to the main Stoic approach, yet
they reflect the diverse range of thought, sources and attention to detail in
the Astronomica. Manilius main argument for astrology was the Stoic
creed, yet he also justified it by logic and empirical evidence.
___________________
5.4 The Worth of Manilius Astrological Procedures
Books Two, Three, Four and Five of the Astronomica include approximately
four major different procedures for casting a prediction. These procedures
overlap and contradict each other, are incomplete and some are mutually
exclusive. They are also all provided with insufficient detail to be put into
practice. This being the case, why did Manilius bother to include this
material only to misuse it? The answer to this question demonstrates
Manilius view of astrology. To him the heavens were merely the visible
face of the deity that created and controlled the universe. The details of
astronomical and astrological technique were, if anything, almost a
distraction from the underlying truth of the universe. A Stoic did need to
know these details, but they were only the starting-point to the search for
God.286 The fact that Manilius astrological procedures did not make sense
in a rational sense was to him irrelevant because they all provided a
path to Stoic enlightenment. To learn and to know each procedure in full
would be to make the mistake, from Manilius perspective, of confusing
the image of God with the reality.287
286
An example of this thinking may be found in Platos Republic 529530c, where
the student is referred to astronomy but warned against confusing it with the truth
behind it.
287
An alternative possibility is that Manilius included only partially complete
procedures as he believed that this information should only be distributed by himself
and not released to the general public. Maranini (1994) 41-2 discusses the possibility
that Manilius did not write all of what he knew as he intended the work for a select
audience. While this option cannot be simply dismissed, to grant it fully would be to
lessen the importance of Stoicism in relation to astrology. Possibly Manilius did
know more astrology than he included in the Astronomica but he excluded it because
of its lesser importance, not because he wished to hide secrets. Also because he
wished to avoid the imperial entanglements of providing procedures that could cast
horoscopes.
__________________
The Horoscope Formulae of Book Three 177
Chapter Six: An Astronomical Examination of the
Horoscope Formulae of Book Three
6.1 Introduction
In the astrological Books of the Astronomica (Books Two to Five), Manilius
describes a range of different astrological procedures. In order to discern
Manilius attitude to the mechanics of astrological prediction I shall
carry out a detailed analysis of one of these procedures. My choice for
this examination is the principal procedure of Book Three which is based
upon the astrological concept of athla (3.1623) as the controllers of
fate and destiny.288 This decision is based upon the significant size and
detail of their description as well as the potential to elicit astronomical
information.289 The entire account of the athla and the beliefs surrounding
them is given in 3.43509.290 The astronomical relevance of the athla lies
in their concomitant formulae used to calculate the horoscope (that part of
the zodiac rising on the horizon at the moment of the subjects nativity).
This section will examine these formulae with a view to determining their
astronomical worth and origin.291
288
In this passage Manilius makes a rare reference to the importance of the planets,
stating that they influence the powers of the athla, but he does not provide details of
the nature of this influence.
289
Abry (1993) 195 states that Book Three, due to the presence of the athla, is the
most scientific Book of the Astronomica. I feel that this distinction belongs to Book
One as it describes, however poorly, the basics of spherical astronomy rather than a
garbled account of one astrological theory.
290
At a total of 467 lines this is the longest single account of an astrological procedure
in the Astronomica.
291
After examining the athla passages it is possible to venture a conjecture as to
their origin. The athla are clearly separate from the zodiac, in that they are independent
from the signs, yet they share the zodiacal band and are divided into twelve sections.
This suggests that the athla developed as an attribute of the zodiac and then evolved
into a distinct astrological belief while retaining their initial attributes.
__________________
Before examining the athla in detail it is first necessary to understand the
encompassing astrological system. In Manilius schema, there are twelve
athla, each 30 degrees in length, arranged in a fixed order, and following
each other around the path of the zodiac, so that different athla are present,
in each sign, at different times.292 Each athlum controls a different aspect
of life and fate (e.g. health, marriage etc.). The details of the nature and
powers of individual athla are found in lines 3.69159. To use the athla
the astrologer must first determine where its ever-changing starting point
is at the moment of the subjects birth. The astrological procedure that
calculates this is described in 3.180202, which provide two separate but
similar formulae, for both a day and by night. Both are based on the
position of the Sun, the Moon and the horoscope. For a birth by day (and
Manilius devotes six lines to informing his reader how to tell day from
night, 3.18085), the astrologer must first determine the separation in
degrees between the Sun and Moon measured in an easterly direction
along the zodiac.293 Then that distance is measured easterly, along the
zodiac, from the horoscope. This final point is the first athlum, the Lot of
Fortune (fortunae sors prima data est, 3.96) and the starting point of the
athla. The formula for a night-birth also begins with the determination of
the separation of the Sun and Moon, but in this case the separation of the
Moon from the Sun is also measured easterly along the zodiac. After this
has been found, once again starting from the horoscope, the astrologer
measures this distance east along the zodiac. The final point is now the
Lot of Fortune.294
292
For ease of description, the twelve zodiacal constellations will be referred to as
signs.
293
It should be stated that Manilius does not specify a direction of movement along the
zodiac in his description of this procedure. Goold, in his two examples of the process,
assumes that this direction is always easterly (Goold (1977) lxvlxviii.) This is a
reasonable conclusion that I have used in my summary of the process.
__________________
The major difficulty facing any of Manilius disciples is the faulty nature
of his explanation of this procedure. This system requires three reference
points, all occurring at the moment of birth: the Sun, the Moon, and the
horoscope. The simplest way of obtaining these three positions would be
to resort to an almanac or celestial globe, yet this is not the advice given.295
In fact, Manilius explains to his patient reader how to find only one of
these positions, that of the horoscope, and uses a needlessly complex,
rambling and confused series of formulae to do so (3.218509). The
determination of the position of the Sun and Moon is ignored in the text,
yet, without these, the Lot of Fortune cannot be calculated. Manilius
omission of a discussion of these points suggests that he was not concerned
with correct procedure, nor with teaching the reader the means to cast an
accurate prediction.
To summarise this discussion, we can see that Manilius provides a lengthy

account of a complex procedure whose apparent goal is the use of the
astrological concept of the athla. The bulk of this involves a series of
formulae used to derive the location of the horoscope. The casual reader,
or even interested student, would find the instructions both needlessly
complex and incomplete. In the text there is no systematic presentation
nor use of examples, nor a clear and concise exposition of the formulae.
In addition to these difficulties Manilius has merged different methods
294
These two formulae are difficult for a non-astrologer to reconcile. A difference of
only a few minutes can give a child either a day or a night birth, which can shift the
Lot of Fortune a great distance, depending on the initial position of the Sun and
Moon.
295
The existence of almanacs and charts of sufficient complexity to determine this
information were in existence at least from the time of Hipparchus in the mid second
century B.C., e.g. Jones (1995) 255-8. Goold (1977) lxviii suggests that Manilius
used his ephemerides for the location of the Sun. This is a reasonable statement, but
the question then arises; why did Manilius not simply use an almanac for the entire
procedure and not merely part of it? The answer lies in Manilius aims. He was not
an astronomer, he had a mystical belief in the stars. The details were irrelevant to
him.
__________________
for determining the horoscope into his presentation, with a mixture of
irrelevance and duplication. Manilius clearly gave these formulae as rules
of thumb. There is no explanation as to how they work or how they were
derived. Lastly, the formulae themselves could be better understood if
there were more explanatory material. It is true that there is a smattering
of this in the formulae themselves and in the sphaera of Book One, but in
insufficient detail to be truly helpful. In sum, Manilius athla astrology is
an amalgam of incomplete procedures and mediocre presentation.
6.2 Summary of the Horoscope Formulae

Manilius begins his account of the horoscope with a formula that he
states is in common use, but this he speedily criticises and dismisses. We
are then introduced to the preferred formula, in three parts. The first part
describes its usage, but only for one band of latitude. The second explains
the inadequacy of this limitation. In the third he proceeds to describe,
with examples, an improved version of the formula that is effective for
any latitude. Manilius could usefully have stopped here, but he diverts his
attention from horoscope formulae to describe in equal detail a formula to
calculate the change in the length of the day over the course of the year.
This is of only marginal relevance to the text. He then concludes with a
more detailed version of his first (and incorrect) formula. As an aid to
understanding the following discussion, I have summarised the formulae
below.
1. 3.21846
This formula is based on the belief that each sign takes two hours to rise.
By counting back the number of hours the Sun is from the horizon, and
__________________
then converting these hours to signs, the observer may find the birth sign.
Manilius implies that this method is in common use (3.218). Manilius
(correctly) explains why this formula is inaccurate-the common hour
varies and the rise time of each sign is not two hours but varies according
to the position of the sign in the zodiac (its distance from the celestial
equator) and the latitude of the observation.
2. 3.24774
For the observer to be able to rectify the errors of the first formula, he
must procure hours of equal length to produce accurate results. Manilius
describes how the length of day and night changes over the course of the
year, and he uses Egypt and the latitude of Rhodes as examples.
3. 3.275300
Manilius now describes the first version of his principal formula. This
merely tells the reader how to determine the rise-durations and set-durations
of the signs,296 for one latitude, that of 35 degrees north. This formula is
based upon an initial rise-duration for Aries (given in hours and fractions
of an hour as well as in half degree unitsstades) which is then used as a
basis for calculating the rise-duration of the other signs.
4. 3.30184
This passage explains the deficiency of the preceding formula, in that it
is effective for only one latitude, rendering it useless for general use.
Manilius explains (again) how day and night vary in length over the
course of the year and that the rise-and set-duration of the signs varies
with latitude.
296
The definition of rise is the period between the rise of the first point and last
point of the sign above the horizon. This is termed rise-duration rather than rise
time to prevent any possible confusion between the amount of time a sign takes to
rise fully and the moment in time it begins to rise.
__________________
5. 3.385442
Manilius now provides a new procedure effective for all latitudes. He
does this in two separate formulae, the first of which describes the rise-
duration of the signs in time (hours and fractions of hours), while the
second describes the same, but in stades. These formulae duplicate each
other, except for their unit of measurement, and they are independent of
the formulae of 14 above. Manilius takes credit for these two formulae.
6. 3.44382
Manilius now provides a formula that calculates the change in the length
of day and night over the course of the year, although this is not necessary
for the calculation of the horoscope.
7. 3.483509
This final formula is a repeat of the first. It describes the rise-duration of
each sign as 30 degrees, equalling 2 hours, the same indicator as in
3.21846. This latter version is more complex but has the same principle
and flaws as the first.
The remainder of this section is a detailed examination of all of the

horoscope formulae.
6.3 The Two hour Rise Formula: 3.21846 (No. 1)

This is the first and simplest of the formulae given by Manilius. It is
based on the belief that each sign takes precisely two hours to rise, but
this assumption is incorrect, although not drastically so. As a general
guide, a two hour rise-duration (and set-duration) for each sign is reasonably
__________________
accurate, and from the latitude of Rome, the variation would be less than
plus/minus 45 minutes. In his discussion, Manilius makes no attempt to
explain how the formula can be used.
After describing this method briefly (3.21824), however, Manilius explains

why it is incorrect (2.22546) and he also implies that it is in common
use 3.218 (Nec me vulgatae rationis praeterit ordo). This suggests the
reason for Manilius inclusion of this formula, that he presented it to be
criticised, debunked and then used to demonstrate the worth of his preferred
formula. In this way he differentiated himself from the common herd of
street corner astrologers, who no doubt plied the streets of Rome, catering
to the masses and occasionally incurring the Imperial wrath. As can be
seen, the poet devotes greater length to criticising this system than he
does to explaining it.
The criticisms that Manilius levels against this method are appropriate
and indicate his sound grasp of astronomical knowledge. He first points
out that the path of the zodiac lies at an oblique angle to both the horizon
and to the celestial equator (3.2258).297 which causes each sign to rise at
a different oblique angle to the horizon with a correspondingly different
rise-duration. Those signs found closer to the celestial equator rise almost
vertically and quickly, while those lying further north or south of the
celestial equator rise at a lesser angle to the horizon and thus take longer
to rise. Manilius then points out another source of error in the first formula,
that it was common practice, in antiquity, to divide the night and day
into twelve hours over the course of the entire year (3.22937). This
resulted in a different length of hour between successive days and even
between the hours of the same day and night.298 Thus the street-corner
297
For a discussion of the obliquity of the ecliptic (zodiac), see Appendix A.
__________________
astrologer would count back from the Sun a different length of the
zodiac at different times of the year, rendering measurement in hours no
more than an approximation. Manilius suggests that this was a commonly
accepted measure but was inadequate for the exacting task of serious
astrology, quem numerum debet ratio sed non capit usus 3.246. These
problems are discussed at greater length and answered in 3.24774 as an
introduction to the second horoscope formula.
The first formula is simple in design but does possess a number of flaws.
Manilius is correct in his summary of these problems, but is possibly too
severe. With care, and a little intuition on the part of the astrologer, the
formula could be used to produce results of reasonable accuracy. There
are twelve athla, each taking 30 degrees of the zodiac. The horoscope can
fall anywhere within a single athlum and still provide the same result.
Thus a high degree of accuracy in the calculation of the horoscope is not
necessary, and the accuracy achievable by this formula would not always
give a correct answer but would do so perhaps 75 per cent (or more) of
the time, depending on the skill of the astrologer. Due to its simplicity
and reasonable rate of accuracy, the assertion that this procedure was in
common use is probably correct.299
6.4 Introduction to the Second Formula: 3.24774 (No. 2)

After demolishing the first formula, Manilius launches into an introduction
298
For example, in winter, the hours of night are longer, while in summer the
reverse is true. Variable hours render accurate recording of astronomical events
impossible.
299
Manilius is at pains to criticise this formula. This diligence, in search of the
truth, however, could be applied to his own astrological writings which have gaping
holes in content and logic. This raises the question as to the reason for his criticism.
It seems that he was not criticising the astrological procedure, so much as the
common (non-Stoic) astrologers who used it.
__________________
to the second. This introduction provides a necessary item of background
information and adds detail to the criticism of the first formula. The
relevant item is the importance of uniform hours, which can be determined
only at the time of the equinoxes. The variation in the length of day at the
Nile delta is used as an example of how variable hours are unreliable.
This leads directly into 3.275300, where Manilius describes his second
formula, which is a more sophisticated and accurate method of determining
the rise-duration of the signs.
Manilius begins by stating that a fixed length hour must be used for all
calculations (3.247), in contrast to the variable length hour used in the
first formula. A fixed length hour is achieved by calculating a standard
hour on the day of the equinoxes when day and night are of equal
lengthwhen the Sun enters Libra and Aries. This will produce an hour
equal to 1/24th of the total day. It would be correct to stop at this point
and move on to the description of the second formula but Manilius chooses
to add greater detail to this introduction by providing a guide to the
changing length of day and night over the course of the year (3.25674).
The guide begins with a description of the heavens at the winter solstice,
when the Sun is in chill Capricorn, when the day is 9.5 hours and the
night 14.5 fixed hours in length. The change in this ratio over the next six
month period is illustrated, when the days grow longer, the nights shorter,
and the equinox is passed and then the summer solstice of Cancer is
reached. Here the ratio of day to night is the reverse of the winter, which
Manilius states is found at the Nile mouth (3.271ff.).
Two points emerge from this passage. In 3.257, Manilius states that the
winter solstice occurs when the Sun is in the eighth degree of Capricorn.
__________________
In all other such references in this section, and in the text in general, the
determining point of each sign is the 1st degree. The use of the 8th degree
suggests a Babylonian origin,300 although in the Babylonian system the
8th degree is used at every colure point, not merely the winter solstice
(the starting point in each constellation must be the same for the formula
to be valid). Manilius has clearly garbled or misunderstood his source
material, and he has made no attempt to reconcile a clearly incorrect and
contradictory statement.
The second point is the day/night ratio of 3:2, being the 14.5 hours : 9.5
hours referred to by Manilius as occurring at the Nile Delta. This ratio
occurs at a latitude of 35 degrees north, which cuts through southern
Spain, Carthage, Sicily and Armenia, but it is not the correct figure for
Alexandria. The duration of day at the summer solstice at Alexandria
(31.5 degrees north) is 14 hours with a corresponding 10 hours of night.
There is a clear discrepancy between the ratio Manilius gives and the
correct figure for Alexandria. Goold has suggested that Rhodes (36 degrees
north) was the intended location example and that Manilius erred in referring
to the mouth of the Nile.301
It seems just as likely, however, that Manilius based his calculation on

the belief that Alexandria had both a summer solstice, day/night ratio of
3:2 and the same latitude as Babylon.302 In the Seleucid era, Babylonian
astronomers believed that Babylon was 35 degrees north, not its true
latitude of 33 degrees.303 As Babylons true latitude is close to that of
300
For a discussion of this point see Neugebauer (1975) 70833.
301
Goold (1977) 183, footnote e.
302
Neugebauer (1975) 366 states that the Babylonian astrologers/astronomers
believed that the summer solstice day/night ratio in Babylon was 3:2. This is equivalent
in hours to 14 hours 24 minutes : 9 hours 36 minutes, well within what Manilius
would have considered 9.5 hours: 14.5 hours.
__________________
Alexandrias (31.5 degrees), Manilius may have concluded that Alexandria
also had the same ratio as Babylon. His motivation for using the Nile
Delta rather than Babylon may have been the poetic temptation to equate
the seven Delta channels with the seven planets, as one more example of
the balance and harmony he saw in his Stoic universe.
These lines present an important piece of background information, described

in detail and which, by itself, constitutes a reasonable description of the
true nature of events, not withstanding clear inaccuracies. The errors
present suggest that the description given here is a mixture of rational
explanation and confused or misunderstood material. This particular section
would explain to the analytical student what it intended, but would do so
in a confusing fashion.
6.5 First Explanation of the Principal Formula: 3.275300

(No. 3)
This formula accounts for the obliquity of the signs to the horizon, though
it can be used for only one latitude, that of 35 degrees north (the latitude
discussed in 3.24774). As the same formula is used later in 3.385442,
but modified to take into account differing latitudes, it would seem that
Manilius is conforming to his didactic strategy.
The formula given is a simple table (in poetic form) listing time and
degrees, describing an incremental system that determines the rise and
set-duration of each sign, using the solstitial sign of Aries as its starting
point. The rise-duration of each successive sign east along the zodiac is
determined and a fixed increment is added to its rise-duration until the
303
For a discussion of this point see Neugebauer (1975) 367. Ptolemy Geogr. 5.20.
__________________
equinox is reached, whereupon a fixed decremental is applied. This table
uses the fixed length hours of the preceding section (3.24774). The
formula presumes that the increase and decrease in the rise-duration over
the course of the year changes in a strict linear function. There is no
attempt at explaining how the increments were derived. There is also the
question of the excessive accuracy displayed by the use of units as small
as stades (1/2 degree) and fractions of time as small as a minute. The
horoscope needed to be determined to within one 30 degree sign. Merely
the rise-duration in degrees would be sufficient for the determination of
the horoscope. Also the provision of the duration of each signs setting is
of complete irrelevance, since only the rise-duration is needed for the
calculation of the horoscope.
Manilius takes a measure of the credit for this formulas origin. In lines
3.299300, the last lines of the second formula, Manilius states that he
provided the units used in the formula.304
partibus ut ratio signo ducatur ab illo,

in quo Phoebus erit, quarum mihi reddita summa est
These units themselves are described in 3.418-9:
illa, quot stadiis oriantur quaeque cadantque.

quae quater et cum ter centum vicenaque constent.
These units are stades, each 0.5 of a degree in length, and unique in the
Astronomica. This is also the only recorded use of the term stadium for
304
It is possible that Manilius adapted the term for this usage and is claiming to be
the first Latin author to use this measure. It is clear that the Greek astronomers used
far smaller fractions of degrees in their research.
__________________
an astronomical purpose in Latin.305 It is possible that Manilius derived
the term from the Greek word .306 Apart from the question of the
terms origin is its use, since a 0.5 degree unit has only one precedent.307
This suggests another new source for the poet.
I would conjecture that the unit was based upon the Sun and Moon: the
only permanent astronomical objects with a perceptible size, both are 0.5
of a degree in diameter. These are the astronomical bodies whose location,
along with that of the horoscope, are measured to determine the Lot of
Fortune. It is possible that this had an influence in their use here. Also,
, suggests that stades were simply points on star charts, i.e.
marks indicating the position of the Sun and Moon. The history and usage
of stades, in this context, is unknown.
The inclusion of irrelevant information (set-durations) suggests that this

formula was adapted by Manilius, or by earlier astrologers, from a larger
body of work that had different goals. As the information seems irrelevant
not only to Manilius particular formula given here, but also to what we
know of astrological belief, it would be reasonable to conclude that the
ultimate source was astronomical.
In the field of Babylonian astronomy and astrology there are two recognised
systems for the calculation of rise and set durations, referred to as System
A and System B.308 It is a straightforward procedure to determine that the
formula used by Manilius is based upon System A. Taking the day/night
ratio of 9.514.5 hours (3.24774) and dividing by 18 (the value for
305
Oxford Latin Dictionary (1982) 1813. Elsewhere in the Astronomica Manilius
uses stadium in a more conventional way, e.g. 5.162 and 5.638.
306
Liddel & Scott (1940) state that can denote a mathematical point or
something very small.
307
Neugebauer (1975) 698ff.
__________________
System A), the increment is 16.6 minutes. This is what Manilius would
use if he was relying on System A. The increment he does use is given in
lines 3.2845:
hora novo crescit per singula signa quadrante

tertiaque e quinta pars parte inducitur eius
This is equivalent to 16 minutes (quarter of an hour plus the fifteenth of a

quarter of an hourone minute). Thus the theoretical expectations of
System A and Manilius own formula are the same.
There are a number of other questions relating to the Babylonian origin of

Manilius formula. Manilius refers to the 8th degree as the determining
point for the winter solstice (3.257ff.), yet he implies that the other cardinal
points are found at the 1st point of the sign. For an accurate, or even
meaningful result, the starting point of each constellation must be the
same. As it stands (using the 8th degree), Manilius description would
produce a result with a 32 minute error (8 degrees by 4 minutes of time
for each degree). This usage is also made questionable by the conjecture
that System A has as its starting point the 10th degree of Aries (the vernal
equinox).309 This is doubly confusing, as System B takes as its starting
point the 8th degree. Also Neugebauer states that both System A and B
relied upon the longest day in the year as the starting point for their
calculations.310 Manilius uses the longest night as the starting point for his
308
They share a conceptual basis, in that the change in rise-duration is a progressive
increment; however, they differ in the size and frequency of the increment over the
course of the year. In System A, the increment is a straight mathematical addition; in
System B, it varies geometrically. For System A, the increment is 1/18 of the
difference between the longest and shortest day. In System B, it is 1/24 of that
difference. Multiples of each increment are added to the rise-duration of each month
to determine that of the following month. Neugebauer (1975) 712ff.
309
Neugebauer (1975) 368ff.
__________________
determination of the rise-duration (3.257ff.). It is, of course, an easy task
to convert one to the other, but the incentive to do so is not stated anywhere
in the text. These apparent errors suggest that, once again, Manilius compiled
this account from a number of different sources without an equally
comprehensive effort to reconcile them.
These criticisms also call into question the relationship between 3.24774
and 3.275300, the first being ostensibly an introduction to the second.
This claim is partially correct. The list of rise-durations given are based
on the day/night ratio expressed in 3.24774, but, there is no explanation
as to how the results are obtained from the introductory information. This
suggests that the source of the formula was a comprehensive document
that perhaps did explain the relationship between the ratio of day to night
and the change in rise-durations and that Manilius account is no more
than a mediocre summary.
Most likely, the purpose of this formula (3.275-300) is to introduce the

student to the more detailed version found in the following lines. Its
inclusion is consistent with Manilius didactic approach. While this
indicates an element of care and consistency in Manilius approach to the
work, this same care and consistency is not found in the details of this
discussion. Manilius assumes much, takes a great deal of information for
granted, and at the same time includes irrelevant information and
amalgamates sources with no attempt at reconciliation. Again we must
assume that the details of the procedures themselves were not of importance
to Manilius.
The use of the Babylonian formula by Manilius suggests that this usage
310
ibid., 713.
__________________
continued well beyond the time when it was superseded by the new, more
advanced astronomy of the Greek world. The reason for its continued use
might be found in its greater simplicity, as compared to the highly
mathematical nature of Greek positional astronomy. Also the survival of
a Babylonian tradition in astrology well past the time when Greek
astronomy moved beyond its Babylonian origins.
6.7 Explanation of the Importance of Latitude in

Horoscope Calculation: 3.30184 (No. 4)
Lines 3.30184 describe the variation in the appearance of the heavens
over the course of the year and from different latitudes. They essentially
state that the preceding formula (3.275300) is incorrect as it is valid for
only one latitude. In this the incorrect formula forms an introduction to
the following section (3.385442), which itself provides a correct
implementation of the formula first expounded in 3.275300.
Manilius begins this section with a three line introduction that explains
that the formula just given is incorrect. He does this by stating that that
the length of day and night varies in different lands, sed neque per terras
omnis mensura dierum / umbrarumque eadem est,...(3.3012). This
necessarily invalidates the previous formula, which is only accurate for a
latitude with a solstice ratio, day to night of 3:2. The rise-durations vary
with latitude, as Manilius states in the following line: ...simili nec
tempora summa / mutantur: (3.3023). Then Manilius concludes his
introduction to this section with the accurate statement that the principle
of calculation is the same, even with differing latitudes, modus est varius
ratione sub una 3.303, though he does not yet give the specific criteria.
These first three lines contain the content of this section, to explain the
__________________
These first three lines contain the content of this section, to explain the
error of the previous formula and state the basis for the following.
This account continues with a detailed description of the visibility of the

signs in each latitude beginning with the signs as seen from the equator
(3.30422). Here, due to the path of the zodiac lying perpendicular to the
horizon, the signs, according to Manilius, rise in two hour periods, year
round. This is not entirely true. As Goold states, not all of the zodiac rises
perpendicular to the horizon,311 and those signs not on the celestial
equator would rise at an oblique angle. This factor would affect the
rise-duration of the non-equatorial signs, however, Manilius statement is
a fair approximation.
The remainder of this section describes the apparent effect on the rise-
duration of the signs as the observer moves away from the equator
(3.223384). Manilius states that the zodiac will rise at a decreasing angle
to the horizon, causing a variation in the rise-duration of the signs. He
also claims that, as the observer moves north, an increasing section of the
southern sky becomes invisible behind the arc of the Earth, until, as the
north pole is approached, only six signs will be seen. He also makes the
statement that, as the observer approaches the poles, day and night will
first last 30 days each, and then, at the poles, day and night will last for 6
months. While all of these statements are correct, the point must be made
that none of this information is necessary in the calculation of the
horoscope. Only his first three lines (3.301-3), that state the necessity of
allowing for a variation in latitude, are significant in these 84 lines.
It seems that this extended description is intended to illustrate the

limitations of the formula given in 3.275300. In this, it is similar to the
311
Goold (1977) 187, n. d.
__________________
discussion at 3.225ff which criticises the first formula. In this section
Manilius does again demonstrate a sound grasp of astronomical
principles, since he explains an astronomical concept (the changing
rise-durations and the variation in the length of day) clearly and
graphically for his reader.
6.8 The Principal Formula in a Version Accurate for all

Latitudes: 3.385442 (No 5)
This version of the principal formula, first described in 3.275300, is the
most complex and accurate. It takes into account the information
presented in the preceding section, explaining the importance of the
variation in rise-duration with latitude when determining the horoscope.
The formula is presented in two versions, one providing the results in
hours and fractions of hours, the other in, 0.5 degree units (stades). It
should be noted that these formulae stand alone, with no need for any of
the preceding formulae.
Manilius here makes a claim to the authorship of this formula, 3.3934:
a me sumat iter positum, sibi quisque sequatur

perque suos tendat gressus, mihi debeat artem
This may be no more than a claim to have produced the Latin version of
the formula, yet Manilius does seem to take credit for the entire procedure.312
This is a clear falsehood, since the formula has clear historical antecedents.313
312
Manilius does state in the opening lines of Book One (1.4-5) that he is the first to
discuss these matters (astrology), aggredior primusque novis Helicona movere I
cantibus.
313
Neugebauer (1975) 718 mentions Hypsicles and Babylonian antecedents.
__________________
The basis of the formula is the ratio of day and night at the summer
solstice (3.3967). This is an accurate indicator of latitude and provides a
firm basis for the calculation. This method is essentially a development of
the second formula (3.275300) adapted for multiple latitudes. The
procedure is as follows. First determine the hours of day and night at the
solstice. One sixth of the day hours is the rise time of Leo while one sixth
of the night hours is the rise time of Taurus. This forms the starting point
for all the signs. Then divide the difference between the rise-duration of
Leo and Taurus by three. This difference, plus the rise-duration of the
previous sign, is added to each sign, beginning with Gemini and then
moving east around the zodiac until Virgo is reached (i.e. Gemini, Cancer,
Leo, Virgo). Then, we are told, Libra has the same number of hours as
Virgo (3.413), and the hours decrease by the same amount after Libra
(3.414i.e. Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn and Aquarius). This
system uses a fixed increment for each sign.
There are a number of questions raised by this description. The signs

Aries and Pisces are not mentioned. This is a curious omission. Their
rise-durations can be easily deduced from the information given, so why
not include them in the list of signs along with all the others? This level
of inaccuracy is juxtaposed with a statement by Manilius that implies a
higher level of accuracy. In 3.4089, he explains how the rise-duration of
Leo is calculated from that of Cancer, its preceding sign. He then suggests
that the reader check Leos figure with that calculated earlier in 3.3989,
where Leos rise-duration is calculated from the division of the longest
day. These two means of determining Leos rise-duration function as an
internal check on the astrologers calculation. This level of attention to
accuracy is at variance with Manilius omission of the two signs. Another
__________________
questionable act is the inclusion of the setting duration of the signs. As
stated above, this information is irrelevant to the calculation of the
horoscope, though Manilius includes it in both versions of this formula,
3.4156 and 3.4356.
This system is essentially an improved version of that given in 3.275300,

with the addition of a modifier for latitude (the varying ratio of day and
night at the summer solstice at different latitudes). In the example given
by Manilius, one third of the difference between Leos and Taurus rising
is the increment used to determine the change in rise-duration, an increment
of 20 minutes, which is 1/18 of the difference between the longest day
and shortest night.314 This is Babylonian System A.
This is the culmination of the series of formulae and information presented

by Manilius, each more complex and accurate than the first (found in
3.24774.) While it does include, as the first version did, such irrelevant
information as the set-duration of the signs (3.4156), it is reasonably
accurate. This method, combined with sufficient other astronomical
information, would prove a reasonable means of determining the Lot of
Fortune and for casting a prediction. Manilius does not, however, provide
this other information.
6.9 A Description of the Change in the Duration of Daylight

over the Course of the Year: 3.44382. (No 6)
This section describes a formula that is irrelevant to the aim of determining
the position of the horoscope, which seems to be the object of this section
of the Astronomica.315 The formula is a means to describe the increase
314
The ratio given for Rome is 15/9 hours. The difference of these two figures is 6
hours. This, divided by 18, is 20 minutes.
__________________
and decrease in the length of daylight over the course of the year for any
latitude. What is the motivation for the inclusion of this formula?
The starting point for this formula is the calculation of the northern winter
solstice, the shortest day and longest night of the year. Manilius description
of the formula seems needlessly complex. In essence, it is necessary to
calculate one twelfth of the difference between the longest night and
shortest day. This amount is a constant, a multiple of which is added to
the duration of the first day of the following month to determine its
length. Manilius provides a formula which tells the reader the correct
multiple to use in each month. This formula predicts first the days of
winter, then spring, summer and autumn.316
Manilius not only provides the formula but also includes an example. In
3.44782 he uses a day/night ratio of 15:9 hours, the latitude of Rome (42
degrees north), to illustrate the formula.317 Manilius could have been
influenced in his choice of ratio by a desire to cater to Roman tastes. The
reason for the inclusion of this irrelevant formula is difficult to determine.
315
Taifacos (1983) 146 puts forward the claim that these lines 3.44382, are not
irrelevant but essential to correct use of the final horoscope formulae of 3.385442.
His conclusion rests on the belief that a means must exist for converting sundial
hours (hours of varying length) to equinoctal hours (hours of equal length). This
argument does have an element of validity. It is necessary to use equinoctal hours in
the formula of 3.385ff. (horoscope formula), and a formula that calculates the
change in the length of daylight hours at different latitudes would be useful. The
difficulty with his argument, however, is that the rise formula (3.443ff.) used to
calculate this change, requires as its starting point the ratio of shortest day to
longest nightessentially, equinoctal hoursbefore it can calculate the variation
between equinoctal and sundial hours. This starting point is that for the horoscope
formula (3.385ff.). So, if the astrologer has the necessary information for calculating
the change in solar hours, as compared to equinoctal hours as required by the hour
formula (3.443ff.), then this formula is not needed, as this is the same information
required for the horoscope formula (3.385ff.). In essence, the two formula require
the same initial information. Thus, there is no need to include 3.44382 in the
Astronomica.
__________________
Manilius did explain the changing length of day and night in 3.24774,
yet the calculation of the horoscope does not require this formula.
Considering Manilius use of astronomy and scientific imagery in general,
I feel that he may have included this formula not in order to assist in the
determination of the horoscope but to provide a guide to the student on
the changing ratio of day and night and to illustrate his own mastery of a
complex formula.
Neugebauer suggests that Manilius was using what he refers to as

Babylonian System B in this section.318 This differs from System A as
used above in two ways. The incremental difference used to calculate
successive durations of day and night is determined differently and the
frequency of increment differs.
In the following table the actual change in ratio of day to night over the
316
The series is as follows:
Capricorn - northern winter solstice, the shortest day of the year,
Aquarius from which point the days grow longer
Pisces
Aries - northern spring equinox, days and nights are of equal length
Taurus
Gemini
Cancer - northern summer solstice, the longest day of the year,

Leo from which point the days grow shorter
Virgo
Libra - northern autumn equinox, days and nights are of equal length
Scorpio
Sagittarius
The next constellation on the zodiac is Capricorn, returning the sequence to where it
began.
317
Neugebauer mentions that Ptolemys Almagest used eight climata including one
for the Hellespont at 15:9 hours, (1975) 725.
318
Neugebauer (1975) 722.
__________________
course of the year is presented along with the predicted change, as calculated
according to Systems A and B. The results indicate that both these systems
produced results accurate to fractions of an hour, accurate enough for the
time-keeping systems in contemporary use and for the purposes for which
they were intended.319
319
As Neugebauer (1975) 7145 points out, this is not unexpected. By a measure of
celestial coincidence, the changing ratio of night and day and of rise-durations fits a
relatively simple trigonometric formula. This apparent symmetry would have been
appealing to the Stoic sense of balance and order in the universe.
__________________
Table 4: Calculation of Day/Night periods over the 12 months June
A.D. 14May A.D. 15 at the latitude of Rome as comparing System A
&B
Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Constellation date Sun Sun Duration of Right Sys A Sys B
Rise Set Day Night ascension prediction
hh.mm320 hh.mm hh.mm hh.mm of day length
hh.mm hh.mm
northern summer solstice
Cancer 23/ 6 4.37 19.37 15.00 / 9.00 6 hrs 15.00 15.00
Leo 22/ 4 4.55 19.30 14.35 / 9.25 8 hrs 14.40 14.30
Virgo 22/ 8 5.28 18.54 13.26 / 10.34 10 hrs 13.40 13.30
northern autumn equinox
Libra 23/ 9 6.04 18.02 12.00 / 12.00 12 hrs 12.00 12.00
Scorpius 25/10 6.42 17.11 10.28 / 13.32 14 hrs 10.20 10.30
Sagittarius 24/11 7.21 16.41 9.20 / 14.40 16 hrs 9.20 9.30
northern winter solstice
Capricorn 21/12 7.45 16.41 8.56 / 15.04321 18 hrs 9.00 9.00
Aquarius 17/ 1 7.44 17.05 9.20 / 14.40 20 hrs 9.20 9.30
Pisces 16/ 2 7.13 17.41 10.30 / 13.30 22 hrs 10.20 10.30
northern spring equinox
Aries 21/ 3 6.18 18.17 12.00 / 12.00 0 hrs 12.00 12.00
Taurus 23/ 4 5.23 18.49 13.30 / 10.30 2 hrs 13.40 13.30
Gemini 25/ 5 4.45 19.20 14.30 / 9.30 4 hrs 14.40 14.30
320
: hh.mm is an abbreviations of hours and minutes.
321
Due to the irregularities of the Earths orbit, the astronomical position of the
winter solstice and the position of 18 hours in right ascension are not the same. I
have taken the 18 hour position as the determiner for this exercise and thus the
period of day and night varies by 4 minutes.
__________________
Explanation of table
column 1
The length of daylight is calculated for the day the Sun enters each of the
twelve zodiacal signs. The twelve are divided into four groups based
upon the four tropical points.
column 2
This is the date (Gregorian calendar) when the Sun enters each constellation.
column 3 and 4
These are the times of the rising and setting Sun on those dates.
column 5 and 6
This is the length of day and night at the date given.
column 7
Right ascension is an astronomical term. In this instance, it indicates the
distance of the Sun from the beginning of Aries (each hour equals 15
degrees).
column 8 and 9
These are the number of hours of daylight according to the formula for
Babylonian A and B.
The important columns from this table are 3, 8 and 9, the actual and the
predicted length of daylight at the beginning of each month. As can be
__________________
seen, both Systems A and B give reasonably accurate results. The greatest
difference between the two formulae is 10 minutes, which only occurs
away from the tropical points. Although System B is more accurate giving
results that more closely match the correct figure, both systems would
provide a fair degree of accuracy.
6.10 The Second Version of the Two hour Rise Formula:

3.483509 (No 7)
The second version of the two hour rise formula is the last formula in
this series. The motivation for its inclusion is unclear, on a number of
counts. Manilius has already presented a valid means of horoscope
calculation, System A (3.385442), so no other formula is necessary. The
formula is also no more than a duplication in principle of the first formula,
that of 3.218246, which Manilius takes great care in criticising. Its inclusion
is the most questionable part of this section of the Astronomica.322
The formula assumes that each sign takes both 2 hours and 30 degrees to
rise. As discussed above, this is a fair approximation, but it does not take
into account the variation brought about by the changing angle of the
zodiac to the horizon, which causes the rise-duration to vary. In this
version, Manilius informs the reader that each hour takes 15 degrees to
rise and that each sign, as a consequence, takes 30 degrees in rising
(3.485ff.). This horoscope formula is given in two parts and assumes that
the individual was born during the day. The first part calculates the number
of degrees by which the beginning of the Suns sign is above the horizon
322
Taifacos (1983) 149 puts forward the hypothesis that 3.483509, as with other
lines, is an interpolation. His argument is the irrelevancy of these lines to the text.
While this is not impossible I see no reason to conclude that this passage is anything
more than another duplication, demonstrating again Manilius lack of concern over
the non-Stoic details of his work.
__________________
by multiplying the number of hours between the birth and sunrise by 15.
The second part of the formula adds to this first figure the remaining
degrees by which the Sun differs from the beginning of its sign. This final
figure indicates the horoscope sign. There are a number of lines missing
in this section, and according to Goold, these must have contained a brief
account of the calculation to identify the horoscope during the night.
The formula raises a number of questions. Manilius does not state if he

uses standard variable hours or his constant equinoctal hours (described
in 3.250ff.). A significant variation in the result would occur depending
on which was used.323 Also, the procedure described is not detailed enough
to be easily used by an astrologer. Manilius does not fully describe how
to allocate degrees to signs.
Goold states that this system is the same as that given earlier,324 but this is
not entirely correct. Both systems work on the same premise, but they
differ on the details. The first system (3.218246) seems little more than
a summary prepared only to be dismissed, and it contains no details of its
operation. The second system provides greater detail, including the use of
degrees as well as hours of time. There is also evidence that this second
version was a self-contained procedure, in that it not only provides a
means to determine the horoscope (as do the earlier formulae) but also
gives the procedures to determine the subjects fate for a day or a night
birth.
6.11 Conclusion to the Horoscope Formulae

323
The standard hour would be more accurate than an incorrectly used equinoctal
hour due to its variation being linked to the varying length of day/night and thus the
angle of the ecliptic.
324
Goold (1977) lxxvii.
__________________
The horoscope formulae illustrate the complexity of Manilius view of
astronomy, astrology and Stoicism. The astrological procedure described
is ostensibly intended to cast a prediction for a subjects life, yet in this, it
is a total failure. The formulae given are too disjointed and lack sufficient
detail to achieve this end. Essentially, the Horoscope formulae are useless
as a practical astrological text. A practitioner would be puzzled by it. The
interested lay person might be impressed by the seemingly analytical
account of the procedures but would not be able to go beyond this first
impression.
One conclusion we may draw is that Manilius was not interested in providing
a detailed account of astrological procedure. In this and the other three
astrological Books (Two, Four and Five) Manilius provides a smorgasbord
of astrological methods. His intent was surely to impress the interested
lay person with his apparent mastery of such a complex subject. The
astrological descriptions were there to convince, in their complexity, that
the Stoic doctrine that supported their existence was correct. Consistently,
the discussion of astrology in the Astronomica exists merely to illustrate
the validity of Stoicism. The indifferent descriptions of astrological
procedure are understandable with this perspective, a conclusion supported
by the closing lines of Book Three. where Manilius makes a statement
that at least partially undermines his entire stated intent in Book Three. In
the context of discussing the critical importance of the cardinal points in
astrology, Manilius tells us that some astrologers variously consider the
1st, the 8th and the 10th degree of each cardinal sign to be the determining
degree (3.6802). Manilius gives these lines without endorsing any one
of these three, though he has spent the bulk of Book Three using, in the
main, the 1st degree as the significant degree of the sign.
__________________
What these lines do clearly tell us, however, is the influence of Babylonian
astrology on its Greek counterpart. The paradigms used by Manilius in
his various formulae rely on Babylonian principles, and these therefore
suggest that he, and astrologers in general, were ignorant of the more
advanced details of Greek astronomy. Also, if Manilius was able to claim
for himself astronomical procedures already extant in Greek astronomy,
this suggests that his Roman audience were not familiar with them.
These lines provide further insight into Manilius didactic style. The
horoscope section contains a plethora of formulae, needlessly complex
and only moderately reconciled, but Manilius does string together a line
of discussion with examples that carries his argument forward. Beginning
with a simpler system, he explains why it is wrong and then moves onto a
more complex formula. In each case he adequately explains the errors of
the previous and justifies the move to the next. The range of sources used
argue that Manilius did, at least partially, construct these lines rather than
merely plagiarise. If this is so, Manilius was well read in astrology and
astronomy and, more than that, he understood what he read. His apparent
confusion can be explained as a lack of interest in what, to him were
unimportant details.
___________________
Appendix A: Glossary of Astronomical Terms 206
Appendix A Glossary of Astronomical Terms
The purpose of this appendix is to present a description of the various

astronomical terms used in the thesis. These definitions supplement the
brief definitions found in the text and footnotes.
Ascendant
an astrological term that refers to the sign of the zodiac or the individual
degree of a sign rising at a particular time. It is usually used to assign a
sign to a new born infant.
Atmospheric Scintillation
also known as twinkling. This occurs when astronomical objects (the
Sun, the Moon, the planets and the brighter stars) are close to the horizon,
either when rising or setting. The light from these objects passes through
thicker layers of the Earths atmosphere which is subject to turbulence.
This causes the light from the object to redden and appear to sparkle
with changes in colour and brightness. The colours produced by this
phenomenon are predominantly reddish.
Celestial Circles
circles projected onto the celestial sphere to mark and delimit various
representations of the paths of the planets, Sun, Moon, and the relationships
between these initial paths.
Celestial Poles
the two points (north and south) upon which the celestial sphere revolves.
___________________
the two points (north and south) upon which the celestial sphere revolves.
These are projections of the Earths poles on to the sky.
Celestial Sphere
a concept which describes the heavens as a sphere centred on the Earth.
This term is based upon the appearance of the sky to an observer on the
Earths surface.
Climata
a degree of latitude identified by the ratio of day to night at the solstices.
Comet
Comets are large (ranging in diameter from hundreds to tens of thousands
of kilometres) lumps of ice with orbits lasting from single to thousands of
years in duration. When its orbit carries a comet into the central solar
system, the heat of the Sun causes some of its icy exterior to melt, and
this results in a stream of gas trailing behind the comet. This stream of
gas glows in the Suns light producing a cometary tail, the size, shape
and duration of which varies greatly. A bright comet can be seen during
daylight.
Ecliptic
This is the annual path of the Sun through the sky. It forms the basis of
the zodiac.
Equinox
The point on the celestial sphere where the Sun crosses the celestial
equator. This occurs twice each year when the Sun moves from south to
north (vernal equinox, c. 21st March) and from north to south (autumnal
equinox, c. 23rd September). On the day of the equinox the length of day
___________________
and night are equal.
See Solstice.
First Point of Aries

the intersection of the celestial equator and the ecliptic. It is used as the
zero point for the celestial positional system (analogous to the longitude
of Greenwich).
heliacal Rising
this is the first visible rising of an astronomical object in the morning sky
as the Sun moves east in its course around the ecliptic. This effect produces
the most severe scintillationat this time the cold night air (steadily
cooling since sunset) meets the warm air heated by the rising Sun, causing
a great deal of turbulence. Thus the reddest stars appear at their heliacal
rising.
heliacal Setting
the last visible setting of a celestial object prior to its conjunction with the
Sun.
Horoscope
the section or degree of the zodiac rising at the time of a persons birth.
Planets
spherical bodies that revolve around the Sun in orbits ranging from months
to centuries. The Sun has nine such planets but only Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are bright enough to be visible from Earth with
unaided vision. These were the planets known to the ancient world.
___________________
Precession of the Equinoxes
a slow shift in the position of the celestial coordinates relative to the stars
over a period of 26,000 years. This shift is caused by the movement of
the equinox points (q.v.), which in turn is caused by a wobble in the
Earths rotation.
Solstice
the point on the celestial sphere where the Sun is furthest from the celestial
equator. This occurs twice each year, first, when the Sun is furthest north
(c. 21st June), producing summer and the longest day in the northern
hemisphere (the reverse in the southern hemisphere); second, when the
Sun is furthest south (c. 22nd Dec.), producing winter and the shortest
day in the northern hemisphere (the reverse in the southern hemisphere).
See Equinox.
Appendix B
Order of constellations in Aratus Phaenomena and Manilius Astronomica
Aratus
Northern Constellations
Ursa Minor
Ursa Major
Draco
Engonasin (Hercules)
Corona Borealis
Ophiuchus
Scorpio (Zodiac)
Libra (Zodiac)
Bootes
Virgo (Zodiac)
Gemini (Zodiac)
Cancer (Zodiac)
Leo (Zodiac)
Auriga
Taurus (Zodiac)
Cepheus
Cassiepeia
Andromeda
Pegasus
Aries (Zodiac)
Triangulum
Pisces (Zodiac)
Perseus
(Pleiades)
Lyra
Cygnus
Aquarius (Zodiac)
Capricorn (Zodiac)
Sagittarius (Zodiac)
__________________
Appendix B: Order of Constellations in Aratus and Manilius 211
Sagittarius (Zodiac)
Sagitta
Aquila
Delphinus
Southern Constellations
Orion
Canis Major
Lepus
Argo
Cetus
Eridanus
Piscis Australis
Hydor
Ara
Centaurus
Therium (Lupus, Bestia)
Hydra
Crater
Corvus
Canis Minor
Manilius
Zodiac
Aries
Taurus
Gemini
Cancer
Leo
Virgo
Libra
Scorpius
Sagittarius
Capricorn
Aquarius
__________________
Appendix B: Order of Constellations in Aratus and Manilius 212
Aquarius
Pisces
Northern Constellations
Helice (Ursa Major)
Cynosura (Ursa Minor)
Draco
Engonasin (Hercules)
Bootes
Corona Borealis
Lyra
Ophiuchus
Cygnus
Sagitta
Aquila
Delphinus
Equus
Delton (Triangulum)
Cepheus
Cassiepia
Andromeda
Perseus
Heniochus
Southern Constellations
Orion
Canicula (Canis Major)
Procyon (Canis Minor)
Lepus
Argo
Hydra
Corvus
Crater
Centaurus
Ara
Cetus
Piscis Notius
Flumina
___________________
Summary of the Astronomica 213
Flumina
Bibliography and Reading List
The works listed are those that have made a significant contribution to
my thesis. I have not included a number of minor references. The
abbreviations used can be found in L Anne philologique.
Software
For the calculation of the rise and set times of the Sun, and for another of
minor astronomical calculations the computer program SkyChart 2000
version 2.2.1, written by Tin DeBenedictis, 1994. The program was run
on a Macintosh Powerbook 520m. The accuracy of this program is well
within visual observational error.
Ancient Sources
I have used the following sources for my texts. The text of Manilius is
that of A.E. Housman as adapted by G. P. Goold (1985). My remaining
Latin comes from the Packard Humanities Institute CD #5.3 Latin Texts,
copyright 1991. I have relied on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD#4,
copyright 1992, for my Greek (with the exception of my references to the
Almagest for which I have used the Teubner edition). In addition to these
I have also relied upon the following modern works for commentary on
the texts.
___________________
Ancient Sources - Greek
Aratus, Phaenomena, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Mair, G. R., Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd., London,
Heinemann, London, (1921).
Aristarchus, Aristarchus of Samos, Greek Mathematical Works

Aristarchus to Pappus of Alexandria, Loeb Classical Library, vol II, trans.
Thomas, I., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann
Ltd., London, (1968).
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Tredennick, H.,

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd., London,
(1947).
Aristotle, De Caelo, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Gutherie, W. K. C.,

(1960).
Diodorus Siculus, Histories, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Walton, W.,

R., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd.,
London, (1967).
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Loeb Classical Library,

trans. Hicks, R. D., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William
Heinemann Ltd., London, (1925).
Euclid Greek Mathematical Works Thales to Euclid, Loeb Classical

Library, vol I, trans. Thomas, I., Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
___________________
Library, vol I, trans. Thomas, I., Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
William Heinemann Ltd., London, (1969).
Geminus, Isagore, ed. Manitius, Teubner, C., (1897 rep. 1974).
Hipparchus, In Arati et Eudoxi Phaenomena Commentarii, ed. Manitius,

Teubner, C., (1894).
Lucian, Astrology, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Harmon, A. M.,. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd., London, (1936).
Plato, Timaeus, Loeb Classical Library, trans. The Rev. Bury, R. G.,
(1975).
Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, Life of Romulus, Loeb Classical Library vol.

I, trans. Perrin, B., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William
Heinemann Ltd., London, (1967).
Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, Life of Sulla, Loeb Classical Library vol. I,

trans. Perrin, B., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann
Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, Life of Marius, Loeb Classical Library vol.

I, trans. Perrin, B., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William
Heinemann Ltd., London, B. (1967).
Ptolemy, Handbuch der Astronomie, ed. K. Manitius & O. Neugebauer,

Teubner, Leipzig, (1963).
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Robbins, F. E., Harvard

___________________
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Robbins, F. E., Harvard
Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Astrologos, Loeb Classical Library, vol IV,

ed. and trans. The Rev. Bury, R. G. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
William Heinemann Ltd., London, (1949).
Simplicius, Comm. on de Caelo., Publications universitaires de Louvain,

Paris, (1975).
Strabo, Geography, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Jones, H. L., Harvard

Ancient Sources - Latin
Cato, De Agri Cultura, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Hooper, W. D. and

Ash, H. B., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann
Ltd., London, (1934)
Cicero, Aratea, trans. Soubiran, J., Les Belles Lettres, Paris, (1972).
------ Ad Atticum, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Winstedt, E. O., Harvard

------ De Divinatione, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Falconer, W. A.,

(1938).
------ De Fato, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Rackman, H., Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd., London, (1968)
___________________
University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd., London, (1968)
------ De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, Loeb Classical Library, trans.

Rackman, H., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann
Ltd., London, (1971)
------ De Natura Deorum, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Rackman, H.,

(1967).
------ De Re Publica, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Keyes, C. W., Harvard

------ Paradoxa Stoicorum, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Rackman, H.,

(1968)
Germanicus, The Aratus ascribed to Germanicus Caesar, ed. & trans.

Gain, D. B., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann
Horace, Epistles, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Fairclough, H. R., Harvard

------ Satires, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Fairclough, H. R., Harvard

Manilius, Astronomica, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Goold, G. P., Harvard

------ Astronomica, Teubner, Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig, ed. Goold, G.P.,

___________________
------ Astronomica, Teubner, Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig, ed. Goold, G.P.,
(1985).
Ovid, Metamorphoses, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Miller, F. J., Harvard

------ Tristia, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Wheeler, A. L., Harvard

Pliny, Naturalis Historiae, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 9, trans. Rackman,

H., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd.,
London, (1968).
Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Corcoran,

T. H., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd.,
London, (1971).
------ Ad Marciam de Consolatione,Moral Essays, Loeb Classical Library,

trans. Basore, J. W., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William
Heinemann Ltd., London, (1951)
Suetonius, Works, Life of Augustus, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Rolfe,

J. C., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, William Heinemann Ltd.,
London, (1930).
Tacitus, Annals, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Jackson. J., Harvard

Valerius Maximus, Teubner, (1888).
Virgil, Aeneid, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Fairclough, H. R., Harvard

___________________
Virgil, Aeneid, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Fairclough, H. R., Harvard
Vitruvius, De Architectura, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Granger, F.,

(1962).
------ Georgics, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Fairclough, H. R., Harvard

___________________
Bibliography 220
Secondary Sources
Abry, Josephe-Henriette. (1994) Manilius et Germanicus, Une Enigme

Historique et Litteraire, REA, 71, Paris, 179202.
------ (1993) Le Nil: Rflexions sur Les Vers III 271-274 Des
Astronomiques, Manilio Fra Poesia e Scienza, ed. Liuzzi, D., Congedo
Editore, Lecce.
Adam, J. (1908) The Religious Teachers in Greece, T. and T. Clark,

Edinburgh.
Allen, R. H. (1963) Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning, Dover

Publications Inc, New York.
Arnim, H. von, (1903-24, rep. 1964) Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta,

Leipzig, rep. Stuttgart.
Arnold, E. V. (1911, rep. 1971) Roman Stoicism, Freeport, New York,

Books for Libraries Press.
Bailey, D. R. S. (1956) Maniliana, CQ, 6, 8186.
Baker, T. Rev. (1760) On the Mutations of the Stars, PT, 498504.
Barton, T. (1994-1) Ancient Astrology, Routledge, London, Sciences in

Antiquity.
___________________
Bibliography 221
------ (19942) Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and
Medicine under the Roman Empire, University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
------ (1995) Augustus and Capricorn: Astrological Polyvalency and

Imperial Rhetoric, JRS, 85, 3351.
Bicknell, P. (1989) King Antony: A Note on an Extinct Coin, SNG, 156,

9598.
Bonnet-Bidaud (1990) Sirius and the Colour Enigma, Nature, 347, (18
Oct. 1990), 625.
Bosworth, A. B. (1982) Augustus and August: Some Pitfalls of Historical

Fiction, HSCP, 86, 151-70.
Bowersock, G. W. (1990) The Pontificate of Augustus, in Between

Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate., in
University of California Press, Raaflaub, K. A. Toher, M. 38094.
Breysig, A. (1967) Aratea, cum scholiis / Germanicus Caesar, Georg

Olms, Hildesheim.
Briggs, Jr, W. (1980) A review of Goolds Loeb translation of Manilius

CJ, 76, 1703.
Brunt, P. A. (1975) Stoicism and the Principate, PBSR, 43, 735.
Buhler, W. (1959) Maniliana, Hermes, 87, 475494.
___________________
Bibliography 222
Burnham, R. (1978) Burnhams Celestial Handbook, 3 vols., Dover
Publications, New York.
Carter, J. M. (1982) Divus Augustus / Suetonius , Bristol Classical Press,

Bristol.
Clay, D. (1983) Lucretius and Epicurus, Cornell University Press, Ithaca

and London.
Clarke, M. L. (1971) Higher Education in the Ancient World, Routledge

and Kegan Paul, London.
Colish, M. L. (1985) The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early

Middle Ages, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, Leiden, 2
vols.
Conte, G. B. (1994) Latin Literature, The John Hopkins University Press,

trans. Joseph B. Solodow, rev. Don Fowler and Glenn W. Most.
Cornford, F. M. (1937) Platos Cosmology, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner

& Co. Ltd., London.
Cramer, F. H., 1954) Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, American

Philosophical Society Memoirs v. 37.
Cumont, F. (1912, rep. 1960) Astrology and Religion amongst the Greeks
and Romans, Dover Publications, New York.
___________________
Bibliography 223
DArcy, W. T. (1940) Science and the Classics, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Dicks, D. R. (1966) Solstice, Equinoxes & the Presocratics, JHS, 86,

2640.
------ (1970) Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle, Thames and Hudson,

Scullard, H.H. (ed.), Aspects of Greek and Roman Life.
Dihle, A. (1994) Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire,

Routledge, London and New York.
Dreyer, J. L. (1906) History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to

Kepler, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Domenicucci, P, (1993) Il Terma Del Catasterismo Negli Astronomica

Di Manilio, Manilio Fra Poesia e Scienza, ed. Liuzzi, D., Congedo
Editore, Lecce.
Dwyer, E. J. (1973) Augustus and Capricorn, MDAIA, 80, 5969.
Duff, J. W. (1960-1) A Literary History of Rome: from the Origins to the

Close of the Golden Age, Ernest Benn Ltd., London.
------ (19602) A Literary History of Rome: from Tiberius to Hadrian,

Ernest Benn Ltd., London.
Edelstein, L. (1966) The Meaning of Stoicism, Harvard University Press,

Cambridge.
___________________
Bibliography 224
Edelstein, L. & Kidd, I. G. (197288) Posidonius, vol. 1, Cambridge
University Press.
Edward, H. (1972) The Presocratics, London, Duckworth Press.
Erren, M (1994) Arat und Aratea 1966-1992, Lustrum, 36, 189-284.
Erskine, A. (1990) The Hellenistic Stoa, Cornell University Press.
Fletcher, G. B. A. (1973) Manilius, DUJ, 65.2 (new series 34.2), 12950.
Fowler, W. W. (1911) The Religious Experience of the Roman People,

MacMillan and Co, Ltd, London.
Francis, J. A. (1995) Subversive Virtue: Ascetisism and Authority in the

Second-Century Pagan World, The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Bruhweiler, F. C., Kondo, Y. & Sion, E. M. (1986) The historical record

for Sirius: evidence for a white-dwarf thermonuclear runaway? Nature,
324, (20 Nov. 86), 2357.
Furley, D. (1987) The Greek Cosmologists, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.
Gain, D. B. (1968) Notes and Conjectures on the Astronomica of Manilius,

Antichthon, 2, 6367.
------ (1970) Gerbert & Manilius, Latomus, 29, 12832.
___________________
Bibliography 225
------ (1971) De Fonte Codicum Manilianorum Reviewed, RhM, 114,
261264.
------ (1976) The Aratus Ascribed to Germanicus Caesar, The Athlone

Press.
Garrod, H. W. (1908-1) Two Editions of Manilius, CQ, 2, 123131 &

175181.
------ (1908-2) Notes on Manilius, CQ, 3, 175181
------ (1911) Manilius Astronomicon Liber II, Oxford, Clarendon.
------ (1912) The Oxford Book of Latin Verse, Oxford, Clarendon.
Glare, P. G. W. (ed.) (1982) Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon

Press.
Goar, R. J. (1972) Cicero and the State Religion, Adolf M. Hakkert,

Amsterdam.
Goold, G. P. (1954) De Fonte Codicum Manilianorum,RhM, 97, 359372.
------ (1956) Observationes in Codicem Matritensem M 31, RhM, 99,

917.
------ (1959) Adversaria Maniliana, Phoenix, 13, 93112.
___________________
Bibliography 226
------ (1961) A Greek Professorial Circle at Rome, TAPA, 91, 168192.
------ (1971) The Philosophy of Chrysippus, Brill, Leiden.
------ (1974) The Stoic Conception of Fate, JHI, 35, 1732.
------ (1983) The Great Lacuna in Manilius, PACA, 17, 6468.
Gregory, V. (1995-1) The Presocratics, vol. 1, Princeton University

Press, Princeton, New Jersey, Daniel W. Graham (ed.), Studies in Greek
Philosophy.
------ (1995-2) Socrates, Plato, and their Tradition, vol. 2, Princeton

University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, Daniel W. Graham (ed.), Studies
in Greek Philosophy.
Hahm, D. E, (1977) The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, Ohio State University

Press, .
Heath, T. L. (1920) The Copernicus of Antiquity, (Aristarchus of Samos),

S.P.C.K, London.
Holliday, P. J. (ed.). (1993) Narrative and Event in Ancient Art, Cambridge

University Press.
Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (1996) Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd

edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
Housman, A. E. (1937) Astronomicon Liber Primus.
___________________
Bibliography 227
----- (1913) Manilius, Augustus, Tiberius, Capricornus, and Libra, CQ,
7, 109-14, reprinted in, The Classical Papers of A.E. Housman, Diggle, J.
& Goodyear, E. R. D. (ed.), vol. 2., 1972.
Hubner, W. (1972) Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter, ANRW, 11.32.1,

126320.
Hunt, H. A. K. (1976) A Physical Interpretation of the Universe, Melbourne

University Press, Melbourne.
Jocelyn, H. D. (1977) The Ruling Class of the Roman Republic and

Greek Philosophers, John Rylands Library Manchester Bulletin, 59,
323366.
Jones, A (1995) On the Planetary Table, ZPE, 107, 255-8
Jones, H. (1992) The Epicurean Tradition, Routledge, London and New

York.
Jooste, J. C. I. (1995) Dont be Limited by Limiting Magnitude,Australian

Journal of Astronomy, 6.1, 17-28.
Kahn, C. H. (1970) On Early Greek Astronomy, JRS, 90, 99116.
Kaplan, M. (1990) Greeks and the Roman Imperial Court, from Tiberius
to Nero, Garland Publishing, New York and London, (rep. of a 1977
Harvard Ph.d. thesis).
___________________
Bibliography 228
Kajanto, I. (1957) God and Fate in Livy, Turku.
Kellum, B. A. (1990) The City Adorned: Programmatic Display at the

Aedes Concordia Augustus, in Between Republic and Empire:
Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, University of California
Press, Raaflaub, K. A. Toher, M. 276307.
Keyser, P. T. (1994) On Cometary Theory and Typology from Nechepso-

Petosirius through Apuleius to Servius, Mnemosyne, 47.5, 623651.
Kidd, D. A., (1967) The Pattern of Phaenomena 367-385, Antichon, 1,

12-15.
Kirk, G. S. (1993) The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 3, Cambridge University

Press, London, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney.
Kirk, G. S. (ed.) (1990) The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 5, Cambridge

University Press, London, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney.
Kirk, G. S. (ed.) (1993) The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 6, Cambridge

University Press, London, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney.
Lapidge, M. (1989), Stoic Cosmology and Roman Literature, First to

Third Centuries A.D., ANRW, 36.3, 13791429.
Levick, B. (1976) Tiberius the Politician , Thames and Hudson, London.
Levine, D. S. (1993) Religion in Livy, E. J. Brill, Leiden and New York.
___________________
Bibliography 229
Liddel, H.G. & Scott, R. (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon, Clarendon
Press, Oxford
Lindsay, Jack. (1971, pre. 1972) Origins of Astrology, Frederick Muller.
Long, A. A. (ed). (1971) Problems in Stoicism, The Athlone Press, London.
Long, A. A. & Sedley, D. N. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers,

Cambridge University Press, New York.
MacMullen, R. (1967) Enemies of the Roman Order, Harvard University

Press, Cambridge.
Maranini, A. (1994) Filologia Fantastica:Manilio e i suoi Astronomica,

Societ`a il Mulino, Bologna.
Mattingly, H. & Sydenham E. (1923) Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 1,

Spink & Son Ltd., London.
Millar, F. (1993) Ovid and the Domus Augusta: Rome seen from Tomoi,
JRS, 83, 117.
Michels, A. K. (1967) The Calendar of the Roman Republic, Princeton

University Press, New Jersey.
Montanari, R. C. (1993) Le Costellazioni in Manilio, Ovvero

Limperfezione Perfetta, Manilio Fra Poesia e Scienza, ed. Liuzzi, D.,
Congedo Editore, Lecce.
___________________
Bibliography 230
Most, G. W., (1997) The Fire Next Time. Cosmology, allegoresis, and
salvation in the Derveni Papyrus, JHS, 117, 136-153.
Naiden, J. P. & Householder, F. W. (1944) A Note on Manilius: I.431432,

CPh, 37, 187191.
Neugebauer, O. (1975) A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy,

Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, in 3 vols.
Springer-Verlag, Klein, M.J. & Toomer, G. J. (ed.),
------- The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, (1957) Brown University Press,

Providence, Rhode Island.
Neugebauer, O. & Van Hoesen, H. B. (1959) Greek Horoscopes, MAPS,

48.
Newton, R. (1977) The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, John Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore.
Norton, A. P. (1973) Nortons Star Atlas and Reference Handbook, 17th

edition, Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex, England: Longman Scientific &
Technical ; New York
Ogilvie, R. M. (1969) The Romans and their Gods, Chatto and Windus,
London, Ancient Culture and Society, M. I. Finley, general editor.
Pannekoek, A. (1961) A History of Astronomy, Interscience Publishers,

Inc, New York.
___________________
Bibliography 231
Parker, H. D. (1928) The Roman Legions, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Pedersen, O. (1974) A Survey of the Almagest, Odense University Press,

Odense.
Petersen, L. (1983) Prosopographia Imperii Romani, Saec. I. II. III, Pars

V, Fascicvlvs 2, Academiae Scientiarvm Rei Pvblicae Democraticae
Germanicae, Apvd Walter De Grvyter & Co., Berolini.
Quinn, K. (1979) Texts and Contexts: The Roman Writers and Their
Audience, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston and Henley.
J. Ramsey, J. & Licht, A. L. (1997) The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's

Funeral Games, Atlanta, Scholars Press.
Reesor, M. .E. (1989) The Nature of Man in Early Stoic Philosophy,

Duckworth, London.
------ (1965) Fate and Possibility in Early Stoic Thought, Phoenix, 19,
28597.
Richardson, N. (1993) The Iliad: A Commentary, Cambridge University

Press, London, volumn vi: books 21-24, general editor G.S. Kirk.
Riley, M. T. (1995) Ptolemys Use of His Predecessors Data TAPA,

125, 22150.
Rist, J. M. (1969) Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, London.
___________________
Bibliography 232
Rosenmeyer, T. G. (1989) Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology, University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Rudd, N. (1966) The Satires of Horace: a Study, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.
Russell, B. (1957) History of Western Philosophy, George Allen and

Unwin Ltd, London.
Sacchetti, L. (1993) La Luminosit del Cielo e Degli Astri Negli

Astronomica di Manilio: Osservazioni Terminologiche e Stilistiche,
Manilio Fra Poesia e Scienza, ed. Liuzzi, D., Congedo Editore, Lecce.
Sambursky, S. (1959) Physics of the Stoics, Routledge,.London.
Samuel, A. E. (1972) Greek and Roman Chronology, C. H. Beck, Munchen.
Sandbach, F. H. (1975) The Stoics, Ancient Culture and Society, Chatto

& Windus, London, Finley, M. I. (ed.).
Schenk, Von Lawrence P. (1993) The Middle Platonic Reception of

Aristotelian Science, RhM, 136.
Schofield, M. (1991) The Stoic Idea of the City, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.
Schwarz, W. (1972) Praecordia Mundi, Hermes, 100, 60114.
Shackleton Bailey, D .R. (1979) The Loeb Manilius, CPh, 74, 158169.
___________________
Bibliography 233
Sikes, E. (1923) Roman Poetry, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London.
Smyly, J. G. (1912) The Second Book of Manilius, Hermathena, 38,

137168.
Steele, R. B. (1931) The Date of Manilius AJP, 52, 157167.
------ (1932) The Astronomica of Manilius, AJP, 53, 320343.
Syme, R. (1978) History in Ovid, Clarendon Press, Oxford and Oxford

University Press, New York.
Taifacos, I. G. (1983) Manilius and the Computation of the Ascendant,

CPh, 78, 144149.
Tang, T. B., (1986) Star Colours, Nature, 319, (13 Feb. 1986), 532.
Taylor, L. R. (1931, rep. 1975) The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Arno
Press, New York.
Tester, S. J. (1987) A History of Western Astrology, Boydell Press,

Woodbridge, Suffolk.
Thielscher, P. (1956) Ist M. Manili Astronomicon Libri V Richtig,

Hermes, 84, 35372, .
Todd, R. B. (1989) The Stoics and their Cosmology in the First and
Second Centuries A.D. 36.3, ANRW, 13651378.
___________________
Bibliography 234
Toohey, P. (1992) Reading Epic: An Introduction to the Ancient Narratives,
Routledge, London and New York.
Waddington, W. H., Balsdon. E. & Reinach. T. (1925) Recueil general

des monnaies grecques dAsie Mineure, reprint ed. 1976.
Watson, A. (1992) The State, Law and Religion: Pagan Rome, Athens
and London.
Watson, G. (1966) The Stoic Theory of Knowledge, Queens University

Press, Belfast.
Watt, W. A. (1994) Maniliana, CQ, 44, 451457.
Weinstock, S. (1971) Divus Julius, Clarendon Press, Oxford .
White, K D. (1984) Greek and Roman Technology, Cornell University

Press, Ithaca, N.Y.
Wigodsky, M. (1995) The Alleged Impossibility of Philosophical Poetry,

Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, Obbonk, D., (ed.),
Philodemus and Poetry
Wright, M. R. (1995) Cosmology in Antiquity, Science in Antiquity,

Roger French (ed.) Routledge, London and New York.
___________________
Bibliography 235

MA Thesis: An Examination of Some Aspects of The Astronomica of Manilius

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MA Thesis: An Examination of Some Aspects of The Astronomica of Manilius

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Title: An Examination of Some Aspects of the

by Ian Carl Reide

A thesis presented for the degree of Master of Arts in the

University of Western Australia

1. Chapter One: An Examination of the Astronomica

1.1 Stoicism, Astrology, Astronomy and the

1.2 Summary of the Astronomica. of Manilius...............................4

1.4 Sources of the Astronomica.......................................................38

2.1 A History of Astronomy & Astrology....................................59

2.2 The Beliefs and Personality of Manilius.................................70

3.2 The Spherical Universe............................................................94

3.3 The Celestial Circles................................................................104

3.6 Stellar Magnitude....................................................................127

5. Chapter Five: The Astrology of the Astronomica............148

6. Chapter Six: An Astronomical Examination of the

Diagram 1. Manilius Cosmology..........................................54

Appendix A. Glossary of Astronomical Terms.................184

Bibliography and Reading List......................................................189

The principal goal of my thesis will be to examine the astronomy found

Before looking at the poem in detail it is first advisable to review the

The Astronomica provides no intensely detailed account of any aspect of

My thesis comprises six chapters: an Introductory chapter that examines

The first Appendix is a glossary of astronomical and astrological terms.

1.1 Stoicism, Astrology, Astronomy and the Meaning of the

The purpose of Manilius work, an overarching framework of Stoicism,

He began this task by devoting Book One to an introductory account of

In Book Four Manilius completes his philosophical discussion. As a means

If examined at a detailed level the Astronomica seems poorly structured

No complete copy of the work exists.2 There are a total of twenty-two

The theme of Stoicism consumes deceptively little space in the Astronomica,

In contrast to the concise and well-reasoned account of Stoicism, the

Included amongst Manilius astrological discussions is a significant amount

The title of the work, Astronomica, is also indicative of Manilius intent,

1.2.2 Book One

hunc mihi tu, Caesar, patriae princepsque paterque,

After starting his account of the universe, Manilius introduces cosmology

1.2.3 Book Two

The introduction is followed by a narrow, but detailed account of Stoic

The remainder of Book Two is a detailed explanation of the zodiac.

Manilius explanation of the role of the zodiac would be entirely inadequate

After identifying the importance of his work, Manilius provides a few

Manilius proof of astrology is that stars intrinsically control human destiny

These formulae are relics of earlier astronomical theories, possibly of

1.2.5 Book Four

The prooemium (4.1118) is a reiteration, in a more detailed form, of the

After the prooemium Manilius returns to his account of astrology. In

The next discussion concerns the relationship between geographical areas

Book Four is brought to a close by a return to the argument put forward

The bulk of Book Four comprises descriptions of astrological procedure,

1.2.6 Book Five

Discussion of the non-zodiacal constellations consumes most of Book

Following the discussion of the planets in Book Five, Manilius categorises

1.3.2 Summary of Evidence and Arguments

Sed, cum autumnales coeperunt surgere Chelae,

Virgine sub casta felix terraque marique

qua genitus Caesar melius nunc condidit urbem

anne novum tardis sidus te mensibus addas,

Natus est Augustus M. Tullius Cicerone C. Antonio conss. VIIII.

1.3.4 The State of the Heavens

22nd September 63 B.C., 5.00 a.m.

23rd September 63 B.C., 5.00 a.m.

24th September 63 B.C., 5.00 a.m.

The Moons movement amounts to a daily average of 12 degrees (slightly