No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
i 66 nam rudis ante illos nullo discrimine uita
in speciem conuersa operum ratione carebat
et stupefacta nouo pendebat lumine mundi,
turn uelut amisso maerens, turn laeta ren‹ato.
surgentem neque enim totiens Titana fug›atis
70 sideribus, uariosque dies incertaque noctis
tempora nee similis umbras, iam sole regresso
iam propiore, suis poterat discernere causis.
69 amisso … renato Breiter, amissis … renatis Ω inter ren et atis lacunam indicaui et expleui 72 poterat discernere iam apud Scaligerum, poterant discernere Ω, impar discernere Bentleius, discernere nescia Housmannus
‘Before them men were ignorant and lacking in the power of penetration. They observed only the outward appearance of things and did not know the reasons for phenomena. It was with bewilderment that they observed intently the light of the sky, so strange an object to them. At one time they grieved for it as if they had lost it forever, at another were joyful as if it had been born anew. They were unable to discover why the sun rises so often (putting the stars to flight) or to discern the true cause of the variation in the duration of night and day and in the length of shadows cast by objects, a variation which really depends on how near or far away the sun is.’
1 Except where noted in the apparatus criticus appended to the extracts quoted, the text followed is that of Housman, A.E., 5 Vols (London, 1903–30).Google Scholar
2 In ‘Maniliana’, CQ vi (1956), 83.
3 I base my figures on a Concordance to Manilius which I have prepared. Cf. my article, ‘Restoring the Astronomica of Manilius’, Data Trend iv 4 (Sydney, 1968), pp. 17–19.
4 Lewis and Short do not, incidentally, assert that there are no instances of atque before q in prose, but only that there are no instances in Cic. Imp.Pomp., Phil, ii, Tusc. i and Off. i, Caes. BG i & ii, Sail. Cat. and Livy xxi.
5 In ‘Notes et conjectures sur Manilius’, published in Mém. acad. Toy. Belg. xlvi (1892), p. 25 of the article (each article is numbered separately).
6 In De Manilii quifertur Astronomicis (Diss. Marburg, 1890).