page 110 note 3 Mr Smyly on pp. 152–6 goes further, and suggests that for Nigidius, who cast Augustus nativity on the day of his birth, and even for Manilius, the horoscope was not, as it is for later astrologers, the determining factor in the geniture. Suetonius however, in telling the story about Nigidius, implies the contrary; for he says that Nigidius broke out into his prophecy upon hearing the hour of the infant′s birth. His prophecy therefore was founded on some brief and passing condition of the heavens, like the rising of the horoscope, not on a condition of more than two days duration, like the Moon′s sojourn in a sign. As to Manilius himself, it is true, as Mr Smyly says, that he nowhere distinctly affirms the predominance of the horoscope in nativities, But he does distinctly imply it, and especially in the passage which Mr Smyly cites on p. 154 to prove the contrary. In IV 122–291 Manilius has described the influence of the twelve signs on the characters of men, without saying when or where they exert it; then in 292–408 he explains how each sign is divided into three decans; and then in 409–501 he runs through the thirty paries or degrees of each sign, distinguishing the bad from the good. Now, in 502 sqq., he begins to speak of something else: nee te perceptis signorum cura relinquat partibus; in tempus quaedam mutantur et ortu accipiunt proprias uires ultraque remittunt. Mr Smyly, like Fayus and all other editors whose opinion is discoverable, like Mr Bouche whose opinion is discoverable, like Mr Bouche Leclercq astr. Gr. p. 385, and like the author of the titles in the archetype, who headed this parathe titles in the archetype, who headed this paragraph with ‘orientia signa quid efficiant.’ understands quaedam to mean quaedam signa; and thence he derives an argument which would be just and cogent if this opinion were true, but which falls to the ground if it is false. And false it is. quaedam signa will not make sense, for Manilius in 505–584 proceeds to speak not of quaedam but of omnia signa. Moreover the whole paragraph senwill then be out of place, and ought to have followed upon 122–291. It is certain and should be evident that quaedam means quaedam paries After describing in 409–501 the permanent quality of the degrees in each sign, Manilius now describes changes which some of those degrees undergo as they surmount the eastern horizon. The degrees in question are those at the begin ning of Aries Taurus Leo Virgo Libra Aquarius and Pisces, the end of Scorpius and Capricorn and the middle of Gemini Cancer and Sagittarius Now the powers which they wield when rising are in some instances tremendous; they beget an Augus or a Hannibal. This could not be. unless the horoscope, the region of the eastern horizon, possessed predominance. The whole of book V points the same way. There are several errors of less moment in this part of Mr Smyly′s paper. His interpretation of iv 144 has nothing in its favour: Manilius tens us that Taurus creates farmers, and he remarks, very aptly indeed, that in spring-time when the sun with Taurus rides, a farmer has plenty to do. Mr Smyly says of verses 162–164 that unless they mean what he thinks they ‘are purely ornamental and misleading’: they a purely ornamental, but Mr Smyly seems to be the first whom they have misled; and his sentence about fulgens confuses that word with ardens or feruens and confuses Cancer with the 
What he says of mores on p. 156 is contradicted by Manilius at II 831, V 127, 236, 349.
What he says of mores on p. 156 is contradicted by Manilius at II 831, V 127, 236, 349.
