I've searched through a lot of graphic images of Virgo, and oftentimes she was depicted merely as a young, wingless, and very human-looking woman.

Deb wrote:

Yes, the Manilius reference is very interesting in suggesting that the vernal point was originally expected to be in the middle of the signs rather than the beginning; especially combined with his reference to the shifting position of the vernal point at the end of his third book, and details provided by Goold (p.lxxxi) which shows how older accounts placed it at the 15th degree of the signs. That makes a lot of sense to me, given our knowledge of the history of the zodiac and how long it was employed before the period when the 1st degree of the constellation Aries coincided with the VP.

I'm not sure I concur with you that the older sources do all coalesce with the idea that the equinoxes/solstices were located in the 15th degree of the signs. On the contrary in fact some of the very oldest references actually suggest the VP was taken as the start of Aries by the Greeks. At the very least the history of this was never such a linear progression. There were a lot of zig zags. No doubt reflecting the confusion on where the VP was located.

Most general histories state that the astronomer Hipparchus (c. 190? c. 120 BCE) was the first to propose a tropical zodiac starting at 0 Aries. However, this is contradicted by other evidence. While most of the writings of Hipparchus are lost we do still have a surviving text which is his Commentary on the Phaenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus.

Hipparchus makes it clear that the tropical zodiac is an ancient tradition even in his time. He also specifically, states that Aratus (c.315 /310 BCE ? c.240 BCE) was using a tropical zodiac calculated from the VP.

?

?First of all it, must be considered that Aratus so divided his zodiac, that the tropical and equinoctial points should form the commencement of signs?and in this way almost all the old astronomers divided their zodiac?? Commentary on the Phaenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus, by Hipparchus.

Aratus wrote his Phaenomena in 276 BCE so we have a much older source than either Manilius or Gemino suggesting the use of a tropical Aries which began at the VP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aratus

Mark

Mark wrote:I'm not sure I concur with you that the older sources do all coalesce with the idea that the equinoxes/solstices were located in the 15th degree of the signs. On the contrary in fact some of the very oldest references actually suggest the VP was taken as the start of Aries by the Greeks. At the very least the history of this was never such a linear progression. There were a lot of zig zags. No doubt reflecting the confusion on where the VP was located.

Hi Mark, since you placed this under my quote I should point out that I didn't suggest that older sources do "all coalesce with the idea that the equinoxes/solstices were located in the 15th degree of the signs"; only that some of the older sources show this, and then we have reports of the VP dropping back through Aries, until it gets 'fixed' around the 1st degree in the centuries preceding Ptolemy.
What is interesting about the Virgo reference in Manlius, is that it talks about the change of seasons occurring in the middle of that sign. As others have noted this also makes sense of his description of the signs of seeing and hearing - I wrote about this in my article on the antiscia, to point out how the principle described by Manilius is the same as that reported by later authors, allowing for the movement of the VP ( http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html - the relevant text begins immediately after the first diagram, and the article gives the refs; ref 7 is particularly relevant).
I agree that there are a lot of conflicting and confused reports, and the text of Manilius itself does not reference the 15th degree. However, what we have in the Astronomica is a poem, and whoever did the versification possibly had more skill at versification than astronomy. Its quite feasible that he applied those talents to older works without looking too critically at their technical details. I haven't come to a conclusion on this matter myself, I just note these references as being of interest.

While we're on the topic, can someone explain to me why is it that 0 Aries is where spring begins, when the Sun in Virgo causes spring-like things to occur already?

Perhaps because in Virgo, the season contains both spring-like and winter-like events?

I may be confused by your question but Virgo is not (as far as I'm aware) associated with spring, but the change of season from summer to autumn. This is what Manilius says in reference to Erigone (his name for Virgo):

?Erigone, too, is numbered among the double signs, but the duality in her appearance is not the reason; for at the middle of the Virgin summer on one side ceases and autumn on the other begins? (2.175; Loeb p.97).

The significance of precession is also relevant to comment he makes a little later where he says ?summer comes with the Twins, autumn with the Virgin, winter begins with the Archer, spring with the Fishes? (2.265)

Right! Sometimes the old-timers referred to climatic change, not the star calendar in isolation.

Oh sorry, I mistook Virgo for Pisces there. I meant to ask why is the autumnal equinox placed at 0 Libra instead of, say, 15 Virgo, if the season begins to change to autumn in Virgo?

waybread wrote:Right! Sometimes the old-timers referred to climatic change, not the star calendar in isolation.

I made a reference to this idea in my post of the 8th April but would like to point out that I am not an old-timer. I am a middle-aged timer. Ageism aside anyone can use their free will to believe the evidence of their own eyes and and see that blooming flowers, lambing and the absense of frost indicate spring, and infer that spring has begun by reasoning not "facts" in books. Much as one should value one's ephemeris

By "old-timers" I meant the ancient Hellenistic astrologers!

Deb wrote:

Yes, the Manilius reference is very interesting in suggesting that the vernal point was originally expected to be in the middle of the signs rather than the beginning; especially combined with his reference to the shifting position of the vernal point at the end of his third book, and details provided by Goold (p.lxxxi) which shows how older accounts placed it at the 15th degree of the signs. That makes a lot of sense to me, given our knowledge of the history of the zodiac and how long it was employed before the period when the 1st degree of the constellation Aries coincided with the VP.

As you suggest the fact Manilius appears to support the idea of the seasonal shifts occurring in the middle of the signs indicates he was tapping into a much older tradition. I have located a reference to the 4th century BCE astronomer and mathematician Euxodus of Cnidus (408 BCE?355 BCE). He appears to be the original source of this idea in hellenistic astrology:

Hipparchus shows that Eudoxus placed the points of the year in
the middle of the signs Capricorn, Aries, Cancer, and Libra, not at
the beginnings of the signs where he himself placed them. ..... Finally we must bear in mind that if Hipparchus means that Eudoxus placed the points
of the year in the very center of the signs, then Eudoxus at one time
adopted a vernal point at Aries 15?. STUDIES IN THE GREEK ASTRONOMERS, by George Huxley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudoxus_of_Cnidus

Mark

Could it be that the discussion with regard to Manilius is running little bit on the wrong way, not meeting with his teachings really? His text as to bicorporeal signs seems to be treated here as it would concern tropical signs, whereas Manilius distinguishes both in fact (of course), saying that the "astra bina" go before the "astra tropica".

And Manilius states, as Deb has mentioned and I have quoted above, that there are three degrees named by authorities, i.e. the 8th, 10th, and the 1st, but explicitly within the tropics ("tropica"), not within the bicorporeals ("bina"), these degrees signifying the longest, shortest and equal days (III, 671-682).

So with Manilius these relevant degrees are not within the bicorporeal signs, but they clearly are within the tropics.

The essence of the bi-corporeal signs Manilius gives in II, 178-180:

"The reason why the bi-corporeals precede the tropics as Aries, Libra, Cancer, and Capricorn, is because they, connecting two seasons, contain double forces."

These signs announce the end of the preceding season and the next season to begin, but they are not the end and the beginning itself - II, 192,193:

"Also the two Pisces, sent ahead by Aries, name (portend, allude to) two seasons: The one of them closes winter, the other begins spring."

This is my onw translation, so it would be fine, if Deb or someone else could add the Goold translation.