Harry Hine on Natural Questions

7/26/2019 Harry Hine on Natural Questions

1/27


2/27

%

ISBN Print: 978-3-525-80206-9 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-647-80206-0

2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen

Hans Grtner und Michael Weissenberger, LUSTRUM Bd. 52


3/27





4/27

LUSTRUMINTERNATIONALE FORSCHUNGSBERICHTE

AUS DEM BEREICH DES KLASSISCHE N ALTERTUMS

herausgegeben von

HANS GARTNER und MICHAEL WEISSENBERGER

Band 52 2010

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT





5/27

ISBN 978-3-525- 80206-9ISSN 0024-7421

2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Oakville, CT, U.S.A.

www.v-r.deAlle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschtzt.

Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fllen bedarf der vorherigenschriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine

Teile drfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages ffentlich zugnglichgemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung fr Lehr- und

Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany.Gesamtherstellung: eHubert & Co, Gttingen

Gedruckt auf alterungsbestndigem Papier.





6/27

Inhalt

Senecas Naturales Quaestiones 1960-2005 (Part 2)with Addenda covering 2006 (Harry M. Hine) ............................................................7

Boethius 19251998 (Schlu)(Joachim Gruber) .................................................................................................. 161

Register: BoethiusTeil 13 ........................................................................................173

Pindar und Bakchylides 19882007 (A. Neumann-Hartmann).............................181

Index: Pindar und Bakchylides ...................................................................................453

Index: Senecas Naturales Quaestiones (Part 1 and 2) ................................................465





7/27





8/27

Senecas Naturales Quaestiones19602005 (Part 2) withAddenda covering 2006

by Harry M. Hine/St. Andrews

(Continued from Lustrum 51, 2009, 253329)

Introduction

The division of this survey into two parts, and the appearance of LAnnePhilologique for 2006, have given me the opportunity to include items thatwere published in that year: they are incorporated into the main body of thetext of Part 2, and at the end there are Addenda and Corrigenda to Part 1.Again I am grateful to Drs Francesca Romana Berno and Boris Dunsch forhelping me to identify and obtain some rare items.

Table of contents

Part 2

12. Studies devoted to theNaturales Quaestiones .................................................... 8A. General studies .......................................................................................... 8

B. Date of composition ............................................................................... 24C. Book order ............................................................................................... 28D. The addressee Lucilius ........................................................................... 31E. Methodology............................................................................................. 32F. Sources and predecessors........................................................................ 38

Herodotus ................................................................................................. 43Presocratics............................................................................................... 44Aristotle..................................................................................................... 45Theophrastus............................................................................................ 45

Posidonius................................................................................................. 46Lucretius.................................................................................................... 50

13. The philosophy of theNaturales Quaestiones................................................... 50A. General books and articles on philosophy ........................................... 50B. Senecas philosophical ideas and milieu ................................................ 52C. The question of Platonism...................................................................... 58D. The concept of nature ............................................................................. 62





9/27

Harry M. Hine8

14. TheNaturales Quaestionesand ancient science................................................. 65A. General ...................................................................................................... 65B. Meteorology.............................................................................................. 71C. Astronomy ................................................................................................ 73D. Other branches of science ...................................................................... 76

15. Major themes...................................................................................................... 77A. Politics and history................................................................................... 77B. Progress..................................................................................................... 84C. Religion...................................................................................................... 86

16. Individual books and passages......................................................................... 91

A. Book 1 ....................................................................................................... 91B. Book 2 ..................................................................................................... 104C. Book 3 ..................................................................................................... 107D. Book 4a ................................................................................................... 111E. Book 4b................................................................................................... 114F. Book 5 ..................................................................................................... 115G. Book 6 ..................................................................................................... 116H. Book 7 ..................................................................................................... 123

17. Reception.......................................................................................................... 124

A. General surveys ...................................................................................... 124B. First-second centuries............................................................................ 129C. Third century .......................................................................................... 133D. Fourth century.........................................................................................134E. Fifth century ............................................................................................137F. Sixth-seventh centuries.......................................................................... 138G. The middle ages...................................................................................... 140H. Dante ....................................................................................................... 144I. Humanism............................................................................................... 145J. Columbus................................................................................................ 147K. Sixteenth-seventeenth centuries........................................................... 150L. Eighteenth century................................................................................. 153M. Nineteenth-twentieth centuries............................................................ 155

Addenda and Corrigenda to Part 1...................................................................... 157

12. Studies devoted to the Naturales Quaestiones

A. General studies

This section includes a series of studies of theNat. as a whole.

*222. G. S t a h l , Aufbau, Darstellungsform und philosophischer Gehaltder Naturales Quaestiones des L. Annaeus Seneca, Diss. Kiel 1960.





10/27

SenecasNaturales Quaestiones19602005 (Part 2) 9

223. , Die Naturales Quaestiones Senecas. Ein Beitrag zum Spirituali-

sierungsprozess der rmischen Stoa, Hermes 92, 1964, 425454; reprinted in:25/26, 264304.

224. H. S t r o h m , Beitrge zum Verstndnis der Naturales QuaestionesSenecas, in: H. B a n n e r t , J. D i v j a k , eds., Latinitt und alte Kirche.Festschrift fr Rudolf Hanslik zum 70. Geburtstag, Wiener Studien Beiheft 8,Vienna 1977, 309325.

Rev.: M a l c o v a t i , Athenaeum 55, 1977, 484485.

225. F. P. W a i b l i n g e r , Senecas Naturales Quaestiones. GriechischeWissenschaft und rmische Form, Zetemata 70, Munich 1977.

Rev.: J o l y , AC 47, 1978, 645; H i n e , CR 29, 1979, 6465; M a r t i , MH36, 1979, 258; S t a h l , Gnomon 52, 1980, 620626; S t r o h m , AAHG 33,1980, 178182.

226. S. C i t r o n i M a r c h e t t i , Iuvare mortalem: lideale programmaticodellaNaturalis Historiadi Plinio nei rapporti con il moralismo stoico-diatribico,A&R 27, 1982, 124148.

227. P. T. J. C u b e d d u , Il senso della vecchiaia e della morte in Seneca(Naturales Quaestiones, libro VI) e in Massimiano elegiaco (elegie I e VI),Sassari 1984.

228. H. S t r o h m , Griechische Naturwissenschaft in Rom: Senecas Natura-les Quaestiones, in: W. K r e h m e r , ed., Von Herzen gern. Eine Festschriftzum 240jhrigen Bestehen des Gymnasium Fridericianum Erlangen, Erlangen1985, 263271.

229. A. G r i l l i , LeNaturales Quaestionesdi Seneca tra scienza e filosofia, in:*V. F. C i c e r o n e , ed., Discipline classiche e nuova secondaria, 2, Foggia19861987, 315332; reprinted in: 230, 459478.

Rev.: M a s e l l i , BStudLat 18, 1988, 182183.

230. , Stoicismo Epicureismo e letteratura, Brescia 1992.Rev.: L v y , RPh 67, 1993, 383384.

231. C. C o d o e r , La physique de Snque: Ordonnance et structure desNaturales Quaestiones, ANRW 2.36.3, 1989, 17791822.

232. N. G r o s s , Senecas Naturales Quaestiones. Komposition, naturphilo-sophische Aussagen und ihre Quellen, Palingenesia 27, Wiesbaden, Stuttgart 1989.

Rev.: C h a u m a r t i n , REL 69, 1991, 257258; C o s t a , CR 41, 1991,238239; H i n e , BJHS 24, 1991, 246247; R a d l , Th&Ph 66, 1991, 100101;H e r r m a n n , Gymnasium 99, 1992, 357; P a r r o n i , RFIC 120, 1992, 352362; P i n g r e e , JHA 23, 1992, 146147; S c h n b e r g e r , DLZ 113, 1992,3840; Z e k l , AGPh 74, 1992, 329335; B i l l e r b e c k , Latomus 52, 1993,207208; C o d o e r , Gnomon66, 1994, 120123.

233. S. C i t r o n i M a r c h e t t i , Plinio il vecchio e la tradizione del mora-lismo romano, Biblioteca di Materiali e discussioni per lanalisi dei testiclassici 9, Pisa 1991.





11/27

Harry M. Hine10

Rev.: A n d r , REL 69, 1991, 260261; D e s c h a m p s , REA 94, 1992,

490491; G a r b a r i n o , CCC 13, 1992, 227228; B o n a , Maia 45, 1993, 98101; B o r l e , MH 50, 1993, 239; H u t c h i n s o n , CR 43, 1993, 6163;R o c h e t t e , AC 62, 1993, 332334; D a l f i n o , Elenchos 15, 1994, 126129; H e l l e g o u a r c h , Latomus 53, 1994, 460; V a l e n t i , Orpheus 15,1994, 177179; D e l a u n o i s , RBPh 73, 1995, 195196; D e v i l l e r s , LEC63, 1995, 8687; R o m a n o , RFIC 123, 1995, 221226; E i c h b e r g , GIF48, 1996, 178180.

234. O. G i g o n , Senecas Naturales Quaestiones, in: 31, 313346.

*235. P. R o s s i , Geografia generale e astronomica nelleNaturales quaestio-

nesdi Seneca, Bari 1992.Rev.: P i c c a r r e l a , Aufidus 20, 1993, 145147. See also 17.

236. B. I n w o o d , God and human knowledge in Senecas Natural Ques-tions, Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium on Ancient Philosophy 15,1999, 2343.

237. , God and human knowledge in Senecas Natural Questions, in: D.F r e d e , A. L a k s , eds., Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theol-ogy, its Background and Aftermath, Philosophia Antiqua 89, Leiden, Boston,Cologne 2002, 119157; reprinted in: 47, 157200.

Rev.: A l g r a , Phronesis 48, 2003, 7680; P u r i n t o n , AncPhil 23, 2003,239244; V r h e l y i , ARG 5, 2003, 383384.

238. M. G r a v e r , Commentary on I n w o o d (236), Proceedings of theBoston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 15, 1999, 4454.

239. J. S c o t t , The ethics of the physics in Senecas Natural Questions, CB75, 1999, 5568.

*240. P.H o u s o u n o n T o l i n ,De linterdpendance de lanthropologie,de la cosmologie et de la thologie dans la cure philosophique: (Snque et la vertu

curative de la bonne reprsentation des choses), Doctoral Thesis, Paris 2000.241. F. R. B e r n o , Lo specchio, il vizio e la virt. Studio sulle Naturales

Quaestiones di Seneca, Testi e Manuali per lInsegnamento Universitario delLatino 79, Bologna 2003.

Rev.: A b b a t e p a o l o , InvLuc 25, 2003, 326328; B o r g o , BStudLat 34,2004, 682683; R a m o n d e t t i , RPL 7, 2004, 197201; G i o v i n i , Maia 57,2005, 454456; L i m b u r g , BMCRev, 2005.05.53.

*242. B. M. G a u l y , Zwischen Erde und Himmel: Senecas Naturphiloso-phie fr die rmische Kaiserzeit, Habilitationsschrift Kiel 2002

243. , Senecas Naturales Quaestiones. Naturphilosophie fr die rmischeKaiserzeit, Zetemata 122, Munich 2004.

Rev.: A r m i s e n - M a r c h e t t i , REL 83, 2005, 339341; B e r n o , GGA257, 2005, 190204; L i m b u r g , BMCRev 2005.01.16; W i l d b e r g e r , MH62, 2005, 242243; M a n s f e l d , Mnemosyne 59, 2006, 277278; R o c h e t -t e , AC 75, 2006, 353355; W e b e r , WS 119, 2006, 341342.





12/27


S t a h l ( 223) summarises the principal arguments of S t a h l (222), and

suggests that in various waysNat. demonstrates a Platonising spiritualising ofearlier Stoicism. She takes the original book order to be 17 (this is discussedin detail in 222, 127131, where she argues for a ring-compositional structure:Books 1 and 7 are concerned with knowledge, Books 2 and 6 with fortune,Books 3 and 5 with entelechy at the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels;information from C o d o e r 231, 1789), and argues that the architecture ofthe work as a whole is carefully conceived, and each individual book is care-fully structured from three elements, namely scientific discussion, accounts ofmirabilia, and exhortation on moral or natural-philosophical themes; themirabiliasections link the other sections, and the philosophical sections occupythe most important places in the books start, middle and end. So the workfulfils the various programmatic statements (1.praef.17, 3.praef.18, etc.) thatscientific investigation ultimately has a moral function. Within the scientificsections there are terminological and conceptual links to the ethical sections:for example, in Book 1 the scientific sections use the concepts speculum, imago,acies, which acquire broader, moral significance in the ethical exhortation at theend of the book; in Book 2, the unity of air is a model of the coherence anduniformity of the cosmos, features that permit divination, discussed in thecentral section of the book, and serve as the basis for the exhortations against

the fear of death at the end of the book; and so on for the other books. Broadphilosophical principles, and religious wonder in encounter with the naturalworld, carry more weight for Seneca than exact scientific enquiry, and Nat.,more than Senecas other works, derives moral progress from knowledge ofgod. Seneca follows Stoic orthodoxy by identifying god with fate, providenceand reason, as the controlling principle of the world. But one also findsPlatonising tendencies in the dualist separation of god and matter (in Ep. 65,and when god is treated as pure mind in Nat. 1.praef.1314 and 7.30.34, andthe world is treated as faulty and inferior at 6.3.1, 3.28.7, etc.), and in the

imagery of the mind escaping from the body to the heavens, a place of tran-scendence (in 1.praef., cf. 3.praef.18, 7.30.4). This is one aspect of Senecascontribution to the Spiritualisierungsprozess of the Roman Stoa. Anotheraspect emerges as Stahl examines the ways in which knowledge of nature leadsto moral progress inner freedom, including freedom from fear of death andof other threats , and suggests that in Senecas formulations there is a Platon-ising dualism of mind and body, with the mind not itself corporeal but distin-guished from the body. Then Stahl explores further how, in the scientificsections, philosophical principles and broad features of Senecas physical

world-picture carry more weight than objective observation (e.g. at 3.9.23 theargument is based on the philosophical hypothesis that the elements can allchange into one another; 6.16 appeals to the innate motion of air; in 1.3 hisexplanation of the rainbow rests on qualitative rather than quantitative argu-ments, etc.); and Senecas natural philosophy forms a bridge between scientificinvestigation on the one hand and ethics on the other, as is exemplified by1.17.14 on mirrors, where the physical mirror becomes a symbol of self-





13/27

Harry M. Hine12

knowledge, and 6.28.2, where poisonous air becomes a symbol for a general

moral truth that uincuntur ... meliora peioribus. Thus abstraction from concretephenomena leads to philosophical truth.S t r o h m ( 224) takes issue with S t a h l s contention (222, 223) that the

scientific material of Nat. is just preparatory to the ethical and theologicalmessage of the work. He first looks at Book 4b, where he argues that Senecadeliberately avoids a carefully structured textbook style, and instead adopts aloose-knit structure, spiced with humour and irony, but nevertheless carefullyargued; the style of the dialogues and letters is applied to scientific doxography.But , pace Maurach ( 261), Seneca does not display a Roman attitude ofsuperiority towards the Greeks: in Book 4b he is playing with the reader ratherthan with his Greek sources. Book 3 is carefully structured, incorporatingmuch Greek discussion of rivers and springs and so on, and Strohm rejectsStahls arguments that the scientific sections are merely preparatory to theethical chapters: he argues that chapters 13 cannot be separated from the restof the scientific material, as Stahl wants to; that she exaggerates the promi-nence of chapters 1718; that discussion of mirabilia had always been anintegral part of meteorological literature, so that Stahls sharp differentiationbetween mirabiliaand scientific material is unsound; and that chapters 2730cannot be dismissed as mere grandiose description, for they are concerned

throughout with the aetiology of the flood. Book 5 on winds takes a well-triedand relatively uncontroversial topic, but the structure is Senecas own; at theend aetiology and teleology merge, as he discusses the purpose of winds (5.18),but that is not to say that the providential nature of wind is the dominatingtheme of the book, as Stahl claims. And in other respects Stahl overstates theextent to which Seneca parts company with a scientific approach to nature.He is indeed moved by the beauty and divinity of the world, but he is alsointerested in the details of its physics. Yet the objections of the interlocutorquestioning the purpose of scientific discussion (e.g. 2.59.1, 4b.13.1) carry

weight, and ultimately for Seneca the value of purely scientific enquiry remainsan open question. Strohm concludes with a discussion of the original bookorder, reaffirming, against Stahl, the arguments for the Grandinemorder ratherthan the traditional order.

W a i b l i n g e r (225) argues that the structure ofNat. is based on literaryprinciples, with a pattern of contrasted pairs of books focused on one of thefour elements, and that the most important literary model for Senecas work isVergils Georgics. After an introduction on the reception ofNat. and a reviewof previous scholarship, Waiblinger argues that Reinhardt was right to identify

Nat. 2.111 as derived from a meteorological work of Posidonius, and hencethat 2.1 is not meant to be a programme for the structure, or an outline of thesubject-matter, ofNat.; or, in other words, that sublimia, caelestiaand terrenaarenot the categories according to which the books of Nat. are arranged, andSeneca is not seeking to cover the subject-matter of Aristotles Meteorologica,nor of Posidonius meteorological works. One of Senecas main goals is toshow the rationality of events in the sublunary world, on earth and in the





14/27


atmosphere, and the topics covered show a strong correlation with the topics

of the pseudo-Plutarchean PlacitaBook 3; though the correlation is not com-plete, and in particular (in the traditional book order) Books 3, 4a and 7 are outof place by comparison with the Placita. Waiblinger then argues that Senecahas constructed the first six books of Nat. in closely related pairs of books,with detailed correspondences between each pair, and each pair being con-cerned with phenomena formed from one of the four elements (12 on fire,34a on water, 4b5 on air). The books in each pair are also contrasted intheme and tone. Book 3 (which receives the fullest discussion) is a dark,pessimistic book; its culmination is the destruction of the world and of theimmoral human race in the universal flood but the frightening aspects of thenatural world, and the immorality of human beings, have already appearedearlier in the book. By contrast, Book 4a on the Nile (so far as one can tellfrom its incomplete state) presents a river that builds up and enriches the landinstead of destroying it, that offers life instead of death; and those who livealong its banks display courage and skill, not moral decadence; so in Book 4awe see the bounty, not the frightening power, of nature, with hints of a goldenage (pp. 3859). In Books 1 and 2 there is the contrast of the harmless fieryphenomena and beautiful optical phenomena of Book 1 (where the ominousaspects of meteor showers, etc., are played down) and the destructive force of

lightning in Book 2. But there is also a philosophical contrast: Book 1 startswith a declaration of how the study of nature leads to the light of knowledge,and to understanding of god (a message reinforced by contrast with the opticalphenomena that provide only an imperfect, reflected image of the sun, andwith Hostius Quadra, who shows how perverted the search for knowledge canbecome); whereas Book 2 deals with fear, and shows the inevitability of fateand of death (pp. 5974). The loss of so much of Book 4b prevents one fromseeing any clear contrast with Book 5; the latter book deals with a series ofprogressively more violent kinds of wind, and the dark side of human nature

appears in the anecdote about greed at 5.15, and in the condemnation of thedeadly human abuse of winds in 5.18. By contrast, what remains of Book 4bhas a lighter-hearted, humorous tone, and the concluding moral section (4b.13)is more restricted in scope than the end of Book 5 (pp. 7479). Books 6 and 7are obviously contrasted: in Book 6, earthquakes are terrifying, associated withimagery of the underworld, ordained by fate, bringers of death; Book 7 turnsto the beauty of the divine heavenly bodies, among which Seneca argues thatone should include comets, which deserve reverence rather than superstitiousfear. So the eternal, divine nature of the heavens is contrasted with the transi-

tory, mortal earth, and thus, even though they deal with different elements,Books 6 and 7 form a related and contrasted pair (pp. 7988). Thus Books 1,4a, 4b and 7 are characterised by themes such as beauty, wonder, goodness,light, and Books 2, 3, 5, 6 by themes such as fear, horror, destruction, dark-ness. Waiblinger then re-examines the question in what order the book-pairsoriginally appeared, and argues in favour of the traditional Quantum order,which means that books 6 and 7, respectively the most negative and most





15/27

Harry M. Hine14

positive book, both dealing with the more difficult topics than the other

books, form the climax of the whole work. The work also falls into twohalves, with Book 4a at the end of the first half and 7 at the end of the second:these two books are related, since both the Nile and comets have existed sincethe cosmos began, and the causes of both are hidden; but there is a progres-sion from the Nile in the sublunary world to comets in the heavens. LikewiseBook 7 on heavenly fires marks a clear progression from Book 1 on atmos-pheric fires. So Book 7 cannot have preceded Book 1, Waiblinger argues(1.15.4 cometas ... de quibus dictum est is taken to be an interpolation). There isalso symmetry between the two sets of four books, with the inner pair ofbooks in each (23 and 56) being the darker books, and Waiblinger findsother parallels between the two halves of the work. He then argues that thecompositional principles Seneca is using are inspired by poetry, particularlyVergils Georgics, which has similarly contrasted pairs of books, but also theAeneid; soNat. has a distinctively Roman structure. But the structure also hasa philosophical aspect, for it presents the cosmos as a harmony composed ofthe four elements and their alternately destructive and generative powers.

To the reviews of Waiblinger listed above one can add D o n i n i (319),239242 n. 53, which is effectively an extended review of Waiblinger. Donini,like some of the other reviewers, questions the sometimes arbitrary selections

and subjective interpretations of evidence on which Waiblinger bases hisarguments for the association of individual books with particular elements, andfor the thematic links and contrasts between books. For Doninis own thesissee Section 13C.

C u b e d d u s slim and rather personal book (227) contrasts the views onold age, death, and life in general, of the spiritual, idealistic Seneca with thoseof the disenchanted, materialist poet Maximianus. (The latter is assumed to bewriting in the later 6thcentury, and the elegies are taken to portray the actuallife and views of the author. There is no suggestion that Maximianus knew

Senecas work.) The comparisons are loosely attached to a series of quotationsfrom Nat. 6 chapters 12 and 2732 and from Maximianus first and sixthelegies, and the text is accompanied by long, richly documented, and oftenrather tangential, bibliographical footnotes, which include few items publishedlater than 1970.

S t r o h m ( 228) is a general account ofNat. for a non-specialist audience.Strohm describes the works content, the nature of Greek meteorology,Senecas ability to present valuable doxographical information in what is alively and highly personal work no other ancient scientific work has such a

strong first-personal authorial presence , and the detailed argument andexplanation is woven into a vision of the workings of the whole cosmos.Seneca is the last Roman writer with a real concern to advance understandingof the natural world.

G r i l l i ( 229, 230) says that Seneca probably got his scientific ideas fromPosidonius, but he always remained a director of souls, and science is alwayssubordinate to moral improvement and the resultant acquisition of happiness,





16/27


so that in Nat. Seneca is not concerned to evaluate scientific ideas. The

tyrannical influence of philosophy over science is illustrated with a few selec-tions from Books 2 and 6, translated with notes. An appendix gives threeGreek passages, with translation, about different kinds of earthquake.

C o d o e r s important article (231) develops in more detail a number ofthe arguments that Codoer put forward in the preface to her edition (61),taking account of subsequent scholarship. In Section 1 she presents theevidence for the title being Naturales Quaestiones, stresses that this does notcorrespond exactly to any Greek title, and repeats her arguments for Senecasquaestionesbeing closest to the quaestio infinitaof rhetorical theory. Throughoutthe article Codoer stresses the philosophical nature of the work whichdistinguishes it from Plinys Natural History; naturalesin the title shows it is awork ofphilosophia naturalis, and Codoer says that Seneca is concerned not justwith material causes but with ultimate causes. Section 2, on the book order,reviews earlier opinions, contrasting the approach of S t a h l (222, 223) andW a i b l i n g e r (225) that sees a structure based on philosophical and rhetori-cal principles, with the older approach seeing it based on scientific principles,and again argues that the manuscript evidence and internal evidence aredecisive, pointing to the original order being 37, 12 (the Non praeteritorder).Section 3, on the criteria for the arrangement of the work, stresses the impor-

tance of the opening chapters of Book 2, which comes at the end of the work,and argues that Seneca is here providing a retrospective justification of thecoherence of the work in terms of the action of air (Books 3 and 4a on waterseem not to fit, but water can be formed from air in Senecas physics). Section4, on the plan of the work, sees a physical progression upwards from water onthe earth (Books 3, 4a) to water in the atmosphere (4b), to air (5, 6), to fire (7,1, 2), which is simultaneously a progression in difficulty (water is familiar to us,by comparison with the other topics), a progression to frightening phenomena(starting with 6 on earthquakes, which begins the second half of the work in

the original book order), and a progression that culminates in lightning with itsdivine aspects. Codoer argues that there is a similar progression withinbooks, taking Book 3 as an example, where the argument advances frommaterial causes (chapters 411) to initial causes (1116.2) that are related to thelex naturaeand to reason; and this mirrors the minds ascent from the concreteto the general, from the humileto the caeleste, and the minds eventual submis-sion to reason. Codoer then asks how coherent is the actual outworking ofSenecas plan inNat. Section 5 challenges the widespread distinction betweenscientific sections and digressions, on the grounds that Seneca writes as a

philosopher for whom physics and ethics are two parts of philosophy thatboth enable people to become like god. She also insists that Senecas digres-sions must be understood in the light of ancient rhetorical discussions ofdigression, and shows that he observes the formal requirements of the rhetori-cal theorists in the way he marks the start and end of digressions. Section 6looks at the content of the digressions, pointing out that the topics of luxuryand greed are among those that are listed by Quintilian (Inst. 4.3.15) as suitable





17/27

Harry M. Hine16

topics for digressions. Seneca always returns to the original topic after a

digression, and is careful to relate its content to the context. In section 7 onprologues and section 8 on epilogues Codoer insists again on the philosophi-cal unity of the work, except that she argues that 4a.praef. has the appearanceof a letter to Lucilius, and perhaps was based on one of the earliest of them.3.praef. is programmatic, and focuses on historiography as portraying theeffects of chance, in contrast to natural philosophy which studies phenomenasubject to ratio. 1.praef., also programmatic, takes the reader deeper into thegoal of philosophy, to see into diuina. The openings of Books 6 and 7, bycontrast, show the immediate value of philosophy in promoting tranquillity.The epilogues, cumulatively, show that natural philosophy is not just aboutdiscovering the immediate causes of phenomena, but also about finding thefirst causes, and about acquiring wisdom through natural philosophy, bothmoral wisdom and knowledge of god. It is wrong to say that Seneca directsscience to moral goals: he does not conceive of science except as an integralpart of philosophy, sharing its goals. His early, lost scientific works may havebeen more purely scientific, but in Nat. he has achieved a philosophical ap-proach to science, though he does occasionally make concessions to contem-porary perceptions that philosophy is chiefly concerned with ethics.

G r o s s ( 232) sets out to answer five questions about Nat.: A) What was

the original book order, and what principles underlie its structure? B) Whatsource or sources did Seneca use? C) Does Seneca show any independence?D) What is the function of the ethical sections, and what is their relationshipto the scientific sections? E) What are Senecas motives for writing Nat. scientific, moral, or literary? To answer these questions Gross goes systemati-cally through the work book by book, tabulating the contents, outlining themodern theories of the phenomena handled in the book, reviewing the ancienttheories, and then analysing the structure, content and sources of Senecasbook. At the end of each chapter Gross helpfully summarizes its main conclu-

sions. Grosss book is valuable for its detailed section-by-section discussion ofeach book, which often amounts to a running commentary (and the generallysequential treatment of the text compensates in some measure for the lack ofany indices). Grosss broad conclusions, summarised at the conclusion of thebook, are as follows:

A) On the original book order, Gross argues, against H i n e (73), that thesurviving books were written in the Grandinem order (see Section 12C for asummary of his arguments). He rejects the theories of S t a h l (222, 223) andW a i b l i n g e r (225) about philosophical principles underlying the structure.

On the structure of individual books, Gross shows they mostly move fromcritical doxography, via Senecas own views on causes, to discussion of detailedproblems; but there is great variation between books.

B) Gross rejects the view that Seneca follows only one source. He fre-quently argues confidently that a change of source is indicated by inconsisten-cies, repetitions, sudden changes of direction, and so on (so, for example, in2.111 he discerns eight separate sections derived from six different sources;





18/27


and he rejects the view that Book 1 and 2 display artistic ring-composition,

arguing that the return to subjects already discussed earlier in the book indi-cates use of a new source). He is sceptical about earlier attempts to show thatPosidonius and Asclepiodotus are the predominant sources, though he ac-knowledges that Seneca uses them; he argues that Seneca often rejects Posido-nian views, and that Asclepiodotus work, as far as we know, was confined togeophysical topics. He argues for direct use of a number of other sources,including Varro, Papirius Fabianus, and two authors he argues are contempo-raries of Seneca, Apollonius and Artemidorus.

C) Gross rejects the view that Seneca shows no independence or original-ity, arguing for independence in the selection and arrangement of doxographi-cal notices, in the arguments directed at earlier writers, in personal observation,and in the selection of the best explanation.

D) Some of the ethical sections are closely connected to the scientificthemes, some are only superficially connected. Gross suggests that Senecasown circumstances may help to explain the presence of poorly motivatedmoralising: the fact he himself was wealthy may have given extra edge to hisattacks on luxury; his relationship to Nero may lie behind his exposition of theEtruscan manubiae (2.4344) or his account of Callisthenes and Alexander(6.23).

E) Gross rejects Stahls view that Seneca subordinates science to ethics,and Waiblingers view that aesthetic principles dictate the structure of Nat.Seneca is genuinely interested in the scientific topics for their own sake.However, he is not simply writing a textbook, but seeking to show the rationalorder of the cosmos, to progress from the study of nature to the knowledge ofgod.

C i t r o n i M a r c h e t t i ( 226) is mostly about Pliny, but towards the endshe contrasts Pliny with Seneca and Columella. All three condemn luxury, butwithin different frameworks: Columella is interested in financial gain; Senecas

Nat. presents an ascetic ideal, where the only true goal is knowledge of nature;the world of people and objects is due for destruction and renewal, while thephilosopher pursues a lonely, ascetic journey. Pliny comes somewhere be-tween them. In her later work (233), C i t r o n i M a r c h e t t i makes furthercomparisons between Plinys ideas and Senecas, and references to Nat.can befound in the index of passages cited (there are also indices of modern authorsand of topics), but section II.3 Il linguaggio moralistico senecano (pp. 116173) is a major discussion of Senecas moralising in its own right. CitroniMarchetti gives pride of place toNat., and some of the Letters, as the culmina-

tion of Senecas moral argumentation, which becomes rooted in a deeper,more pessimistic view of human history. Luxury goods are a principal targetof Senecas attacks, but Citroni Marchetti shows that Senecas discussions tendto polarise between outright condemnation of all luxury, and generalisedassertions that, though wealth is not intrinsically wrong, the philosopher willbe content with poverty if it becomes necessary a polarity sometimes re-flected in the polarity between the present and the idealised remote past ; but





19/27

Harry M. Hine18

he says little in detail about how a philosopher can make proper use of the

benefits of modern living. In 7.30.46 Seneca explicitly uses the language ofmystery religions, and Citroni Marchetti argues that the mysteries are implicitin 1.praef., where Seneca makes a link between the transcendence achieved bythe soul after death in the mysteries, and by the contemplation of the heavensbefore death, through scientific investigation. But this latter sort of transcen-dence has an ethical result, enabling us to perceive the unimportance of earthlypossessions and power. However, most people fail to perceive this: in the laterLetters, and in what Citroni Marchetti calls a triptych of Roman life inNat. 1.16(Hostius Quadra), 3.18 (watching dying mullets) and 4b.13 (the use of snow tocool drinks), Seneca shows how, in pursuit of ever greater pleasure fromobjects, people have lost their hold on the reality of those objects, and havebecome controlled by them, instead of being in control. Hostius Quadra goesway beyond the rest of society, whose misperception and misuse of mirrors isdebased enough on Senecas account: Hostius consciously descends to a lowerlevel, like some dark, monstrous Narcissus, trying to transcend his humannature downwards to the level of animals, not upwards to the level of god. Herevels in what his eyes can show him, seeking a perverse kind of self-knowledge, but he believes in the reality of his magnified images, although theyare a hallucination; he makes himself a spectacle, objectifies himself, and also

metaphorically devours himself. The dying mullets of 3.18 are associated withthe fish found underground of 3.1617, symbolic of the weight of humangreed. Like Hostius, the spectators feast their eyes, but it is a hallucinatoryfeast; and while they enjoy this in groups, they have ceased to participate intraditional social activities like funerals (3.18.6), another mark of their detach-ment from reality. In 4b.13 the sickly people who put ever more snow intotheir drinks do not understand the real nature and value of snow, and do notrealise that their damaged stomachs are beyond cooling. These three passagesare about Roman vices: the Romans started as a strong, solid, powerful people,

but have ended up enfeebled, at the mercy of material objects. Finally CitroniMarchetti compares 5.18 on winds with Plinys remarks on the use and abuseof winds, showing how Pliny values thepax Romanain a way that Seneca doesnot.

A principal contention of G i g o n (234) is that Nat. is not a particularlyStoic work. It seeks both to impart meteorological information in the Peripa-tetic tradition and to persuade the reader to adopt right attitudes to life anddeath. Quaestionesareproblemata, a Peripatetic genre. Seneca believes, with thePeripatos, against Epicurus, that a complete explanation can be given for

physical phenomena. He sides with Posidonius and the Stoics, but onlysometimes and partially, and is ready to disagree with them; there is only onemention of an early Stoic (Zeno at Nat. 7.19.1), and Stoic anthropocentricteleology is only occasionally on view. Stoic ideas of fate, pneuma, and thecosmos as a living organism, are present, but the meteorological issues are thesame as had been discussed since Presocratic times. On the arrangement ofthe work, accepting the Grandinem order, Gigon says Books 4b6 deal with





20/27


phenomena of air, 72 of fire, 34a of water on the earth though 4a is an

appendix to 3, and 3, as it were, an appendix to 6 (which also talks about theinner structure of the earth). Basically, the structure is that of a systematicPeripatetic work. However, the prefaces and epilogues form a counterweightto the science, and are interrelated, developing the themes of moral condemna-tion of contemporary society, removal of the fear of death, the place of man inthe universe, the importance of science (Gigon takes the separation of the soulfrom the body in 1.praef. to be metaphorical, signifying devotion to theinvestigation of nature), and (in 3.praef. and 4a.praef.) withdrawal from politicsin favour of philosophy. Gigon notes the considerable number of naturalevents of the preceding century mentioned by Seneca. At the end he leavesopen the question how successful is Senecas combination of physics andethics. (It may be noted that the only modern works onNat. that are men-tioned by Gigon are the editions of G e r c k e 58, O l t r a m a r e 57 andV o t t e r o 64.)

BS 1992.113 gives the following information about R o s s i (235): Con-tents: Introduzione, 5; Libro I. I fuochi celesti, 11; Libro II. I tuoni, i fulmini e ilampi, 37; Libro III. Le acque terrestri, 45; Libro IVa. La piena del Nilo, 69; LivroIVb. Le nubi, 87; Libro V. I venti, 91; Libro VI. Il terremoto, 101; Libro VII. Lecomete, 125; Riferimenti bibliografici, 141. Argument: interesse di Seneca per

gli studi scientifico-naturalistici fin dalla prima giovinezza:Nat. ne rappresentail culmine (cf. Nat. 6.4.2; Helv. 20.12); datazione di Nat. al 6263, con riferi-mento a Nat. 6.1.2 (apparizione di una cometa nel 6061), 13 (terremoto inAcaia e Macedonia del 61) e 7.28.3 (terremoto campano del 6 febbraio 62);classificazione dei vari libri di Nat. come monografie, luna indipendentedallaltra, ma unitariet del trattato in base allassunzione di uno dei principibasilari della scienza antica (reciproca reversibilit dei quattro elementi) e dalricorso alla metafora della terra quale corpo umano; modernit del metodo diSeneca: fiducia nella scienza, assenza di pregiudizi ed esame critico delle fonti;

analisi dei vari libri di Nat. [The references to 6.1.2 and 7.28.3 seem to bereversed in this summary.] B o r g o (17) says that Rossi compares the con-tents of the individual books with modern scientific theory, and maintains that,though the individual books are self-contained, they are united by the scientificapproach and the method of investigation and argumentation. (See alsoR o s s i 416and 456below.)

I n w o o d ( 236) is an earlier and shorter version of 237. In Stoicism, the-ology was the culmination of physics, and all physics was theocentric, con-cerned with the cosmos as a dwelling place for gods and men (SVF 2.528);

but it was also concerned with mankind, and with the removal of harmfulignorance about the physical world. Inwood argues that Seneca inNat. wantedto integrate study of the cosmos with study of the relationships between thehuman and the divine; yet he chose to write on meteorology, the least promis-ing area of physics for this purpose. This attempt is the mark of a literarygenius or of a man who thought himself one (p. 121; reprint p. 160), butmodern scholarship has largely judged it a failure; and meteorology does not





21/27

Harry M. Hine20

raise questions of such great philosophical interest as cosmology does. But

Inwood argues that the work does contain important philosophical reflectionon two topics, the relationship between god and man, and human epistemiclimitations, and that these themes are more important than the meteorologicalproblems that lie on the surface. He examines in detail selected passages thatbear on these themes, proceeding book by book (accepting the Non praeteritorder). So, for instance, at the start, in the preface to Book 3, the physical andethical themes are permeated by discussion of mans relationship to god, andof human limitations. Inwood argues that Senecas use of analogy in Book 3and elsewhere, and his openness to the possibility of more than one causeoperating, are rational procedures in the light of his healthy recognition of thescant amount of direct evidence at our disposal on many meteorologicaltopics. The discussion of the flood at the end of the book also dwells on therelationship of god to man, and on human vulnerability. The preface to Book4a continues the theme of the drawbacks of believing what historians sayabout human affairs and of using their works as an ethical guide. In Book 4bhe shows particular sensitivity to the risky nature of theories based on analogi-cal argument, and to the need for critical thought. The conclusion of Book 5(ch. 18) exemplifies the ethical importance, and the divine dimension, ofcorrect human interaction with nature. In Book 6 the consolatory function of

physics is prominent: ignorance of the causes of earthquakes can produce fear.But the removal of fear is not the only motive for studying nature: we have adeep-rooted sense of wonder at, and a desire for knowledge of, the physicalworld. Another theme of this book and elsewhere is the need to use ourminds to advance beyond the direct evidence of the senses and our immediateexperiences. The discussion of comets in Book 7 gives prominence both tothe divine organisation of the world (7.2.3) and to the limitations of humanknowledge (7.245), both themes converging at the end where epistemichumility is an act of piety (7.29.332). The preface to Book 1 declares em-

phatically that knowledge of god is the true goal of physics, and the true goalof human beings. Book 2 contains (2.3251) a lengthy discussion of questionsabout fate and divination: things can be signs of future events because they arepart of the total nexus of cause and effect that constitutes the divinely orderedcosmos; but again there is the theme of the limitations of current humanknowledge about this nexus, and a critique of the faulty theological views ofthe Etruscans. Inwood concludes by pointing out that Seneca could haveexpounded these theological and epistemological views without writing atreatise on meteorology, and he repeats his suggestion that literary reasons

predominated in his choice of subject matter.G r a v e r ( 238), in her response to I n w o o d (236), argues that the two

themes of the relationship of human beings to god, and human epistemiclimitations, had been present in Greek meteorological speculation from thestart, though sometimes only implicitly. For the Presocratics, meteorology wasclosely related to their theological revisionism, and meteorological phenomenaby definition lay beyond direct observation. In Aristotle, and maybe in the





22/27


Stoics, these two themes are only implicit, but Epicurus was very clear about

the epistemic and (non-)theological dimension of meteorology. Seneca waspossibly the first Stoic to make these dimensions prominent in a meteorologi-cal work, but Nat. is in the end a disappointment, because of the unevenquality of the argument, reflecting the lack of a philosophical community inwhich his ideas could have been challenged and improved.

S c o t t ( 239) argues that the moral excursuses are not irrelevant digres-sions, but they cumulatively show how human beings should live according tonature, and how they suffer if they live contrary to nature. Three Stoic doc-trines underpin all the moral diatribes in the work: that nature reveals theaction of the divine logos, for nature is reason at work; that human beingscontain a fragment of the divine logos, which allows them to understandnature and to live according to it; and that humans have free will, allowingthem to live contrary to nature if they wish. In the first book (Scott acceptstheQuantum book order) Hostius Quadra shows the destructive consequencesof disobeying nature. Mirrors rightly used can advance wisdom, but they caneasily be used wrongly (1.17). 1.praef. shows that natural philosophy is theolo-gy, the principal guide to morality. Books 2 and 6 both show how study ofnature can enable one to be free from fear of death: knowledge of nature freesfrom fear, ignorance leads to fear. Perversion of natures intentions is a theme

linking Books 4b and 5: 4b.13 is on the perverse use of snow and ice, 5.18 onmisuse of winds, both books showing the evils of greed and luxury. Thepreface of Book 4a is about modesty and restraint, but the loss of the end ofthe book means that one cannot know how the moral themes continued;though perhaps Seneca used the power and mystery of the Nile to reinforcethe lesson of the folly of human pride. Book 3 also fulminates against luxuryin its middle section (3.1718), and in the description of the deluge shows theultimate destruction that overtakes mankind as a result of going against nature(3.2730). Book 7, on the beauty and mystery of comets, is the culmination of

the work, and it concludes with a contrast between reverent striving to increaseour understanding of nature, and perverse striving to learn more about evil andvice (7.3132). So the work contrasts the life lived according to nature withthat lived in disobedience to nature. (One should contrast D o n i n i 319, whopoints out that inNat. Seneca never refers to living according to nature.)

B e r n o ( 241) is concerned with the relationship between science and mo-rality. After an introductory chapter, which sets out the aims of the work, andalso argues that the vices that Seneca focuses on should be seen within aRoman framework, and not just a Stoic one, chapter 2 is a slightly modified

version of Bernos article on Hostius Quadra (see 431), in which she arguesthat Hostius is the mirror-image of the philosopher, using his intellect in aperverted way, in order to satisfy his desires, and that he also resembles thegreat villains of Senecan tragedy. In the book, subsequent chapters are de-voted to other moralising passages in Nat. (3.17.118.7; 4a.praef.122;4b.13.111; 5.15.14; 2.59.113; 6.1.13, 4, 6, 32.112; 7.31.132.4): after areview of previous scholarship, each passage is subjected to careful and richly





23/27

Harry M. Hine22

detailed analysis, and compared to related passages elsewhere inNat. and other

Senecan prose works; in each case Berno shows how there is specularitybetween virtue and the corresponding vice, how the moral passage relates indetail to the scientific arguments of the book, and how there are analogies withSenecas tragedies. So, for example, in 3.17.118.7 on diners who watchmullets dying, luxury, like science, brings hidden things to light, but the gour-mets perversely find beauty in the death of a fish rather than in moral good-ness or in the sight of the cosmos; links with the rest of the book include, forinstance, the way in which the behaviour of thegulosiis even more incrediblethan the natural adynata which occur frequently in the book; their luxuria isparallel to the literary luxuria of Ovid that is criticised in 3.27; their moraldarkness is like the darkness of the underground rivers and lakes described inthe book; and the use of adynata in the tragedies as symbols of moral reversalis compared to their use in Nat. 3. In 4a.praef. Berno traces the presence ofgladiatorial imagery, for example, and imagery of actors and spectators, andsees specularity between the polar opposites of sincerity and simulation; on theconnection with the scientific material, she suggests that the hyperbolic de-scription of the Nile is a good counterpart to the hyperbole of the flatterer in4a, demonstrating that there are two possible uses of the same figure ofspeech. In 4b.13, on the use of snow for cooling food, luxury mimics phi-

losophy in seeking new discoveries, but tries to discover new ways of preserv-ing snow rather than of understanding what snow is; the gourmets are ill bothliterally and metaphorically, and Berno explores parallels with the metaphor ofillness as a punishment for vice in Thyestes. In 5.15.14 mining becomes aperversion of scientific exploration; the miners search ends in literal andmetaphorical darkness, and brings dangers parallel to those of the seafarers in5.18. Berno compares the underworld scene in Senecas Hercules Furens, andsuggests that the miners of Nat. are vainglorious imitators of Hercules. In2.59, on the fear of death by lightning, Berno points out that Seneca is not

concerned with death itself, but with the causes of fear, and that there is nospecular opposition of virtue and vice quite like those found in the otherbooks, for what is vicious is the exaggeration of the natural fear of death. Shepoints to a network of lexical, structural and thematic links between the finalchapter and the other sections of the book. Fear of death is also the theme ofthe start and conclusion of Book 6, though by the end of the book Seneca hasmore to say about the positive attitude of magnitudo animi, and a series of poeticquotations plays a significant role in the developing argument, marking aprogression from the views of the ordinary person to the rational understand-

ing of the philosopher, another manifestation of the opposition of appearanceand reality. The last two chapters of Book 7 contrast (lack of) progress inphilosophy with progress in vice, with schools of dancing mimicking schoolsof philosophy. So the image of the mirror suggests the way that vice con-stantly apes virtue, for both search intently to extend their knowledge. Bothfind the objects of their search fascinating and in literary terms, there is a riskthat the goals of vice may prove the more fascinating to the reader. Finally, an





24/27


appendix argues that the vices attacked by Seneca are in several cases implicitly

associated with the emperor Nero: for instance, his fondness for acting andpantomime, for snow-cooled drinks and swimming in snow-cooled water, hispursuit of hidden treasure, and his fear of lightning, which are all recorded inthe historical sources, are echoed in Nat. There are indices of passages, ofnames of modern scholars, and of topics and ancient names.

G a u l y s densely argued and challenging book (243) is a lightly revisedversion of the thesis (242). In chapter 1, Einleitung, after a trenchant surveyof modern scholarship onNat. (and there are further such surveys within theindividual chapters that follow), Gauly reviews the evidence for the date ofcomposition, accepting the Tacitean date for the Campanian earthquake, andso putting composition in 6263, perhaps extending into early 64. He thenbegins discussion of the problems of how the physics is related to the ethics inNat., and whether Seneca is an orthodox Stoic or an eclectic inNat.; he exam-ines what little evidence we have for previous cosmological writing in Latin,but decides we have to look elsewhere for answers. On the question whySeneca wrote his work in Latin rather than Greek, Gauly suggests that Senecawas trying to reach a specifically senatorial readership suspicious of Greekphilosophy. In chapter 2, Strukturfragen, Gauly first repeats the case for theorder 37, 12, which he calls the Non praeteritorder after the opening words

of Book 3. Given that order, he accepts the view of C o d o e r M e r i n o(61, 231) that this marks a reversal of the usual order of meteorological trea-tises, for Seneca starts with terrestrial phenomena and works upwards toatmospheric phenomena, sublimia, and this ascent may have a metaphoricalaspect. Gauly then turns to the structure of individual books, and in particularthe relationship between the scientific sections and the prologues, digressionsand epilogues, and suggests that this can be understood in terms of Bakhtinsconcept of dialogicity. There are different dialogues being conducted inNat.:between the Greek doxographical tradition and its Roman frame, between

Greek and Latin language and terminology, and between the scientific andmoral sections. Gauly analyses the I and You of Senecas text, the dialoguebetween author and what is often called the interlocutor: Gauly argues for adistinction between two types of dialogue partner, a Greek doxographicalvoice (most commonly introduced with inquit), and on the other hand a lessscientific voice, full of wonder, a Roman voice sometimes doubtful of thevalue of Greek scientific enquiry (often introduced with inquis). In chapter 3,Nihil est autem apertius: moralische Belehrung in denNaturales Quaestiones,Gauly argues, following D o n i n i (319), that in Nat. there are two views on

the value of ethics: for Gauly, the You thinks that physics should be studiedonly as a means to ethical ends, but the I declares the autonomous value ofscience, and regards withdrawal from this world, not moral improvement, asthe ultimate goal a Platonic rather than a Stoic view. Then Gauly analyses indetail some of the moral sections. In 3.1718 on watching dying mullets, heagrees with C i t r o n i M a r c h e t t i ( 233) and others that there is a symbolicmeaning as well as the surface one, and argues that the behaviour of the diners





25/27

Harry M. Hine24

is a metaphor for a society preoccupied with its own decline a theme that

links to the deluge in 3.2730. On 4b.13, about the use of snow to cooldrinks, Gauly explores possible contemporary relevance, and suggests that theI evinces some dissatisfaction with the utilitarian subordination of physics toethics. On Hostius Quadra (1.1617) Gauly stresses the Roman aspects of thestory, and argues that Hostius is symbolic of the dissolution of the traditionalsocial order that occurred under the principate and hence the need towithdraw from this world, enunciated in 1.praef., is reinforced. In chapter 4,Erde und Himmel: Kosmologie in den Naturales Quaestiones, Gauly returns tothe point that in Nat. Seneca reverses the usual order, and works upwardsfrom the earth to the sky, and then drawing on the work of H. B l u m e n -b e r g on metaphorology goes on to argue that Senecas nature is intrinsi-cally metaphorical. He focuses on Book 7, arguing for the Roman relevance ofthe book, given the treatment of comets as prodigies, and the contemporaryrelevance, arguing that it reflects contemporary debate about comets duringNeros reign; but also comets are symbolic of the difference between theorderliness of the heavens and the disorderliness of the earth from which weneed to escape, and Senecas belief in progress is symbolic of the religioushope of escaping from the limits of earthly existence. Turning to 1.praef.,Gauly argues that the Platonic language and imagery cannot be taken as a

metaphor for Stoic conceptions of knowledge, and Senecas use of the imageof the earth as a point is in conflict with Stoic anthropocentric cosmology. Sothere is Bakhtinian dialogicity between the Platonism of the preface and theaetiological discussions that follow. In the final chapter 5, Naturphilosophieals Bild der Zeit, Gauly argues that the work has a political dimension. Apartfrom the explicit, conventional compliments to Nero, he argues for a numberof implicit, and normally ironic or uncomplimentary, allusions to the emperor,and furthermore that the anxiety about frightening natural phenomena en-countered in Nat. is symbolic of deeper political anxiety. Gauly focuses in

particular on Senecas deluge (3.2730), stressing its un-Stoic aspects, andarguing that it is symbolic of the collapse of the political system and he goeson to compare this passage to apocalyptic literature. So in the endNat. can beread as a rejection of Nero and the political system he represents. After a briefconcluding chapter there are indices of passages cited and of names and topics.

See also Z e h n a c k e r ( 354) in Section 14B below for discussion of Nat.as a whole.

B. Date of composition

244. K. A b e l , Bauformen in Senecas Dialogen. Fnf Strukturanalysen:dial. 6, 11, 12, 1 und 2, Heidelberg 1967.

Rev.: M a u r a c h , Gymnasium 74, 1967, 549551; M o t t o , CW 61, 1967,158159; V a s s i l e i o u , REL 45, 1967, 567569; C a s t i l l o , Emerita 36,1968, 352354; M a r a c h e , REA 70, 1968, 495; V e r d i r e , AC 37, 1968,307; A n d r , Latomus 28, 1969, 507508; E r n o u t , RPh 43, 1969, 166;





26/27


Berthold, DLZ 91, 1970, 10421045; van den Bruwaene, RBPh

48, 1970, 132133; T r i l l i t z s c h , Gnomon 42, 1970, 463469; V r e t s k a ,AAHG 23, 1970, 165168.

245. H. M. H i n e , The date of the Campanian earthquake. A.D. 62 orA.D. 63, or both?, AC 53, 1984, 266269.

246. A. W a l l a c e - H a d r i l l , Seneca and the Pompeian earthquake, in:45, 177191.

We are fortunate in being able to dateNat. securely to the early 60s A.D.,during the last few years of Senecas life. In Book 7 he refers to a recent

comet that is datable to 60 (7.17.2, 21.3); but he does not refer to the cometthat appeared in 64 (mentioned in Tac. Ann. 15.47.1), and would surely havedone so if he were writing after its appearance. Book 6 refers to a recentearthquake in Campania, but there is a problem about the date, for there is adisagreement betweenNat. 6.1.2, where the manuscripts put the recent Cam-panian earthquake in the consulship of Regulus and Verginius, A.D. 63, andTacitusAnn. 15.22.2, who puts a Campanian earthquake in 62. There has beena long debate about which is the correct date: F. J. J o n a s in 1870 (De ordinelibrorum L. Annaei Senecae philosophi, Diss. Berlin, 5354) was the first to

suggest that the consuls names in Seneca could be an interpolation, whereasother scholars suggested that Senecas date is more trustworthy and Tacituscould have slipped up over the year. For bibliography prior to 1960 see e.g.H i n e ( 67), 4143; W a l l a c e - H a d r i l l (246); G a u l y (243), 2125. Mostrecent scholarship has inclined to accept 62 (including W h i t e 72; C o r -c o r a n 59; G r i f f i n 197/198, 399400; G r i m a l 205, 299303;C o d o e r M e r i n o 61; V o t t e r o 64; G u i d o b o n i , C o m a s t r i ,T r a i n a 479, 1 9 ; W a l d h e r r 480, 7374; Gauly 243, 2125);C o d o e r M e r i n o ( 61) was the first editor to bracket the consular names

as an interpolation, followed by H i n e (67). But A b e l (244), 165166,restates the arguments for 63, accepting this date because Tacitus is unreliableabout such things; and S c h n b e r g e r (76) also accepts the later date.

Some fresh arguments have been brought to bear on the problem. H e n -r y (489), 175179, argues that there were in fact two major earthquakes inCampania a few months apart, one in late 62 recorded by Tacitus, and thesecond in February 63 recorded by Seneca. But H i n e (245) argues thatHenrys positive arguments for two earthquakes are not compelling, and thatthe ignorance of Seneca or his sources about any earlier major earthquake

affecting Campania is a strong argument against Henrys hypothesis. W a l -l a c e - H a d r i l l ( 246) challenges the modern near-consensus that the Cam-panian earthquake occurred in 62 rather than 63. On the internal chronologyofNat. he argues that an Achaean earthquake in late 61 could be described asoccurring anno priore (Nat. 6.1.13) compared to an earthquake in February 63,because chronological precision is not to be demanded; and he argues that themention by Seneca of the consular year for a recent event is not problematic





27/27

Harry Hine on Natural Questions

Documents

Transcript of Harry Hine on Natural Questions