[3.10.1] Adicias: Continuing with the second person for continuity as he examines additional reasons for underground waters. This section owes much to Ovid’s speech of Pythagoras (Met. 15.237-72, esp. 244-48), but the idea is also found at Cic. Nat. 2.84: Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aer, ex aere aether, deinde retrorsum vicissim ex aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra infima (see Pease 1955: ad loc. and ad 1.39; Vottero 1989: ad 2.26.2; Williams 2012: 21-29 discusses the differences between Cicero’s and Seneca’s Stoic world views). Cf. Berno 2012: 58-61 for more on these Latin antecedents and the centrality of this section for our understanding of book 3. Greek thinkers who discussed the flux of elements include Heraclitus (DK B31, B76b, B76c), Anaximander (DK B1), Anaxamenes (DK A5), and Anaxagoras (DK B16). The Stoics evolved their theory of elemental change (SVF 2.413, 579, 580, 581), and Seneca’s stresses a post-Posidonian view in this chapter that involves a free play of elements, cf. Hahm 1985, Wildberger 2007: 62-66 (with extensive references), and Boechat 2016: 451-3.
quod fiunt omnia ex omnibus: Lucretius is fond of the polyptoton omnia/omnibus and it possible that Seneca is responding to moments such as Lucr. 1.172: nequeunt ex omnibus omnia gigni or 1.660-62. In addition, this strongly resembles some of the words of Ovid’s Pythagoras at Met. 15.244-5: tamen omnia fiunt / ex ipsis et in ipsa cadunt, cf. Parroni 2002: ad loc. Seneca will vary this later in this section: omnia in omnibus sunt (3.10.4) to defend how such elemental change occurs. Epictetus reported that contemplating elemental transformation helps man to “accept the inevitable and to lead a life that is balanced and harmonious” (Todd 1989: 1372 citing Musonius fragm. 42 Hense = Epictet. ap. Stob. Ecl. IV.44.60).
ex aqua aër, ex aëre aqua: According to the Stoics, air comes into being from the dissolution of water and water is able to come into being through the condensation of air, cf. LS 280 (Chrysippus’ view of the elements) and Cicero’s Nat. 2.101. The elision of aqua aër and aëre aqua would help to indicate how elements may change into one another as well as the general mixture of elements as we experience them (cf. 3.10.4).
ignis ex aëre, ex igne aër: Fire and air are able to undergo similar transformations. For Chrysippus the initial element is fire and the first change to occur is from fire to air, via condensation. The parallel phrasing of these two clauses highlights the ability for elemental interchange.
quare ergo non ex terra fiat aqua?: quare ergo is common in the NQ to introduce questions (e.g. 2.43.1, 4a.2.23, 7.21.2, 7.21.3). Water and earth are classified as “passive” elements by the Stoics (LS 282). Lucretius claims that certain flux thinkers (whom he is repudiating) argue for first a “downward” movement of fire to air to water to earth, but then and “upward” movement of earth to water to air to fire (1.782-802). This may be a Stoic borrowing from Heraclitus (ἄνω κάτω ὀδός, DK B60, cf. Brown 1984: ad loc.).
quae si in alia mutabilis: Restating the Stoic belief at 3.9.3. Seneca stresses this at this point in the book because of its later importance for the flood, cf. NQ 3.29.4.
immo maxime: This strong assertion is not found elsewhere in Senecan prose.
utraque enim cognata res: Forms of cognatus are rare in the NQ, only appearing at 2.21.4 (about the relationship between fulguratio and fulmen, and 7.30.4 (about heavenly phenomena). Seneca’s investigation into the birth (nascor) of waters under the earth (3.9.3) is given etymological proof by the kindred (cognata) bonds between water and earth.
utraque gravis, utraque densa, utraque in extremum mundi compulsa: The list of similarities shows how they are related (cognata). Their shared density and weight are also remarked upon above (3.9.2), but the addition of in extremum mundi compulsa indicates how both of these elements sink towards the depths of the earth (“one of the extremities of the world” (Hine 2010)). This view also informs 3.19.4: cuius non tanguntur extrema. This is a bold change as, usually, the extremum mundi refers to the heavens (cf. Cic. N.D. 2.101.10, Div. 2.91.17), while extrema mundi denotes the edges of the known world (cf. Luc. 3.454, 4.669), cf. TLL 5.2005.9ff.
[3.10.2] ‘at magna flumina sunt’: Seneca imagines the objection of an interlocutor. He used the phrase magna flumina at Ben. 3.8.1 to describe navigable rivers. One might suppose he draws upon his childhood in Corduba, which is on the Baetis [modern Guadalquivir], and is famously navigable to the sea (approximately 140 miles away). Cf. Strabo 3.2.3. Such interruptions or imaginary dialogues (sermocinatio) are common in Senecan prose, cf. Hijmans 1991: 16-19 and Williams 2003: 29.
cum videris quanta sint: Seneca builds his argument that one should not wonder at the size and quantity of rivers because of the ubiquity of the element of water. One again the use of the second person acts as a direct address to the reader.
rursus ex quanto prodeant aspice: There is a move from the visual to the mental in the call to rursus…aspice. One can not actually look below the ground or at the elemental transmutations occurring there. The movement from quanta [flumina] to ex quanto [elemento] shows how an understanding of the nature of water will cause one not to marvel at the size of rivers. Seneca urges his reader with aspice often in his philosophical prose, e.g. Ep. 114.26, Ep. 99.13, Dial. 3.2.2.
miraris: The fight against “wonder” and creating a rational explanation for such possible paradoxographical features is sounded again, cf. 3.4.1.
cum labantur adsidue: In a similar claim for the perspective of what one considers “wonderous” Seneca writes about the fact that people do not marvel at the sun’s continual movement: sol labitur adsidue, Dial. 12.7.1. Lucretius writes of springs adsidue renovent (2.51), and the language recalls Vergil’s famous description of rivers flowing underground at G. 4.366. The situation seems reminiscent of Heraclitus’s famous musing on the river’s flow, cf. Graham 2010: Hct 158-59, Sen. Ep. 58.22-4.
concitata rapiantur: Seneca will depict the Nile’s violent cataracts in a similar manner at NQ 4a.5.1: Nilus insurgit et vires suas concitat. The difference between a river in flood and the calm river flowing by is stressed by Festus DVS 352.64, 352.66.
quod praesto…aqua semper nova: Seneca begins to build his comparison between the water readily available for rivers and the air available for wind.
quid si mireris quod: His comparison of rivers and wind restates the way that Aristotle first begins to discuss waters in his Meteorologica, i.e. as a comparison with air, cf. Mete. 349a12-349b2. Seneca will repeat this astonished interrogative (quid si…) in the following sentence.
venti totum aëra impellant: Seneca often pairs ventus with the verb impellere, e.g. Phaed. 955: nunc atra ventis nubila impellentibus; NQ 7.7.1: quod ventus multas aëris partes impellit. The winds are the subject of NQ 5.
non deficit spiritus: Especially if spiritus is to be identified with the Stoic pneuma, this statement is accurate, see the note supra 3.pr.15. Seneca links the ethical preface with his physical focus in this statement. Elsewhere this collocation is used of courage failing, Dial. 11.11.6 or, in the case of Ovid’s Caeneus, of suffocation, Met. 12.517-18.
per dies noctesque aequaliter fluit: Cf. 3.pr.16 for the phrase per dies noctesque. The similarity in language (note aequaliter) encourages the reader to remember the ethical encouragement offered there. The language used here foreshadows the manner in which Seneca describes the winds at NQ 5.1.1: ventus est fluens aër.
certo alveo: Also found at Mela 3.24.3 to describe the Rhine. During the flood at 3.27.8 infra, the rivers burst their banks. There may be a parallelism and foreshadowing between the action of the winds and their “broad attack” lato impetus (cf. 3.27.2 infra) with the coming flood as both elements are plentiful and have damaging potential.
vastum caeli spatium: Elsewhere Seneca will utilize a similar phrase for the sea (Ep. 79.10: per vasti maris spatia) and for latifundia worked by slaves (Ben. 7.10.5: vasta spatia terrarum). Vottero 1989: ad loc. points out epic variants from Ennius to Ovid.
lato impetu vadit: lato impetu to contrast certo alveo and the verb stresses the play of the winds throughout the world, not merely within the boundary of the riverbank. For a similar formulation, cf. Ep. 93.9: scimus sidera impetu suo vadere…
ullam undam superesse mireris: As one does not wonder about the ubiquity of wind, so one does not wonder about the progression of waves in the sea. For the progression of waves used in a similar manner, cf. Hor. Epist. 2.2.176: velut unda supervenit undam.
tot fluctibus fractis: The prevalence of “s” and “f” sounds in this line may evoke waves on the shore. This expression is derived from Hor. C. 2.14.14: fractisque rauci fluctibus Hadriae. Metapoetically, the Horatian repetition in itself conjures the continuous motion of the surf.
[3.10.3] nihil deficit quod in se redit: A sententia for closure, but also a hint at the elemental balance that will be the subject of this section. In de Vita Beata, Seneca had written about the way the universe (mundus) always “returns into himself” (in se redit, Dial. 7.8.4). Basore 1932: 118 believes this is a reference to “creative Fire” which, “acting upon itself, by a process of mutation it produced the other forms of matter”. This context sheds light on the elemental underpinnings of Seneca’s statement.
omnium elementorum alterni recursus sunt: Hine 1996:47 suggests alterni recursus with Dial. 12.20.2 and Ep. 88.26 as comparanda, but these are not convincing. The idea of “return” or “reversion” (to a previous state, OLD 3) is suggested already with in se redit. The text should remain unemended, cf. Ov. Ibis 419: per alternos unda labente recursus.
quidquid alteri perit in alterum transit: Once again recalling Ovid’s speech of Pythagoras and its general theme of transformation, cf. Met. 15.143: omnia mutantur nihil perit and Met. 15.252-58, esp. nec perit in toto quicquam, mihi credite, mundo, / sed variat faciemque novat (254-55). Whereas Ovid uses transire of metempsychosis (Met. 15.145), Seneca stresses it here (and elsewhere in book 3) for transformation (and the reading of Ψ should be maintained). Elsewhere, Seneca pairs perit and transit for his discussion of time (Ep. 24.20) and a “good” (bonum autem uno modo perit, si in malum transit, Ep. 74.24).
natura partes suas velut in ponderibus constitutas examinat: in ponderibus here must mean “on the scales”, but, as Hine 2006: 47 notes this is the only attestation of this sense. It is possible that ponderibus may be a gloss on lancibus. The only additional time Seneca has examinare in the NQ comes when assessing possible action, 4a.pref.16: ne examinavi[t] quidem diu (neque paria pendebant) utrum satius esset me perire pro fide an fidem pro me. If a quasi-personified natura here puts “her parts” into balance, during the flood, such distinctions will be obliterated, confundetur quicquid in suas partes natura digessit, NQ 3.29.8.
ne portionum aequitate turbata mundus praeponderet: “So that the world does not become unbalanced, with its elemental proportions made askew.” Such an imbalance occurs at NQ 3.29.5, during the flood, and this language is echoed there (see note infra). This is the only use of aequitas in the NQ, but Seneca wrote about elemental imbalance in his de Ira: cuius in illo elementi portio praevalebit, inde mores erunt, Dial. 4.19.2. As one of the four elements water is plentiful, a point Seneca will stress at NQ 3.12.2 (rerum naturae tam magna portio).
[3.10.4] omnia in omnibus sunt: If Seneca began this section by stressing transmutation of elements (omnia ex omnibus, 3.10.1), now he focuses on the mixture of elements in compounds (Cicero N.D. 2.115-18) and, possibly, the Stoic idea of the pneuma’s presence in all things (SVF 2.310, 2.441). Cf. 2006: 60-79 for the most exhaustive treatment about Seneca’s conception of the elements. Seneca had employed similar language in writing about vice in Ben. 4.27.3: omnia in omnibus vitia sunt, sed non omnia in singulis extant.
non tantum aër in ignem transit, sed numquam sine igne est: This first example would be suggested, in part, by the importance of fire for Stoic fire (SVF 2.413) and Cleanthes’ view on the necessity of heat for growth (Cic. N.D. 2.23-30). Even unequal constituents were thought to be “blends”, hence Chrysippus’ famous quip that a drop of wine can be blended with the sea (SVF 2.480, Long and Sedley 1987: 290-94).
detrahe illi calorem, rigescet, stabit, durabitur: According to traditional elemental flux, the contraction and cooling of air will lead to water, but Seneca stresses not so much the movement (transit) from one to another, but rather that our experience of such “elements” is nearly always in their compounded form and that we are unlikely to find “pure” air, water, fire, or earth, cf. Wildberger 2006: 60 “Such substances, at least in the sublunary space, are mixtures of the elements (in their narrow, philosophical sense).” Seneca will repeat forms of detrahere when dealing with elemental change later in the NQ, cf. 2.15.1.
transit aër in umorem sed nihilominus non est sine umore: Reaffirming the idea found above, as air has both water and fire interspersed in it.
aëra et aquam facit terra: As at NQ 3.9.2 where Seneca wrote of the exhalations of the earth, a theory he will reiterate at NQ 5.4-5.6 and passim in book 5. He will continue to stress how the earth can form water as well at 3.10.5 and 3.15.6.
non magis umquam sine…: There has been a steady expansion of Seneca’s rhetoric from numquam sine to nihilominus non est sine to this final non magis umquam sine…quam sine.
facilior est invicem transitus: “The reciprocal changes are easier”. Verbally, Seneca has made his own changes with facilior from facere and transitus from transire. It is possible that the use of transitus would recollect NQ 3.pr.3 (see note supra) and the ethical advice there (fidelissimus est ad honesta ex paenitentia transitus). The elemental substructure thus emphasizes how ethical change can happen as well.
quia illis in quae transeundum est iam mixta sunt: Causal clause explaining why the changes are more straightforward. Vottero 1989: ad loc. cites Anaxagoras’ statement about homeomereity, which stresses a single mixture “with everything being in everything” (πάντων μὲν ἐν παντὶ ἐνόντων, DK 59B1). For more on this concept, cf. Graham 2010: 315.
[3.10.5] habet ergo terra umorem: Earth both has water and can be transformed into water, thus one should not wonder at the volume and quantity of terrestrial waters.
hunc exprimit: exprimere elsewhere in NQ is used of winds (5.8.1), lightning (2.12.6), and thunder (2.54.3).
habet aëra: As proven, the earth contains both air and water, and the air can also transform into water, restating the findings at NQ 3.9.2.
hunc umbra inferni frigoris densat: Seneca reformulates the language from NQ 3.9.2, in part to emphasize the elemental changes that occur (umbra, frigus~frigoris, densitas~densat) and also to show how he has provided further evidence for this assertion. Later, this language will be used of the pestilent vapors that occur underground (aeternum illud umbrosi frigoris malum et infernam noctem voluit, 6.28.2). The various terms of the underworld would make aspects of Seneca’s description seem like a katabasis for the reader.
natura sua utitur: Because earth itself can turn into water (cf. NQ 3.9.3), it “takes advantage of its own nature”. In book 3, natura sua will be used again for such conversions at 3.15.7, and Seneca had used the phrase [dei] utuntur natura sua to describe the beneficence of the gods (Ben. 1.1.9).
******
******
