[3.5.1] Quidam iudicant: This paragraph returns to the marvel (miramur) discussed in 3.4, namely, that the seas do not rise although rivers flow into it. Aristotle offers an explanation for this phenomenon at Mete. 355b21-33, which he attributes to evaporation. Lucan has his Caesar use this fact in an erudite epic simile at 5.336-9, and Lucan surely draws upon Seneca elsewhere in his work (cf. Manolaraki 2013: 98-103 and Tracy 2014: 241-75). The use of quidam is a common way for Seneca to lump together a number of thinkers without distinguishing them by name (cf. Hine 2006: 56-59 for more on his critical doxography and the “virtual academy” of scholars he utilizes). At other moments of doxography, he will cite specific thinkers, but here he provides the theory without any judgment as to its veracity. He will use iudicant quidam at NQ 3.22.1 when discussing the ocean and seas and other “eternal” (aeternus) waters. A major question is whether Seneca expects the reader to know from where he is deriving his material (and, thus, capable of picking up on allusions or adaptations of the source), or such material is tacitly rejected because the source is unnamed.
terram quidquid aquarum emisit rursus accipere: This cycle of water emerging from the earth, only to be absorbed back by the earth is the final argument of Lucretius’ excursus on the unvarying size of the sea (6.631-8). By focusing on the land here and the waters it sends forth (emisit), Seneca takes out of play the celestial waters that he will discuss in NQ 4b, whereas Lucretius mentions both rainstorms (vagos imbris tempestantesque volantes, 6.611) as well as rivers and springs. emittere appears often in NQ 3 (3.6.1, 3.14.3, 3.26.8, 3.28.6, 3.28.7) and is one of Seneca’s favorite verbs for the swift movement of water (e.g. 5.9.2) and wind (5.12.1).
ob hoc maria non crescere: ob hoc used to offer proof elsewhere in Seneca (e.g. Dial. 2.8.3, 3.65) and in the NQ (e.g. 4a.2.29, 4b.4.2). At Ep. 79.8 Seneca writes maria non crescunt among additional examples of things that have reached their full potential and, therefore, can not grow. Pliny the Elder will discuss this same phenomenon in similar language: quare tot fluminum cotidiano accessu maria non crescant, Nat. 2.166.
quia quod influxit, non in suum vertunt sed protinus reddunt: Seneca writes that these waters are not assimilated into the sea (non in suum vertunt), but are immediately returned through subterranean passages. Seneca uses in suum vertere about avarice, which seeks to turn things “to its own private use” (Ep. 90.38). The language in this opening sentence stresses reciprocity in a way similar to Seneca’s de Beneficiis, cf. Ben. 5.8.5: protinus reddidit and 2.21.5.
occulto enim itinere: Seneca will examine these hidden channels further at NQ 3.9.1, 3.15.1: in terra quoque sunt alia itinera; and 6.8.1-3. Seneca will later write that the sea has its own veins that supplies it with water and causes the tides (3.14.3). If the opening use of iter (cf. 3.pr.4 supra) imagines this work as similar to a journey, then Seneca’s exploration of hidden ways, like hidden things (cf. occulta, 3.pr.1 supra), is an important aspect of his methodology. The hidden power and movement of water are stressed at 3.14.3 and 3.19.4, respectively.
subit terras: The waters move under the earth naturally, but mankind, out of greed will do so in their hunt for precious metals at 1.17.6: postquam deterior populus ipsas subit terras effossurus obruenda. Such actions are placed in opposition with water and air (spiritus), which subit terras at 2.1.3. The phrase itself may make one think of a katabasis or the Underworld, cf. Ovid Met. 11.61-2 (of Orpheus’s ghost) umbra subit terras, et quae loca viderant ante, / cuncta recognoscit…; and Sen. Tr. 846-7: subiturus aequor / segnibus terras Titaressos undis?
palam venit secreto revertitur: The supplement of quod (proposed in Koeler’s 1819 commentary) improves the sense and structure of the clause and parallels the quod influxit in the previous sentence. Seneca likes the contrast between palam and secreto, cf. Dial. 4.29.4, Ben. 2.9.1, Cl. 1.13.5; likewise, he features venire and reverti at certain moments, especially dealing with death: e.g. reverti unde veneris quid grave est? male vivet quisquis nesciet bene mori, Dial. 9.11.4 (cf. Ep. 70.16). revertitur indicates that this water has no chance to be absorbed by the sea (in suum vertunt). The use of reverti and secretus will be picked up again by Seneca at NQ 3.26.3 infra.
colaturque in transitu mare: This recalls Lucretius’ description of the seawater being strained in its passage under the earth: percolatur enim virus retroque remanat / materies umoris et ad caput amnibus omnis / confluit (6.635-7, cf. 2.475, 5.269). Seneca uses in transitu to explain the eternal movement of nature: omnia volvuntur semper et in transitu sunt; ut lex et naturae necessitas ordinavit (Dial. 12.6.8). In the NQ in transitu reappears of the flood, which picks up small abodes “as it passes” (3.27.7) and of the pursuit of wisdom, which most men today only take a passing interest in: quis dignam [sapientiam] iudicat nisi quam in transitu noverit? (7.32.1). In its reuse, this phrase may be seen to link these sections together and how the language of physics can be contextualized in the moral excursus of Book 7.
per multiplices terrarum anfractus everberatum: Cf. Seneca’s discussion of the Maeander river and its winding course: ut Maeander…implicatur crebris anfractibus et saepe in vicinum alveo suo admotus, antequam sibi influat, flectitur (Ep. 104.15). Note that Seneca often uses verberare for the action of water (Phaed. 6, Oed. 10, NQ 3.26.2, 4a.2.22). Castiglioni’s everberatum is an attractive conjecture and is accepted here due to Seneca’s use of it when discussing the purification of water at 6.27.3: quid quod aquae quoque inutiles pestilentesque in abdito latent, ut quas numquam usus exerceat, numquam aura liberior everberet? It is possible that Seneca knew of the use of terrarum+anfractum through a tragedy of Accius: super Oceani stagna alta patris / terrarum anfracta revisam (trag. 335-6, Ribbeck).
amaritudinem ponit et pravitatem: The idea that the sea (mare) is “bitter” (amarus) is also found at Lucr. 2.464-5, Verg. Ecl. 10.5: Doris amara suam non intermisceat undam (cf. NQ 3.26.6 for Seneca’s quotation of this line). pravitas usually indicates some sort of deformity, irregularity, or downright depravity in Seneca (cf. Ep. 50.5, NQ 5.18.15). This is strong language for the salt content of the sea and would seem to indicate that Seneca is personifying the sea as debased by the salt, only to be refined into something “pure” (sinceram aquam) after much “shaping up”, cf. Tacitus’ use of this sort of language when discussing the education of children at Dial. 28.7.
in tanta soli varietate: Hine 1996: 45 questions why Seneca stresses the variety of soil(s), but cautiously concludes, “But perhaps the text is sound and the point is that if the sea water passes through a wide variety of different soils, they will sift out different impurities, and it is bound to lose its saltiness somewhere or other”. Vitruvius likewise connects the soil with different flavors of water (8.3.13). Aristotle reports at Mete. 354b17-19 that some believe the salt water is filtered: διὸ καὶ τοὺς ποταμοὺς οὐ μόνον εἰς ταύτην (θάλαττα) ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ ταύτης φασί τινες ῥεῖν· διηθούμενον γὰρ γίγνεσθαι τὸ ἁλμυρὸν πότιμον. For Aristotle, this theory may originate in Xenophanes (Diels 21 B 30). Aristotle will go on to refute this theory and show that the sea is rather the end and not the source of all water (Mete. 356a35-356b3).
saporem exuit: Here Seneca would seem to indicate losing the flavor of salt, but he also understands later that different soils lend differing tastes to waters (most of NQ 3.20.1 is devoted to this issue). The use of exuere can be paralleled when Seneca writes of death: mors nos aut consumit aut exuit; emissis meliora restant onere detracto…, Ep. 24.18.
in sinceram aquam transit: Seneca will write of the “purest” (sincerissimum) wine which flows from the beginning of the amphora at Ep. 108.26 and, in general, that which is pure, is unmixed for Seneca: cf. Ep. 66.17: omne honestum iniussum incoactumque est, sincerum et nulli malo mixtum, Cl. 2.6.1: numquam autem liquidum sincerumque ex turbido venit. The filtration of this water in the earth is counter to celestial phenomena and air close to the earth, which are often not “pure” (NQ 2.26.9, 4b.10.1, 7.12.7, 7.17.3). Ovid’s description of elemental transformation may be echoed here: ignis enim densum spissatus in aera transit, / hic in aquas, tellus glomerata cogitur unda (Met. 15.250-1), as it is picked up at NQ 3.10.3-4.
