Oberlin Classics

Praef. Seneca begins the book and, probably, the Naturales Quaestiones as a whole (see introduction) by addressing Lucilius, his correspondent in the Epistulae Morales and addressee of de Providentia. Seneca remarks that time is short for an old man like himself (senex, senectus) and the work ahead of him difficult, but takes comfort in turning to contemplation of himself (sibi totus animus vacet; contemplationem sui) as well as the labor that this project entails (id diligenti usu praesentis vitae recolliget). The programmatic language hints that this is the beginning of a major work (magnarum rerum fundamenta ponam) and terms that will reappear throughout the NQ as a whole pepper this passage (e.g. causas; secreta; occulta). It especially looks forward to certain purple passages such as the end of Book 7 and the preface of Book 1 and thus “primes” the reader for the discussion of certain ideas important for the complete work. In addition, there is marked ring-composition with the end of this preface and the end of Book 3 (detailed below).

Readers coming to the work believing that the primary subject matter would be naturales quaestiones (esp. if this was the title of the book), would be surprised by this preface and the scarcity of statements about the natural world. This is purposeful and is a strategy that Seneca also employs in his Epistulae Morales, as Henderson 2004 clarifies: “Disorientation of the reader is the first objective of the correction programme. Scrubbing the interrogation clean of external coordinates is part of a sensory-deprivation therapy which aims to reconfigure and redirect the new recruit, inside, inside the mind, wherever morals live” (6). Seneca aims to shock the reader into paying particular attention to his language (embodied in phrases such as mundum circumire and crescit animus), and the perspective he is offering in which ethical and scientific understanding coalesce, as Furley claims, “the Stoic Wise Man could hardly be imagined in detachment from the optimistic providentialism of Stoic cosmology” (2005: 419).

While this preface primarily focuses on ethical ideas, it is notable that his language here is often reappropriated for descriptions of natural phenomena (see below). Seneca is clearly making a connection between the two areas of philosophy, which are intertwined in traditional Stoic philosophy, cf. Paparazzo 2011. The preface also looks back to earlier works of Seneca (Consolatio ad Helviam, de Brevitate Vitae), thus implying that Seneca’s whole life is culminating in the composition of the NQ. In writing this work, Seneca remarks that he is embarking on a journey and the “passage” itself (transitus) is one towards virtue (honesta) from the regretful waste of earlier life (paenitentia). For interpretations of this preface, cf. Foucault 2005: 261-73; Inwood 2005: 166-7; Reydams-Schils 2005: 40-2; Hine 2006: 43-50; Williams 2012: 27-37.

[3.Pr.1] non praeterit me: The impersonal use takes the accusative (A&G 388c) and introduces an indirect question (quam…ponam, cf. Cic. Fam. 1.8.2 for a similar construction). This is the only instance of Seneca using the verb in an impersonal manner. The very idea of “escaping one’s notice” implicit in the verb is fitting for this context in which Seneca will be delving into secret (secreta) and hidden (occulta) subjects. This language also hints that nothing will be passed by (praetereo) as Seneca investigates these matters. Such resolve is essential to his project, and compound forms of ire appear throughout this preface to stress the mental movement involved. Note how at the opening of 4a.1.1, he claims he will “pass by” (praeteribo) Sicily’s wonders to focus on the Nile (cf. Williams 2012: 116-8). Frontinus’ echo (non praeterit me, 88.4) may be a knowing nod to a previous author’s work about water.

Lucili virorum optime: This form of address occurs for Lucilius elsewhere in the letters (Ep. 13.16, 48.4, passim) and in the NQ (1.pr.1, 4a.pr.1, 6.1.1, 6.32.1). It is also used of Liberalis as the addressee of the De Beneficiis (2.1.1, 6.1.1). Lucilius Junior at this time was one of the procurators in Sicily and had been a friend of Seneca’s probably since the time of Seneca’s exile. Lucilius was only slightly younger than Seneca and often features as a stand-in for an informed reader, while representing Seneca’s own attitudes towards old age and retirement. The language of this preface may very well be another attempt (like those in the Epistulae Morales) to encourage Lucilius’ own “inward turn”. For an attempt at tracing Lucilius’ attitudes towards philosophy and politics at this time, cf. Hermann 1958: 53-5 and Griffin 1976: 347-53.

magnarum rerum fundamenta ponam: This phrase helps to convince Hine that this is the preface of the NQ as a whole. He claims this phrase “means that he is just laying the foundations, i.e. just beginning the work” (Hine 1981: 15). Alternative manuscript arrangements make Book 3 the third or the seventh book of the NQ (for details of the various sequences, see the introduction and Codoñer Merino 1989: 1784-95). The phrase fundamenta ponere is found at Cic. De Finibus 2.72 and Sen. Ep. 13.16: Considera quid vox ista significet, Lucili virorum optime, et intelleges quam foeda sit hominum levitas cotidie nova vitae fundamenta ponentium, novas spes etiam in exitu inchoantium. This contemporaneous passage from Ep. 13 also focuses on the importance of making the most out of one’s time and is the opening letter of the second book of his epistles. Williams 2014 discusses how a “combinational reading” of the NQ and Epistulae Morales allows us to see how their therapeutic strategies are related and mutually beneficial.

senex: If he were born around the turn of the millennium, Seneca would have been in his sixties when composing the NQ. For judicious review of the dating of the NQ, cf. Hine 2006: 68-70. We should think of this work being composed between 62 – 64 CE and overlapping with the first books of Epistulae Morales. Varro similarly begins his Res Rustica contemplating his old age (he was eighty years old), and his need for haste (exponam cogitans esse properandum, quod, ut dicitur, si est homo bulla, eo magis senex, 1.1). Cf. Limburg 2007: 126-7, and Williams 2012: 32n.37, who believes verbal connections may lend “Varronian prestige to the Senecan persona”.

mundum circumire: This phrase is striking for its mixture of concrete and abstract connotations. circumire usually indicates an actual movement around something else and Seneca plays on the notion that he resembles a traveler about to embark on a tour of the “world” (OLD 2). But the sapiens will explore the secrets of the mundus (that is, the universe as a whole, OLD 1b) throughout the NQ: reaching from the realm of the divine (1.pr.3; maxima pars mundi, deus, 7.30.4), to the atmosphere surrounding the earth (7.2.3), to land engulfed by the flood (3.30.5). Seneca will repeat this phrase at 1.pr.8: [animus] non potest ante contemnere porticus et lacunaria…quam totum circumit mundum (following the reading of P). There, the differing perspectives between man and god lead to Seneca’s dismissive perspective on human wealth and power. In his De Clementia he figures self-examination with this language of “doing a round of inspection” (Braund 2009: ad loc.) of his good conscience: inspicere et circumire bonam conscientiam, Cl. 1.1.1. When reviewing the various discoveries past ages have made to human knowledge, Seneca exclaims, pusilla res mundus est, nisi in illo quod quaerat omnis mundus habeat (7.30.5), in effect adding his own discoveries to the wisdom of the ages. To “survey” (OLD 7b) the mundus also suggests to the reader to examine the meaning of the term, and wordplay found in the Hostius Quadra episode indicates Seneca was aware of the various connotations of mundus (cf. Williams 2012: 86). At Ep. 65.15, Seneca, in contemplating Aristotelian and Platonic “causes” (causa), schematizes the different forms of philosophy (ethics/physics) as “first I scrutinize myself, then this world” (me prius scrutor, deinde hunc mundum).

causas secretaque eius eruere: The wisdom of Ovid’s Pythagoras is described in similar terms at Met. 15.67-8 (dictaque mirantum magni primordia mundi / et rerum causas), cf. Torre 2007 and Trinacty 2018a for more on Seneca’s use of Pythagoras in his preface. If this evokes Pythagoras, it is important to understand that Pythagorean learning stood, generally, for “exploring occult lore, publishing material from recondite, foreign sources, and studying the natural world with the aim of establishing links to the divine” (Thibodeau 2018: 604) – all features of Seneca’s NQ. We will learn in the final book that Seneca figures Jove as, among other formulations, causa causarum (2.45.2) For many of the phenomena discussed in NQ, Seneca provides a number of causes (e.g. for the rainbow 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.12; for the various tastes of water 3.20.1, 3.20.2, 3.20.5). For more on this form of doxography, cf. Hine 2006: 56-8, Berno 2015a: 85-6. Later in NQ Seneca ties ignorance of causa to fear (6.3.4), thus bridging the physical and ethical concerns at play in the work, and there he acknowledges that early thinkers deserve respect for their investigations “into the secrets of the gods” (in deorum secreta). In Ep. 89.1 Seneca complains that understanding all the branches of philosophy is almost impossible and compares it to surveying the “entire expanse of the firmament” (universa mundi facies). Instead of doing so, one must allocate quadrants to the sky and he employs the phrase mundi secreta to indicate “the secrets of the firmament” (cf. Inwood 2005: 157-200, and see Eamon 1994 for the long tradition of libri secretorum in the Middle Ages and beyond). It would appear to have more universal application here. Note also how the phrase per secretum is utilized of events that need to be further investigated (7.30.3). Williams 2012: 4-5 finds parallels between nature and Seneca’s text: “The two objects of study, natura ipsa and the Senecan text, are in a way commensurate: the arduous and gradual task of probing nature’s secrets (secretiora, 1pref.3) is replicated in Seneca’s patient textual probings and doxographical surveillance across the books; but replicated also, perhaps, in the reader’s task of probing and interpreting the artistic contours and subtleties of Senecan nature as drawn in the Natural Questions”. For Armisen-Marchetti (1990: 300-8), eruere is the verb that exemplifies “l’ambition de la science” (300) in moving beyond one’s phenomenological experiences. eruere appears 9 additional times in the NQ (e.g. 7.30.2, 1.17.6) and such “digging” for knowledge is here positively figured in contrast to mankind’s lust for precious metals (erueret aurum, 5.15.3). The use of causa and eruere at the conclusion of this book creates a nice ring-composition (3.30.3). Elsewhere in his philosophical works, the verb is employed to indicate Seneca’s attempt to root out something useful in all writers (Ep. 58.26), and in the Oedipus it becomes emblematic of the hunt for knowledge (297, 827) and Oedipus’ own self-perception and self-punishment (961).

aliis noscenda prodere: The didactic aspect of the work comes through at the conclusion of the first sentence, but there is also the sense that Seneca is exposing secrets or privileged knowledge as in a mystery cult (for an expansive exploration of this idea, see Hadot 2006: passim). Seneca claims that god gave the winds ad ulteriora noscenda (NQ 5.18.14). prodere is commonly used to mean “to publish in writing” (OLD 6). This transmission of knowledge is key for Seneca’s view of a community of scholars “stretching across time and across national and philosophical boundaries” (Hine 2010: 9).

tam multa consequar: The scholar as hunter who must “follow after” or “pursue”. consequar is the first of a tricolon of future tense verbs. Additionally, this verb is important when tracking down the causes of events beyond the power of eyesight (sive illis tanta subtilitas est quantam consequi acies humana non possit, NQ 7.30.4). The travel or movement evoked at the opening of the preface evokes the central Stoic metaphor of education being a journey (Motto 1984, Montiglio 2006, Gowers 2011: 184-90, Jones 2014: 411), and may recall Plato’s Theaetetus 173e, where he is defining the methodology of the philosopher (cf. Graver 2000: 48). Hunting imagery is not uncommon in didactic poetry, cf. Whitlatch 2014.

tam sparsa colligam: colligere is an important verb for NQ, appearing 21 times. Most often used of “collecting” water or fire (e.g. 2.12.3, 3.27.10), the idea of collecting knowledge can also be found at Ep. 24.3 and Ep. 108.29 (Non est quod mireris ex eadem materia suis quemque studiis apta colligere). For the contrast between sparsa and colligam, cf. Ep. 71.4 and, esp. Ep. 65.19 where it features in the conception of god: non quaeram quis sit istius artifex mundi…quis sparsa collegerit, confusa distinxerit, in una deformitate iacentibus faciem diviserit. At Dial. 8.4.2 Seneca claims that one of the questions we should ponder in our otium is an multa eiusmodi corpora deus sparserit. These parallels show how Seneca’s persona is able to be a quasi-omniscent narrator in his organization and knowledge of the universe.

tam occulta perspiciam: The third part of the ascending tricolon features a clausula of cretic + spondee (with the first syllable of the spondee resolved into two short syllables), whereas the first two cola were hypodochmii ( -u- ux). While the first two verbs of the tricolon emphasized bringing together knowledge (con- prefix for both), now Seneca emphasizes a thorough inspection (per- prefix), paradoxically, of things that can’t be seen. At the conclusion of this preface, Seneca will reiterate the importance of searching out things that are hidden (deinde in occultis exercitata subtilitas non erit in aperta deterior, 3.pr.18), and it is a leit-motif of the work that there are “hidden” forces in nature (2.6.5, 2.59.2 -important for ring composition within the work as a whole), which observation (7.13.1) or conjecture can help us to comprehend (7.29.3, 7.30.4-6), see Setaioli 2007: 352-53. Varro mentions that it was Socrates who first summoned philosophy from “mysteries hidden and covered by nature herself” (a rebus occultis et ab ipsa natura involutis, Cic. Acad. 1.15) to more ethical matters. Note that “to scrutinize that which is unclear” (obscura perspicere, Ep. 109.18) is also the conclusion of Ep. 109, where Seneca provides a précis of Stoic education. When discussing optical illusions similar to those at NQ 1.3, Seneca writes of the importance of one’s perception: non tantum quid videas, sed quemadmodum, refert; animus noster ad vera perspicienda caligat (Ep. 71.25).

[3.pr.2] premit a tergo: Erasmus’ brilliant emendation for the manuscripts’ pr(a)emittat ergo, which makes little sense in the context. a tergo is common in Seneca (26 times) and is often used of forces that are threatening (instare) or following (sequi), but here the expression is given more tangible force with the verb premit. In the NQ, it appears relatively often (8 times) and is found at the end of the book to describe the build-up to the flood: deinde, a tergo ventis surgentibus, ingens aequor evolvunt… (3.28.3). A famous use of a tergo is found at Verg. A. 8.697: necdum etiam geminos a tergo [Cleopatra] respicit anguis.

senectus: Ker 2010: 152-4, passim examines the use of senectus to define Seneca’s identity in the Epistulae Morales and vis à vis his relationship with Lucilius. Old age is personified here as a force that can both push as well as “throw in one’s teeth, lay in one’s charge” (obicit, OLD 10). In Seneca’s descriptions of the Underworld (evoking Verg. A. 6.275), it is also personified (cf. Oed. 592-4, Her. F. 695-6), see Degl’Innocenti Pierini 1999: 59-77 for more on his tragic descriptions.

annos inter vana studia consumptos: Velleius mentions that Scipio was semper inter arma ac studia versatus (1.13.3), and Seneca mentions in Ep. 104.16, “we must spend our time in study and among wise authors in order to learn something which has been explored, but not yet settled” (inter studia versandum est et inter auctores sapientiae ut quaesita discamus, nondum inventa quaeramus). This comes directly after a discussion of travel (peregrinatio) that involves study of the natural world, including topics pertinent to this book such as the flood of the Nile and the “disappearance” of the Tigris at certain moments of its course (Ep. 104.15~NQ 3.26.4). It is likely that Seneca is looking back to this passage of NQ in that epistle. Seneca comes back to the importance of spending one’s time in study and the fact that it takes a long time to come to firm conclusions about natural phenomena at NQ 7.25.4 (ad inquisitionem tantorum aetas una non sufficit, ut tota caelo vacet; quid quod tam paucos annos inter studia ac vitia non aequa portione dividimus?). This was in all likelihood written after his rift from Nero in 62 CE: “Whatever the exact date, the opening of Book 3 could certainly be read as implying that his public career had been a waste, and he must redeem the misspent time” (Hine 2006: 49). If meteorological studies were identified as Epicurean in flavor (Graver 2000), his turn to such topics may imply an apolitical stance, as Wilson 2015 has seen in certain letters. That being said, there are moments in this book that may have political subtexts, e.g. see notes infra on 3.pr.5, 3.pr.10, 3.28.7.

urgeamus: Seneca’s hortatory call “to pursue with vigor” (OLD 12) the subject at hand.

damna aetatis male exemptae labor sarciat: damna…sarciat is idiomatic for “to make up/redeem a loss”, cf. Liv. 9.23.13, Col. 9.15.3. eximo = “to use up (time)” (OLD 4), and with aetas, cf. Dial. 6.8.2. The focus on labor here befits the didactic tone of the preface, as well as the desire of the animus to explore the heavens (cf. Ep. 92.31: magnus erat labor ire in caelum).

nox ad diem accedat: “Add night to day” (OLD 15). Such lucubratio is also stressed in his epistles (cf. Ep. 8.1-3, 61.1, 68.13). Note that Pliny the Elder mentions writing at night after all of his official (daylight) duties (officiis) have been performed, cf. Nat. pr..18 and Williams 2012: 38-48 for comparison between Pliny and Seneca. For Seneca such officia were part of the “life badly spent” (aetatis male exemptae), and writing the NQ day and night now trumps any political or social duties. Ker 2004 examines the various connotations of lucubratio in Roman literature and culture and note Jones 2013: 67-68 “In this passage, the journey from the beginning to the end of life over the course of a long day also mirrors the movement of the text from beginning to end, as Seneca writes it. His implication is that the text itself will track his life, that his death will bring about its end. The analogy between the text and life, conceived as the latter is by Seneca a circle or cycle, is underscored by the fact that in its original format N.Q. 3 was a scroll of papyrus held in one hand and gradually unfurled to read, while rolling it up again from the top in the other”.

occupationes recidantur: Pruning imagery (recidere), which would make the reader recall Varro’s work (and possibly Columella, e.g. 4.7.2, 4.8.2), but here applied to one’s preoccupations. Seneca uses similar imagery at Dial. 4.18.2: facile est enim teneros adhuc animos componere, difficulter reciduntur vitia quae nobiscum creverunt. Seneca often encourages his readers to escape such business and has recourse to this metaphorical imagery, cf. Ep. 19.1: si potes, subduc te istis occupationibus; si minus, eripe; Ep. 88.38: ostendam multa securibus recidenda; Ep. 88.43, 106.1.

patrimonii longe a domino iacentis cura soluatur: “get rid of anxiety over family estates lying far from their owner”. Seneca elsewhere in the NQ indicates the gulf between contemporary “care” (cura) for pantomime instead of philosophy (7.32.3-4). At Dial. 9.8.1, Seneca writes about the troubles caused by inherited property: transeamus ad patrimonia, maximam humanarum aerumnarum materiam. patrimonium technically is “the property of a paterfamilias”, but in Seneca’s time wealthy men owned estates far and wide throughout the empire. Seneca himself owned estates in Egypt and Corduba, and villas in Italy. Cf. Griffin 1976: 286-94 for more on Seneca’s wealth and holdings. patrimonium is used elsewhere in NQ to simply indicate “wealth/inheritance” (2.38.2, 2.47.1), and, in his writings, Seneca draws a contrast between those wealthy in such property vs. those who are rich in wisdom (Ep. 87 passim, Ep. 76.32, Ep. 108.11). The significance of this phrase struck Foucault 2005: 263, “He says he must concern himself not with an estate, a property far from its master: I must take care of the estate close by. This is what must detain me entirely. And what is this estate close by if not myself?”

sibi totus animus vacet: Later in the NQ, Seneca has toto…animo at moments that reassert the importance of inquiry and self-betterment (6.3.4, 7.31.1), and he connects the animus to god and ratio at 1.pr.14, which indicates a certain “totalizing” view of the animus when it contemplates the whole. Similar in thought to the conclusion of the Consolatio ad Helviam (a passage that foreshadows his interest in such scientific subjects as thunder, hail, and lightning): sunt enim optimae, quoniam animus omnis occupationis expers operibus suis vacat et modo se levioribus studiis oblectat, modo ad considerandam suam universique naturam veri avidus insurgit, Dial. 12.20 (cf. Ep. 92.6). For the importance of freeing oneself for ethics, cf. Ep. 17.5: si vis vacare animo, and for the connection between the knowledge of self and nature for escaping Fortune, cf. Ep. 82.6: sui naturae cognitio. Reydams-Schils points out that “having a mind free for itself” is not narcissism: “Rather, his emphasis on the mind’s freedom only serves to increase the value of this field of inquiry” (2005: 41).

ad contemplationem sui saltim: An important idea for those scholars who see this period as one of increased self-introspection, cf. Foucault 1986: 64 and passim, Foucault 2005: 478-82, Long 2009, Inwood 2009, and Ker 2009. The soul’s self-contemplation may look like the questions subsequently raised at NQ 3.pr.10-16, NQ 1.pr.11-17 or the more personal self-questioning of De Ira 3.36. contemplatio is only used two additional times in NQ, once as the reason that our souls grow stronger (non enim aliunde animo venit robur quam a bonis artibus, quam a contemplatione naturae, NQ 6.32.1) and again with more universal significance in the investigation of comets (Digna res contemplatione, ut sciamus in quo rerum statu simus, pigerrimam sortiti an velocissimam sedem, circa nos deus omnia an nos agat, NQ 7.2.3). For other uses of the phrase, cf. Pomponius Mela 1.1.1: ipsa sui contemplatione and Quint. Inst. 2.18.4: et contemplatione sui fruuntur. saltim is an alternative spelling of saltem, for its use in Seneca, cf. Ep. 8.4. The soul’s self-contemplation is put on display to indicate that only through such contemplation can one understand man’s place in the cosmos and the ultimate divine plan. Seneca considers the proper use of contemplatio at Dial. 8.5 where he moves from contemplation of the self to universal natura, cf. Williams 2003: 85-90. Reydams-Schils 2005: 42 remarks on this passage “the true turn towards the self is simultaneously the true way of doing physics, and vice versa, because we are required to look at ourselves from the proper perspective, which, for the Roman Stoics, means from the perspective of the self’s relation to a world that is the product of immanent divine agency”.

in ipso fine respiciat: For a parallel use of in ipso fine, cf. Dial.9.13.8, where Canus goes to his death (at the order of Caligula) contemplating the immortality of the soul. finis can indicate “end”, but also “goal” (OLD 4), which makes the very writing of the NQ the natural culmination of a self-aware life. Seneca understands finis in a similar manner at NQ 6.32.8: ego recusem mei finem, cum sciam me sine fine non esse? Boundaries and borders are very important for Seneca’s spatial conception of the universe, cf. NQ 3.27.10, 6.2.7, 7.25.6. For the collocation respicio +ad in Seneca, cf. Dial.1.2.9, 5.26.3, 8.4.1. For respicere in NQ, cf. 1.pr.3, where Seneca wonders if god ever regards us (et ad nos aliquando respiciat) and 7.32.1, where Seneca complains that nobody regards philosophy any longer (quis philosophum aut ullum liberale respicit studium…).

[3.pr.3] faciet: The first use of facere, a verb that will become important in this preface as a whole. The hortatory subjunctives of the previous sentence are now answered by verbs in the future tense.

sibi instabit: For the phrase, cf. Quint. Inst. 10.1.73: densus et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides… and Sen. Contr. 1.pr.14.2: et sine intervallo gravius sibi instabat (note that the phrase sine intervallo will appear at NQ 3.pr.16). Seneca the Elder includes the phrase when describing the declaimer Porcius Latro, who worked night-and-day (iungebantur noctibus dies) when inspired. These three connections to the work of his father indicate that Seneca is recalling the preface of that Controversia. Seneca echoes the works of his father in both his prose and poetry, for a variety of effects, cf. Rolland 1906, Trinacty 2009.

metietur: Seneca frequently uses this verb of time (Oed. 783), but also of contemplation (Dial. 5.36.3 – the famous passage of nightly self-contemplation), and of the goals of artistry, Ep. 88.13: si artifex es, metire hominis animum, dic quam magnus sit, dic quam pusillus sit. Its importance in the NQ may derive from geographical/spatial spheres and the concept of “measuring” and what the proper measurements may consist of, cf. the concluding words of the preface of NQ 1 (sciam omnia angusta esse mensus deum, NQ 1pr.17). In conjunction with respicere it is found at Ep. 43.2 (respiciens metiaris) and in an ironic context at NQ 5.18.8: emetiri cuique annos suos ex commodo licet et ad senectutem decurrere! Wilson 2014: 176 finds a pun with Seneca’s use of this verb: “[Seneca] suggests, too, that measuring out the universe in his mind may help take his mind off his anxieties (punning on the words metior, ‘To measure,’ and metus, ‘fear’)”.

diligenti usu praesentis vitae recolliget: In NQ diligens is used of experts such as Varro (5.16.3), Archelaus (6.12.1), Conon (7.3.3), and Seneca himself (primum ego tibi vinearum diligens fossor adfirmo, 3.7.1). If before Seneca “will collect” scattered information (sparsa colligam), now he affirms that the animus can “collect again/repossess” (recolliget) the time that has been misspent by making “conscientious use of the life remaining”. In Ovid, “repossessing” time is the fruit of Medea’s magic incantation for Aeson (primosque recolligat annos, Met. 7.216). praesens is often paired with tempus in Seneca (Dial. 10.6, Ep. 24.1), but this is the only time it is paired with vita, probably for variatio with the previous brevitatem temporis, but also to point out how the “present moment of life” as well as the “present lifespan” are fused at the end of his life.

fidelissimus est ad honesta ex paenitentia transitus: fidelissimus here must indicate “most lasting” or “most dependable” (OLD 3c). Seneca chooses transitus with care, forms of transitus and the verb transeo appear often in the NQ because of the frequency of elements “crossing over” or “changing” (e.g. 3.10). Seneca’s positioning of transitus may hint at the transition to poetry in the subsequent sentence. While elemental change is ever present, here Seneca provides an ethical view of such movement for the author’s persona and the reader of the NQ, who moves towards “honorable actions from regrettable ones” (ad honesta ex paenitentia). transire is used when Seneca moves on to a new subject (NQ 2.40.6, 6.23.1), but Seneca is sure to “pass by” nothing in his nightly self-examination described at Dial. 5.36.3: nihil mihi ipse abscondo, nihil transeo. In a similar passage in which Seneca is berating himself for lost time, he writes of the regret (paenitentia) that remains after guilty pleasures and claims such pleasures are not fideles (Ep. 27.2). ad honesta is found elsewhere in Seneca (e.g. Dial. 1.2.2, Ep. 31.4, 39.2). The double cretic clausula as well as the bookending of the sentence with homeoteleuton (-us…-us) acts to create closure to this first paragraph.

Libet…exclamare: Seneca uses this phrase, which he may have picked up from Cicero (N.D. 1.13.7), to introduce direct speech at Ben. 2.11.1 and Ep. 64.2.

illum poetae incluti versum: Editors believe this is a fragment of Vagellius because of similar phrasing at NQ 6.2.9 (Vagellius meus in illo incluto carmine). Other candidates have included Lucilius, Lucan and Nero (by Herrmann, Unger, and Gercke, respectively). L. Vagellius was suffect consul between AD 44 – 46, and his epic poem may have been concerned with Phaethon. If so, here at the opening of the work, we find the beginning of Phaethon’s flight into the heavens, a journey which symbolizes both sunrise as well as the sublime goal. Phaethon is a figure who has experience with the three levels of the cosmos (terrena, sublimia, caelestia, cf. NQ 2.1.1: omnis de universo quaestio in caelestia, sublimia, terrena dividitur), in some sense the goal of the reader of the work (but hopefully without Phaethon’s disastrous results!). The story of Phaethon is also evocative of ekpyrosis and the destruction of the world by fire (see Plato Tim. 22b-d). Because this is the first quotation of the work, its sentiment is programmatic for the effort involved in contemplating rerum natura as well as composing the NQ. Book 3 features fourteen poetic citations, the most in any book of the NQ. For more on Vagellius and this fragment, cf. Courtney 1993: 347, Dahlmann 1977, Mazzoli 1970: 257-8, and Williams 2012: 32n40, 228-30.

tollimus ingentes animos: While tollere animos commonly means “to boost morale” (cf. e.g. Prop. 3.18.17, Livy 7.8.5), this line is a probable intertext with Verg. G. 3.207: ingentis tollent animos, where it describes spirited colts. For an individual of “great spirit” (ingens animus) in Seneca, cf. Tro. 945 (of Polyxena), Dial. 5.5.7 (of a man beyond anger’s reach). The idea of raising “our great spirits” will be repeated later in this preface (quid est praecipuum? altos supra fortuita spiritus tollere, NQ 3.pr.15.2), see note there for the way that Seneca alters this expression to fit his larger project.

maxima parvo / tempore molimur: Seneca often finds way to embed his quotations within his text by repeating words from the quotations and slightly changing their meaning (cf. Trinacty 2012 for a reading of the Apocolocyntosis in this vein). So, molimur is picked up in the following sentence with molior, as well as a redefinition of what makes a parvo tempore (as previously the brevitatem temporis must be measured). Seneca claims in Ep. 72.3: tempus quidem nullum est parum idoneum studio salutari.

hoc dicerem si puer iuvenisque molirer: The contrary-to-fact condition (A&G 517) may help provide context for the original quote (esp. if it was in the mouth of a young man, i.e. Phaethon), but Seneca will go on to clarify what he, a senex, is capable of doing. Note how Seneca gives different advice to the iuvenis and senex when they contemplate themselves in a mirror at NQ 1.17.4.

nullum enim non: Seneca has this formulation at Ep. 78.12 (nullus enim non), and Ep. 124.2 (nulla enim non and nullus enim non), and also uses nemo enim non (Dial. 5.5.7, Ben. 2.24.4). This emphatically indicates that any amount of time would be too short for matters as large as contemplation of the universe.

tam magnis rebus tempus angustum est: tam magnis rebus takes the place of the maxima of Vagellius, but also recalls the first line of the work (magnarum rerum fundamenta). nullum…tempus angustum is also found at Med. 290-3 and both look back to Seneca the Elder: nullum tempus uni verbo angustum est (Contr. 2.3.7). This sort of double intertext helps the reader acknowledge the legalistic undertones from this scene (both sources are in “legal” speeches), as Seneca makes his own argument, but here he emphasizes the contrast between “great” (magnis) matters and the “limited” (angustum) time. The Medea passage, where Creon and Medea debate her guilt and punishment, acts as a nice reminder of the quasi-dialogic elements in Seneca’s prose and his utilization of (imagined) interlocutors or debates with “himself” in these works. Lehoux 2012, who reads the NQ as an example of judicial rhetoric, comments on such a “dialectical” method: “We need to think of Seneca as using a variety of voices and techniques to make his case, sometimes addressing the reader directly, sometimes posing hypothetical objections from imagined opponents (the rhetorical figure of subjectio), sometimes simply giving voice to or taking advantage of what he may expect to be the reader’s own reactions” (102).

rem seriam: A phrase used by Seneca the Elder (Contr. 1.pr.5.8, Contr. 10.pr.1.6) and by Seneca when discussing the proper style for one arguing and teaching “a great and serious matter” (rem magnam ac seriam, Ep. 40.3).

inmensam: A popular word in NQ. Seneca employs it throughout the work to describe “immense” objects (a huge swamp as the possible source of the Nile, NQ 6.8.4) or “immeasurable” qualities (the speed of falling stars, NQ 1.14.3), cf. the note on metietur supra. If the NQ is interested, in part, in measuring the world and determining man’s place within that world, then events or a “thing immeasurable” (rem…inmensam) become worthy topics of fascination and exploration. For Williams, this turn from the localized measure of day-to-day time to a more “liberated perception of time…that is better calibrated to the dimensions of his cosmically vast, measureless (inmensam) undertaking in the afternoon of life” anticipates Seneca’s “sublimity of thought” (2012: 32).

postmeridianis horis: Figuring the time of one’s life as analogous to a day is common throughout Greek and Roman literature (e.g. Pindar Pyth. 8.95, Cat. 5, Verg. A. 10.746, Sen. Ep. 12.7-9). He uses forms of postmeridianus at Dial. 9.17.7 and Ep. 65.1.1 to indicate the hours of a calendar day, but here he is configuring the day from a more cosmic perspective. In de Brevitate Vitae, Seneca finds that life is long enough, provided we know how to use it (vita, si uti scias, longa est, Dial. 10.2.1), and includes a plea to study the same topics found in NQ 3 (Dial. 10.19.1-2).

[3.pr.4] faciamus … moram: Ep. 68.13 has a similar comparison (quod facere solent qui serius exierunt et volunt tempus celeritate reparare, calcar addamus). In that letter Seneca finds old age to be the preferred time to turn to the deliberation of the happy life (de vita beata, Ep. 68.12) because youth’s passions are well past (iam despumavit, Ep. 68.13 ~ Dial. 4.20.3: nimiusque ille fervor despumet). Additional moments in which a work is identified as a journey include Lucr. 6.92-95, Verg. G. 2.541-2 (including a use of immensum like immensam above), Prop. 4.1.70, and Ovid Ars. 1.39-40, see Lavery 1980, Armisen-Marchetti 1989: 88-89, and Edwards 2018: 176-79 for discussion of Seneca’s metaphors of travel, especially as emblematic of spiritual growth. Jones 2014 stresses that "the central metaphor in Stoic education is the journey" (411).

in itinere: A common phrase in historiography, especially the Commentarii of Caesar and the author of the Bellum Alexandrium. Because the next paragraph will concern his disparaging view of historiography in general, Seneca employs their language here. iter appears often in Seneca’s discussion of the proper path of life (Ep. 77.4: iter inperfectum erit, si in media parte aut citra petitum locum steteris; vita non est inperfecta, si honesta est; Ep. 73.15), or path towards virtue (arduum in virtutes et asperum iter est, Dial. 4.13.1).

velocitate pensant moram: See Luc. 9.1001-3 (pensare moras, 1002) for a similar turn of phrase and Cicero Q.fr. 2.14.2 for making up for lost time by hurrying. Seneca seems to be combining two common uses of pensare: “to compensate or make up for” (+abl) (for a representative example in Seneca, cf. Thy. 1003: scelere quis pensat scelus?) as well as “to save a journey (i.e. by taking a short cut)” (OLD 4d). This speed (velocitate) does not denote carelessness, cf. Limburg 2007: 127-8. Inwood 2007b: xxi emphasizes that Seneca is hurrying in his later years to make concrete changes in his life. There is a paradox in one becoming faster as one gets older.

festinemus: Dial. 6.10.4 features an evocative parallel – Seneca encourages Marcia to enjoy the time she has with her children because death is threatening (festinandum est, instatur a tergo), and remember Seneca’s use of a tergo in the previous paragraph. Likewise, Dial. 10.8.5 remarks upon time’s quick passing: tu occupatus es, vita festinat.

opus…tractemus: Similar to Horace C. 2.1.6-7: periculosae plenum opus aleae, / tractas…,which discusses Pollio’s history and, Nisbet and Hubbard believe, the use of tractare “could have come from Pollio’s preface” (1978: ad loc.). Seneca repeats the phraseology at Dial. 8.4.2 in a passage that similarly encourages the addressee to think about significant philosophical and even theological matters: quae sit dei sedes, opus suum spectet an tractet… opus can signify both the “task”/”topic” at hand as well as “work” of the NQ itself and the composition of this book. Cf. Mart. 2.77.6, and Ep. 34.2 where Seneca tells Lucilius meum opus es. Note how opus will return at the conclusion of this preface with some insistence 3.pr.17.8, 3.pr.18.3. For a perverted “artist” at work (opus sibi suum per imagines offerebat), see Seneca’s description of Hostius Quadra at NQ 1.16.4.

nescio an superabile: Kroll’s supplement helps clarify any possible ambiguity about the phrase nescio an, which usually means “probably” in Seneca and not “probably not” (cf. Kroll 1911). Seneca here admits to the task’s complexity “a work that is probably insurmountable”, but will not allow old age be an excuse to his commencement. For more on the textual problems, cf. Hine 1996: 41. Later in the NQ, the power of storms are described as “conquerable by no human skill” (vim tempestatum nulla ope humana superabilem, 5.18.6). Note the play on things super in this section and the way it will be picked up later in the preface with supra (3.pr.9, 3.pr.11).

crescit animus: Seneca posits such growth as paradigmatically Stoic at Ep. 22.7: non est vir fortis ac strenuuus qui laborem fugit, nisi crescit illi animus ipsa rerum difficultate. He contrasts the soul/mind with the body at Ep. 80.3: corpus enim multis eget rebus ut valeat: animus ex se crescit, se ipse alit, se exercet. Here both the sense of “spirit” and “mind” apply, i.e. he is eager to perform the task and there is a real sense that his mind grows in its attempts to grapple with the difficult topics of NQ – in this way the growth of the animus is natural and commensurate to growth within the natural world. Gunderson 2015: 72 states, “The image of the cosmic animus as presented by the text feeds our imagination, it fires our own animus”. This growth may even lead to the transcendence of mortal concerns at NQ 1.pr.6: quia animum laxat et praeparat ad cognitionem caelestium, dignumque efficit qui in consortium deo veniat (cf. 1.pr.11-14 for more on the animus in relation to the divine). The importance of the “recreation of the mind by the doing of physics” is also found at Ep. 65.21-2 and Ep. 117.19 – see Inwood 2009a and Williams 2012: 3-5 for more on this askesis.

quotiens coepti magnitudinem aspexit: The size of the undertaking does not discourage, but rather spurs Seneca on. There is metaliterary slippage/identification between the “magnitude” of the work that Seneca is beginning and the “magnitude” of the topic being considered, which hinges on the movement to the sublime in this work (cf. Williams 2012: 219-30). Magnitudo is an important term for the NQ as a whole because of the different perspectives of things great and small, appearing especially often in Book 1 because of the various optical illusions that Seneca aims to dispel (and Hostius Quadra aims to enjoy, see 1.16.2, 1.16.8, and Williams 2015: 177-9 for magnitudo in this episode). In Book 3, Seneca opens the book featuring this term twice (cf. multis rebus non ex natura sua sed ex humilitate nostra magnitudo est, 3.pr.10) before featuring it later in a moment of literary criticism about Ovid’s poetry (3.27.13). The stress on magnitudo throughout the work indicates the proper view one should have of natura, and that such a view ultimately leads to the magnitudo of god (NQ 1.pr.13, cf. 7.27.6 where natura uses comets to enhance the “magnitude (magnitudinem) of her creation”). Cf. Gunderson 2015: 68 “Knowing nature consists of seeing nature, and, indeed, seeing it from a specific perspective…we are told that we generally mis-measure phenomena because we look at them from our own meager standpoint”. For the reading aspexit, see Parroni 1992: 170-71.

quantum proposito, non quantum sibi supersit: Seneca often uses the phrase ad propositum vertere when moving from a digression or preface to the topic at hand (NQ 3.19.1, 3.28.1, 4b.12.1). The word may also recall the opening of this book and Seneca’s fundamenta ponam. It is the project and not the remainder of one’s years (quantum sibi) that inspires Seneca. This rhetorical parallelism belies a fundamental difference, namely that there is still much of the topic for the mind to tackle, even though the number of years, now that he is a senex, are few.

[3.pr.5] Consumpsere se quidam: NQ 3.pr.5 offers one of Seneca’s most trenchant attacks on both historiography and military heroism. For this passage as a whole and the way Seneca defines his project in relation to the literary genre of historiography, cf. Williams 2012: 33-7 and Master 2015: 335-43. Master stresses the programmatic significance of historiography in the NQ as a whole and posits especially Sallust as one of the quidam that Seneca refuses to name. Historians are parodied at Apocolocyntosis 1, pilloried for not teaching virtue at Ep. 88.3; in the NQ they are mocked for their lies (4b.3.1), and become the very personification of inaccuracy of the highest order: contra argumenta dictum est, contra testes dicendum est. nec magna molitione detrahenda est auctoritas Ephoro: historicus est (7.16.1). For more on Seneca’s view of historiography, cf. Kühnen 1962, Hine 2006: 49-50: “effectively Seneca is himself rejecting historiography as a literary and intellectual pursuit in favour of philosophy. And his vehement rejection flew in the face of Roman tradition” (50). The supposed virtus of military commanders such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Philip of Macedon is compared unfavorably to the virtus of a man who practices philosophy: “Here too these commanders are presented not as positive exempla on account of victories won, but as negative exempla for the scale of their murder and plundering” (Roller 2001: 102). Seneca uses consumpsere vitam at Dial. 10.13.1 to describe those who waste their lives doing anything from excessive tanning to historical inquiry of the type “who was the first Roman general to do this or that” (quae primus quisque ex Romanis ducibus fecisset, 10.13.3). The use of consumpsere recalls his earlier annos inter vana studia consumptos (3.pr.2) and strongly equates such vain studies with those of historians.

acta regum externorum componunt: At Phoen. 503 Seneca has te…/penates regis externi tegunt. Also see Dial. 10.18.5 where Seneca writes furiosi et externi et infeliciter superbi regis imitatio. Generally, in his ethical writings, what is externa is to be shunned (mors honesta est per illud quod honestum est, id est virtus et animus externa contemnens, Ep. 82.14). The com- of componunt echoes the con- of consumpsere implying the work of such (silly) compositions may lead to the wasting away of the writers themselves. acta can be used of “official acts, decrees, enactments (of a magistrate, general, etc.)” (OLD 2), cf. Ben. 2.10.4.

passi invicem ausique: The –si/-si homeoteleuton of the participles encourage the reader to recognize the back-and-forth nature of human deeds. Those that are ascendant will soon be seen to suffer. Seneca likes this play between pati and audere in his tragedies (Herc. F. 387, Phaed. 723). Quintilian will pick up on it: passis quam ausis (Inst. 11.1.85). invicem appears 11 times in NQ (more than half of the appearances in all of Seneca’s works). The actions of the king are reflected in the nation as a whole.

sua mala extinguere: extinguere is a strong verb usually used of fire (Dial. 6.23.4, Phaed. 131, Ag. 723), thirst (Ep. 8.5) or hunger (Dial. 12.10.2, Ep. 18.9) in Seneca. Publilius Syrus uses this collocation in one of his sententiae: Bona mors est homini vitae quae extinguit mala (B.11) and Seneca recommends the moral use of Publilius’s maxims in his Epistles (Ep. 94.28, 108.9). Seneca recognizes that some individuals may have a difficult time distinguishing mala from virtutes, cf. Ep. 28.10. In a similar moralizing vein, cf. NQ 7.31.2: nondum satis robur omne proiecimus; adhuc quicquid est boni moris extinguimus. Writers should concentrate on improving themselves and not broadcasting the evils of others.

aliena posteris tradere: posteris tradere often used of historiography, cf. Livy 29.14.9, Pomponius Mela 2.83.4, Pliny Nat. 35.2. That the exploits of Philip, Alexander, and Hannibal can be classed as mala is a strong ethical claim and points to how such acta can be given various valences, whether as positive or negative exempla. Here, obviously, such deeds are evils (mala) and this contrasts with Seneca’s activity in the NQ: aliis noscenda prodere (see note on 3.pr.1 supra). For more on how Seneca employs exempla in his writing, cf. Mayer 1991, Roller 2001: 88-108, and Roller 2016. Seneca’s teachings in the NQ will lead to a more nuanced idea of what is alienus and, in general, one can see him moving away from the proscriptive use of exempla, cf. 1.pr.12: et hoc habet argumentum divinitatis suae quod illum divina delectant, nec ut alienis, sed ut suis interest.

quanto potius: The anaphora of quanto + comparative in successive clauses gives added force to the exclamations. Seneca repeats the satius…potius construction later at NQ 6.19, but it is not popular in Latin prose as a whole (Cic. Att. 9.6.7 and Pliny Nat. 23.52.7).

deorum opera celebrare: Cicero uses opera deorum in two apposite passages: at N.D. 2.95.20, when discussing the wonders of the universe from the point of view of an individual who perceives these wonders for the first time, and at Fin. 4.11, when summarizing the tenets of Stoic physics. Seneca is clearly picking up on Cicero’s language (the phrase only appears in Seneca and Cicero). For problematic “celebration” of man’s deeds, cf. NQ 5.15.2 where Seneca points out that the ancestors whom we celebrate were just as greedy as we are today. The deorum opera are to be the subject of this very opus that he is hurrying to start (see note above), and pointedly ignores the works of the self-proclaimed gods such as Alexander, cf. Green 1990: 401-3 for Alexander’s belief in his divinity. Note that at NQ 2.45.1 it is Jove who is master and maker (dominum et artificem) of this work (opus), namely the universe. celebrare is used often in the NQ to define the very sort of natural phenomena that could be considered deorum opera (and that are celebrated by poets in particular): 6.8.2 – Alpheus river, and 6.30.3 – Strait of Messenia, cf. Dial. 6.17.3 – Arethusa.

Philippi aut Alexandri latrocinia: To describe the exploits of Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great as mere “robberies” reveals Seneca’s ironic stance in relation to these military leaders. Forms of latrocinium appears 11 times in Seneca’s prose, always with negative valence (e.g. Dial. 6.18.8, 6.20.5). His point of view transcends even the most ambitious and impressive human deeds, making them mere robberies. It is notable that Alexander was known for his own manipulations of nature (see Di Serio 2019). Philip II (382-336 BCE) expanded Macedonian power throughout Greece, and Alexander (356-323 BCE) extended the sphere of influence to India before his death. Alexander was a popular figure for suasoria (Sen. Suas. 1 and 4) and various aspects of his life became exempla (e.g. his penchant for drunkenness, cf. Ep. 83.19; his cruelty, Ep. 94.62-3; his power-hungry nature, Ep. 119.7; cf. V.Max. passim). Later in NQ 6.23.1-4, Alexander’s killing of Callisthenes is considered to be such a heinous crime that it offsets any of his “virtuous” deeds (hic est Alexandri crimen aeternum, quod nulla virtus, nulla bellorum felicitas redimet, 6.23.2). For more on the notoriety and difficulties of the “Roman” Alexander, cf. Spencer 2002. Suetonius mentions that Nero emulated Alexander the Great in his later tour of Greece (Suet. Nero 19.2); there is a political undercurrent here as well with Claudius and Nero (Philip and Alexander, respectively). Aristotle, Alexander’s tutor, had written a Meteorologica that Seneca, the tutor of Nero, will draw upon extensively throughout the NQ, cf. Hall 1977 for Aristotle and Seneca; Gauly 2004: 198-201, and Hine 2006: 64 mention the possible criticism of Nero through Alexander.

ceterorum: Who might Seneca imply with this dismissive “others”? Of course other foreign despots like Xerxes are possible (Ben. 6.31.1), but there may also be a Roman element, especially as Seneca’s universal view sees the works of all rulers to be, ultimately, insignificant compared to the deorum opera. Surely even the works of Roman rulers who have recently been made gods (Augustus, Claudius) would be dismissed as well. Cf. NQ 5.18.6-11 on the madness of campaigning, with Xerxes, Alexander, and Crassus as exempla.

exitio gentium clari: The fame of these generals stems from their body-count. Note Seneca’s Dial. 3.2.1 about anger: nulla pestis humano generi pluris stetit. videbis caedes … et totarum exitia gentium, Cl. 1.26.4: a singulorum deinde caedibus in exitia gentium serpit, and later in this book when Seneca describes the great flood that will destroy the world: peracto exitio generis humani extinctisque partier feris (NQ 3.30.7). This subtle ring-composition shows how the destruction wreaked by Alexander is nothing when likened to that of this world-ending flood: “Whatever the extent of their conquests and the number of their victims, their exploits are as nothing in comparison with the destruction perpetrated by cataclysm or conflagration, their regal standing is of no account in nature’s higher, equalizing scheme, and their brief span of life is of no consequence in comparison with the vast temporal cycles that coordinate cosmic dissolution and renewal” (Williams 2012: 34).

minores pestes mortalium: Alexander and Philip are described no less destructive to mortals than floods or fires, cf. TLL 10.1.1930.21-52 and Cic. Div. 1.47 where Alexander is called the pestem et perniciem Asiae. At Dial. 6.26.6, however, Seneca will likewise describe the destructive effects of pestilence, flood (inundationibus), and fire as he does in this section. That passage is told from the point of view of Cremutius Cordus, who is describing (from his own celestial viewpoint) the comic apocalypse that will occur according to the Stoic god’s will, and is an important precursor for many sections of the NQ (cf. Williams 2012: 223).

inundatio qua planum omne perfusum est: An inundation of global magnitude will be described at the end of the book (NQ 3.27-3.30 and forms of inundatio at 3.29.1, 3.29.7). inundatio also appears at NQ 6.6.4 (the theory that the earth rests on a great sea of water), 6.8.3 (the Nile), 6.30.3 (the flood that split Sicily from Italy). The flood is paired with fire in this book at 3.28.7 and 3.30.6. He writes about such floods as a force of destruction at Ep. 71.15 (paired with earthquakes) and Dial. 6.26.6 (as part of the end of the world) and more generally about losses by fire and water at Ep. 107.7: aliud aqua, aliud ignis eripiet. Seneca is priming his reader for the flood at the end of the book by repeating forms of fundere throughout Book 3 (e.g. refundantur, 3.11.2; superfusus est, 3.11.3; effundere, 3.12.2; superfusi, 3.27.8; perfusurus est, 3.28.6), and such an inundatio “spills over” into the following book, which reveals one way he entwines Books 3 and 4a (and shows a positive flood of the Nile to respond to the negative depiction of the flood at the conclusion of this book).

conflagratio: More homeoteleuton with –atio endings of inundatio and conflagratio. This instance does not refer to the Stoic “world-conflagration” (ἐκπύρωσις) per se, but rather a devastating fire such as that described in Ep. 91. After the quotation of Vagellius about Phaethon, one may wonder if this is meant to likewise evoke Ovid’s description of the Phaethon’s fiery fall and the devastation it wreaked on earth (e.g. Met. 2.248 repeats forms of ardere). Suetonius uses this noun for a description of Vesuvius’ eruption (Tit. 8.3). Later in the book, however, Seneca does use this word to discuss ἐκπύρωσις (NQ 3.28.7, 3.29.1, 3.29.2, cf. Ep. 9.16), and he alludes to the fire that will be the end of the world (NQ 3.13.2). For more on ἐκπύρωσις in Stoic thought, cf. Mader 1983, Long 2006: 256-82, and Wildberger 2006: 56-8.

magna pars animantium exarsit: The verb appears at additional moments in the NQ to indicate the vivid color of a dying mullet (3.18.5), comets (7.23.3) and, at the end of the work as a whole, a ferocious lightning storm (2.59.12). Gemoll 1890 emended the manuscripts’ exaruit, which would simply denote drying up and not the ruin of fire.

[3.pr.6] quemadmodum Hannibal Alpes superiecerit scribunt: As Polybius (3.42.6-56.1) and Livy (21.30.1-38.2) did. Seneca offers a brief précis of Hannibal’s career from his crossing of the Alps in 218 BCE to his final years as a “general-for-hire” for Antiochus III of Syria and Prusias I of Bithynia. Elsewhere in Seneca, Hannibal is a figure of extreme cruelty (Dial. 4.5.4), although his forces were defeated by luxury and vice (Ep. 51.5-7). Spencer 2002: 154-63 argues that Hannibal and Alexander become connected in the Roman mindset, thereby possibly explaining Seneca’s train of thought here. The manuscripts offer a number of textual variations for the phrase Alpes superiecerit with superaverit often taking the place of superiecerit and Alpes appearing before or after the verb (probably to avoid the -al Al- dittography). Superiacio is the lectio difficior, while superare is found in Livy’s account of Hannibal’s crossing (21.38.1, 27.41.6). Hine 2010c: 216 points out that Seneca differentiates between historians who “write” (scribunt) and philosophers, who “are normally represented as speaking to one another, even across long periods of time”. For Garani, allusions to Livy may indicate that he sees Livy as a precedent for including poetic allusions in his prose account (2020: 119). Seneca did see Livy as a quasi-philosopher (cf. Ep. 100.9).

confirmatum Hispaniae cladibus bellum: In his three years as commander before marching on Rome, Hannibal sacked a number of towns south of the Ebro (Cartala, Hermandica, Arbocala) before besieging Saguntum (219 BCE), cf. Livy 21.5.1-16.1. The eventual fall of Saguntum sparked the second Punic War. clades is often used of military disasters (cf. Livy 9.16.2, 22.39.8) or the general slaughter/bloodshed of battle (OLD 2b). That Hannibal brings a “war”, which has been “battle-tested in Spain” is a bold metonymy (“war” for “army”) and helps to identify the result of war as general disaster (clades, OLD 1), to be likened to fire or flood (as the flood will be described at NQ 3.28.2). In this section as a whole, Seneca shows that he could write historiography, if he so chose, but that he prefers not to do so.

inopinatus intulerit: This is the first instance of inopinatus of a person; later it is picked up by Florus (1.22.204) and Frontinus (Strat. 1.1.2). He “unexpectedly” brought a war to Italy. bellum + inferre is a common idiom in historiography (Caesar B.G. 1.2.4, 1.30.3; Livy 21.24.2 has the phrase Italiae bellum inferri and Italiae bellum intulisset at 29.10.5, both about Hannibal.

fractisque rebus: Seneca “fast-forwards” to the aftermath of the second Punic war, when Hannibal’s resources for war were expended. That this is common to the fortunes of kings in war is reiterated in the following paragraph: iniri non potest numerus quam multa ab aliis fracta sint (NQ 3.pr.9). Sil. Pun. 1.560: fractis rebus may be a knowing allusion to Seneca as both deal broadly with Hannibal.

post Carthaginem pertinax: Hannibal was forced to leave Carthage in 195 BCE, after being accused of secret communications with Antiochus III. He did not take many followers with him and had been unable, as sufete in 196/5 BCE, to raise much resistance against Rome. If Hannibal is likened to a flood or fire here, later in the book it is the final deluge that features similar qualities to Hannibal: elisa aestate hiems pertinax immensam vim aquarum ruptis nubibus deiciat (NQ 3.27.1). For more on Hannibal's actions as sufete, cf. Hoyos 2003: 190-202. Hoyos postulates the date 196/5 BCE for his sufeteship and subsequent flight. Nepos Hann. 8 covers his time with Antiochus, cf. Livy 34.60.2-6, 35.14.1-4, 36.7.1-8.

reges pererraverit: Usually one wanders through areas or kingdoms, not kings (e.g. Apocol. 5.3: Herculem, qui totum orbem terrarum pererraverat…). Another bold metonymy that equates the king with his realm. The description of Hannibal here anticipates 3.pr.10 infra: nec deficiente ad iniurias terra erasse in oceano ignota quaerentem. This sort of wandering is also mistaken thinking, drawing upon the root errare and OLD 5 “to think or act in error”, which Seneca will stress in NQ 6 (6.1.3, 6.1.12, 6.5.2, 6.29.3).

contra Romanos ducem promittens, exercitum petens: Seneca’s wording (promittens, petens) stresses Hannibal’s desperation and his mendicant status. Hannibal first went to Antiochus III and tried to convince him to support a grandiose plan to attack Italy, cf. Livy 34.60.3-6, Appian (Syr. 7). This came to nothing, but Hannibal did aid him in his campaign against the Romans until Antiochus was defeated near Magnesia ad Sipylum in Dec. 190 BCE. As part of the peace treaty, Antiochus was supposed to hand over Hannibal and other enemies of Rome, but Hannibal escaped and made his way to Prusias I of Bithynia after travels through Armenia and Crete. His wanderings post-Antiochus are discussed in Nepos Hann. 9 and Justin (32.4.3). See Lancel 1998: 205-6 for the veracity of Hannibal's possible stop in the court of "king" Artaxias of Armenia (Strabo 11.14.6; Plutarch Lucullus 31.4-5). For Prusias, Hannibal was admiral of the fleet and devised the ingenious (and deadly) trick of catapulting jars of poisonous snakes onto the enemy's ships, which helped Prusias defeat Eumenes in 184 BCE (Nepos Hann. 10-11). Hans-Günther 1989 believes that Hannibal thought the Romans would not stop pursuing him until his death.

bellum senex quaerere: Seneca draws a contrast between his pursuits in old age and Hannibal’s. Seneca will pick up on the verb quaerere at the beginning of the following paragraph to show that the quest for understanding what should be done (quid faciendum sit…quaerere) is more important than historical inquiry or, implicitly, “seeking war”. In 183 BCE, Hannibal commits suicide (poison) at the age of 64 – just about Seneca's age as he writes this, and, possibly, a fate Seneca was already anticipating, if Tacitus is to be believed (Ann. 15.64: Seneca interim, durante tractu et lenitudine mortis, Statium Annaeum…orat provisum pridem venenum quo damnati publico Atheniensium iudicio extinguerentur promeret).

sine patria pati poterat: Such strong alliteration is reminiscent of early Roman theater (Enn. Inc. 337: neque pati neque perpeti potest) and certain passages of Seneca’s tragedies such as Thyestes’ Stoic thoughts on kingship: immane regnum est posse sine regno pati (Thy. 470); cf. Canter 1925: 163-4 for more on such alliteration. Note how the use of pati here recalls passi invicem ausique at 3.pr.5 supra.

sine hoste non poterat: The rhetorical point and anaphora heighten the contrast between Hannibal’s exile from his fatherland and his continual (personal) hatred of Rome. The story of Hannibal swearing undying hatred towards the Roman people is familiar from Livy (21.1.4), Nepos (Hann. 2), and Polybius (3.11.4-8). Livy changes the phrase from lack of friendship to outright hatred (hostem fore populo Romano) in his telling of the tale (cf. the “original” at Livy 35.19). Hannibal is often linked with hostis in Livy (e.g. Hannibalem hostem haberetis, 28.39.3, 30.26.9, 31.7.5). Seneca uses the phrase sine hoste at Ag. 183 and Ep. 91.5 (unattested before these usages, except a contemporaneous use at Luc. 1.682).

[3.pr.7] Quanto satius: The construction of this phrase recalls the previous use at 3.pr.5 with a similar concentration on Seneca’s preference for ethics and the benefits of ethical instruction over history. This section also discreetly attacks those who would prefer to read history as opposed to philosophy. If, for Cicero, history is the testis temporum, lux veritatis, vita memoriae, magistra vitae… (de Orat. 2.36.1), Seneca would seem to imply that history is primarily a collection of names and events and not nearly as useful as works of philosophy for ethical education (Dial. 10.13.3-14.5 also makes this contrast). Of course, the root of history (Gr. ἱστορέω) is inquiry and would be similar to quaestio, so Seneca may be attacking historians as well because of their sort of inquiries, see Jones 2013: 70-72 for discussion in the NQ and Smith 2016: 21-53 for a more general discussion of “natural philosophy” that expands upon this point.

quid faciendum est: Seneca’s treatise implicitly will teach this. While Hine 2010: 194 will gloss this phrase as “that is, to study ethics”, it is placed here in the programmatic preface of Seneca’s work on Stoic physics. Clearly one must inform the other. Seneca will use this phrase again when speaking about the soul at the moment of death at NQ 6.32.6: facis quod quandoque faciendum est. The “war” against fortune is more important than the wars of the past and this struggle is described in similar language at Ep. 51.8: Fortuna mecum bellum gerit: non sum imperata facturus; iugum non recipio, immo, quod maiore virtute faciendum est, excutio. The educational qualities of observing a Stoic facing death are explored likewise at Ep. 98.17: quid faciendum sit a faciente discendum est and Seneca makes a broad comparison between those who learn philosophy in order to act (facere) and not merely repeat what their predecessors have said at Ep. 33.8-9. Seneca will feature a similar construction in his preface to Book 1 when discussing the difference between ethics and theology: altera [i.e. ethics] docet quid in terris agendum sit, altera [i.e. theology] quid agatur in caelo (1.pr.2). Theology is necessary for one’s moral advancement in a way that history is not, as Inwood 2005: 166 clarifies, “Just writing up the deeds of great men is of less importance than the moral instruction one can derive from philosophical reflection on them. It is god, after all, who determines how high or low one’s fortunes may be”.

quam quid factum: Aristotle makes the same contrast in his Poetics about the difference between tragedy and history (Poetics 1451a36-1451b5). This opening recalls that section of the Poetics and points to the universal interest in these philosophical questions, cf. Smith 2016: 5.

docere…permisere fortunae: The didactic quality of the work comes out with this verb. Seneca himself must learn “what ought to be done” in order to teach (docere) it to those who “have surrendered themselves to fortune”. At the close of NQ 7, Seneca hyperbolically laments that no one cares about philosophy anymore with the result that even previous discoveries are being forgotten; this could be remedied: si hoc totis membris premeremus, si in hoc iuventus sobria incumberet, hoc maiores docerent, hoc minores addiscerent, vix ad fundum veniretur in quo veritas posita est, quam nunc in summa terra et levi manu quaerimus (7.32.4). For more on fortuna in Seneca, cf. Motto 1970: 46-48 s.v. ‘Chance: Fortune’, and Setaioli 2014b: 297-99.

nihil stabile esse ab illa datum: The gifts of fortune are typically unreliable, often downright inequitable, cf. Phaed. 978-80: res humanas ordine nullo / Fortunae regit sparsitque manu / munera caeca peiora fovens, NQ 4a.pr.22, Dial 10.17.4: omne enim quod fortuito obvenit instabile est. At Ep. 87.7, Seneca argues that all wealth is merely borrowed from Fortune. For more on this topos in general, cf. Boyle 2011: ad 8-11, for additional references in Seneca, cf. Vottero 1989: ad loc. Seneca the Elder mentions this as a “commonplace”: Dixit deinde locum de varietate fortunae et, cum descripsisset nihil esse stabile, omnia fluitare…, Suas. 1.9. This phrase will be echoed at the close of this book when the flood comes, nihil stabile est (3.27.6). Thus, the frivolity of fortune becomes the fact of fate. The flood becomes, in some sense, the greatest expression of this lack of stability, especially from the perspective of mankind, which will lose everything because of it. Because fortuna can often also denote fata, there is incongruity between the use in Seneca’s tragic works, where it is typically an aleatory and calamitous force, and his prose works where, technically, nothing can be done without god’s plan, cf. Stacey 2007: 65-72 for more on this dualism.

munus eius omne aura fluere mobilius!: munus eius omne is Hine’s correction of the MS eius omni (Z), eius omnia (Ψ). The phrase aura mobilis is Ovidian, cf. Her. 6.109, Ars 3.698. For a parallel from Seneca’s tragedies, cf. Herc. F. 169-71 and for a similar turn of phrase in Seneca’s letters, cf. Ep. 23.16: Gloria vanum et volubile quiddam est auraque mobilius. The gift of fortune appears elsewhere in Seneca (Dial. 7.23.3), but usually one finds gifts (Dial. 7.3.3, 7.11.3). Seneca may be looking ahead to 3.pr.10 and the use of omne there and his choice of fluere is influenced by the subject of this book and the numerous instances of this verb in this book, e.g., 3.12.4, 3.27.9, 3.28.2.

nescit enim quiescere: There is a strong parallel in Livy (ea est Romana gens, quae victa quiescere nesciat, 9.3.12), but Seneca has applied a virtue of the Roman state to fickle fortune. Because of the strong presence of Livy in the previous section, it is possible that Seneca is still thinking of the fluctuations of history, with this tag appearing during an example from early Roman history (the defeat at the Caudine Forks). It is also possible that fortune now resembles Hannibal himself, who did not know how to rest. Seneca employs Livy to speak against the importance of Livian historiography for understanding how to live the good life. For Seneca’s knowledge of Livy and Livy’s own philosophical views, see Ep. 100.9.

laetis tristia: The first in a series of opposites that are grouped together in this section. Seneca’s language features differing constructions from dative objects of verbs secundis…adversis, to prepositional phrases in summum…ad imum, in melius…in deterius, to nominative subjects adversa…optata.

utique miscere: utique appears frequently in this book (3.19.3, 3.25.10, 3.26.8, 3.27.2, 3.30.1). If fortune does not outright substitute sad for happy, at least (utique), it will mix the two, cf. Ep. 44.2: omnia ista longa varietas miscuit et sursum deorsum fortuna versavit. Ovid surveys the Roman victories and defeats on June 9 as a mixing of happy and sad events at Fast. 6.463: scilicet interdum miscentur tristia laetis. This is reminiscent of Homer’s “Jars of Zeus”, which grant no man a purely happy life (Il. 24.527-30), and Seneca’s language is recalled by Silius (Pun. 13.383: Fortuna…permiscens tristia laetis).

secundis nemo confidat, adversis nemo deficiat: The chorus of Seneca’s Thyestes (possibly written contemporaneously) asserts the same message: nemo confidat nimium secundis / nemo desperet meliora lassis: / miscet haec illis prohibetque Clotho / stare Fortunam, rotat omne fatum (615-8). Cf. Tarrant 1985: ad loc. and Fitch 1981 for dating the Thyestes to this period of Seneca’s life.

secundis nemo confidat, adversis nemo deficiat: In Seneca’s prose works, the wise man will not be swayed by either: nec secunda sapientem evehunt nec adversa demittunt (Dial. 12.5.1); sic, inquam, se exercuit ut virtutem tam in secundis quam in adversis exhiberet nec materiam eius sed ipsam intueretur (Ep. 85.39). This sentence may be an echo of Hor. Carm. 2.10.13-15: sperat infestis, metuit secundis / alteram sortem bene praeparatum / pectus.

alternae sunt vices rerum: Once again the language resembles that of the Thyestes: alternae scelerum ne redeant vices (133), and Seneca enriches it with recollection of his earlier Troades: hos movet formae decus / hos mollis aetas, hos vagae rerum vices (1144-5). Such tragic diction befits the mood of this sententia. See Dial. 8.1.2 for a similar use of alternae…vices. This line struck the author of the Octavia, who uses a variation of it at 388: mundique motus, sortis alternae vices. See the note of Ferri 2003: ad loc.

quid exultas?: A question for the reader or Lucilius? The following material could apply to Lucilius’s recent appointment to Sicily (4a.pr.1-22) or to any prosperous reader of the treatise. The following sentence then explains why it is foolish to trust one’s fortune, and is reminiscent of Dial. 4.21.5: gaudium enim exultatio, exultationem tumor et nimia aestimatio sui sequitur. It is used of the red mullet in its tank before being put to death at NQ 3.18.4.

[3.pr.8] quibus eveheris in summum: The means by which “you” are elevated are probably to be equated with wealth and worldly power, both subject to the vicissitudes of fortune. Rarely is in summum used substantively, but there is a potential analogue at Dial. 2.5.4: nam et in summum perducta incrementi non habent locum et nihil eripit fortuna nisi quod dedit.

suum…non tuum finem: One cannot possibly know when such advantages as riches, social position, good looks, etc. will disappear. In Seneca, few qualities or people are in control of their own end: a property that has its own end is “nature’s mean” – naturalis modus (ille enim habet suum finem, Ep. 39.5); Bassus was able to contemplate his own end and plan for his death (finem suum spectat, Ep. 30.3). Again, Seneca ties this into the book’s finale where the end will be quick and lethal: nihil difficile naturae est, utique ubi in finem sui properat, NQ 3.27.2.

quid iaces?: This possibly echoes Cicero’s Tusc. 3.36.1: quid iaces aut quid maeres aut cur succumbis cedisque fortunae?, and recalls Phaed. 448: cur toro viduo iaces? Again, the second person address is suggestive of the didactic relationship between reader and author and such calls to action (admonitiones) are frequent in Seneca’s philosophical works, cf. Setaioli 2014a: 244-6.

ad imum: This phrase is paired with in summo at Ep. 92.23: quae res illum non patitur ad imum devolvi retinet in summo. The wise man, perfect in his virtus, will not be able to hit rock-bottom, and will continue to have a “happy life” (beata vita) in spite of external events.

locus…resurgendi: Similar advice is found in Ep. 13.2-3 where the individual is likened to a boxer who must rise up again and again (contumacior resurrexit, 13.2) against the blows of fortune.

in melius…flectuntur: The very action of the verb is mirrored in the structure of the sentence with melius and deterius indicating the alteration from adversa and optata. Seneca uses the contrast between melius and deterius also at Ben. 7.12.6. This sentence sums up the various fluctuations of fortune and the poetic ring of the series of contrasts. That nature is full of changes is a topos in his work, cf. Ep. 107.8: natura autem hoc quod vides regnum mutationibus temperat. His insistence on change and fluctuation in this section can be mirrored in the transformation of various elements that he will stress later in NQ 3.9.1-3.10.5.

[3.pr.9] concipienda est animo: Concipere + mente, animo, animi to signify “to imagine, understand” (OLD 9). Cf. Ovid Met. 15.5-6: [Numa] animo maiora capaci / concipit et, quae sit rerum natura, requirit and Numa is a strong analogue for Ovid’s Pythagoras, an important figure for Seneca (cf. Garani 2014: 128-33 for Numa/Pythagoras, and Torre 2007 for Pythagoras in Seneca). The use of the passive periphrastic indicates the same necessity that was denoted by faciendum sit. Later in the work, at NQ 3.27.15, Seneca will utilize concipere+imaginem for the proper image of the flood that must be conjured in the mind.

varietas: Here indicating “fluctuating or inconstant nature (of fortune, circumstances, etc.)” (s.v. OLD 4). For similar uses in Seneca indicating the results of fortune, cf. Ep. 44.4, Ep. 98.5, Ep. 101.9.

privatarum domuum…sed publicarum: Seneca contrasts private households, whose fortunes can be struck down by “light misfortune” (levis casus) and those “public” homes of the ruling class. This implies that even Rome will be subject to such vicissitudes and even the emperor. If a “light misfortune” can ruin private homes, the large-scale disasters of earthquakes are often described as general/widespread calamities (publice, 6.1.2, 6.1.7, 6.29.1). levis…casus is found in similar phrases in Senecan tragedy at Med. 221-2 and Tr. 273. The contrast between private and public is found elsewhere in the NQ (2.41.2, 2.48.1, 6.29.1). Depending on the date of composition of Book 3, this could also indicate the great fire at Rome in 64 CE and the destruction of the domus transitoria during that blaze. Manilius has the evocative phrase publica naturae domus (1.535) to describe the constellations.

ex infimo: Features in a famous phase of Livy about the rise of cities (Livy 1.9.3: urbes quoque, ut cetera, ex infimo nasci; dein, quas sua virtus ac di iuvent, magnas opes sibi magnumque nomen facere; also quoted at Quint. Inst. 9.2.37). Once again, Seneca takes Livy’s language but makes a moral point out of it, indicating the inefficacy of annalistic history to convey the more expansive view of natural science and Stoic philosophy. This phrase appears elsewhere in Seneca about great social advancement (Ben. 3.38.1: qui ex infimo ad summu protulerint) and at Dial. 6.26.6 and NQ 6.30.3 about particularly fierce earthquakes.

supra imperantes…vetera imperia: The idea that the kingdoms have risen high over their rulers indicates the size and scope of the realm. Seneca moves from the newly emergent regna and their imperantes to their later vetera imperia. Kingdoms will rise and fall, but the Stoic perspective (from above, i.e. supra) will reveal how small all these truly are: O quam contempta res est homo, nisi supra humana surrexerit!, NQ 1.pr.5.

in ipso flore ceciderunt: The fall of such old empires mimics the fall of individuals in medio flore (Ep. 66.42) or of the death of children at their height at NQ 3.27.2. The prosody of constiterunt/conciderunt suggests that “what goes up must come down”. Seneca offers a similar phrase at Ep. 74.19 when discussing how prosperity is apt to expire: hoc multarum tibi urbium ostendet eventus, quarum in ipso flore luxuriosa imperia ceciderunt, et quidquid virtute partum erat intemperantia corruit.

iniri non potest numerus: iniri is attested in one manuscript (Z) and is also found at Apo. 11.5: ceteros quorum numerus iniri non potuit, and Ben. 5.9.3: inire beneficiorum suorum non potest numerum (s.v. OLD 8, TLL 7.1.1298.64ff.). Seneca has been utilizing compounds of ire throughout this preface. Seneca employs this phrase to describe the innumerable stars in the sky at NQ 6.16.2, thus contrasting the everlasting stars and the ephemeral earthly empires found here.

nunc cum maxime: “At this very moment” (s.v. OLD 6b).

deus extruit alia, alia submittit: The chiasmus puts the power in the hand of god (deus) to create or to destroy. ex(s)truere meaning “to erect” is most famously used by Vergil, when Mercury berates Aeneas at A. 4.266-7: pulchramque uxorius urbem / exstruis?

nec molliter ponit: Seneca has nec molliter at Dial. 6.1.8 and Dial. 11.17.2. In thinking about the fickleness of even bad fortune (mala fortuna), Seneca mentions that sometimes destruction lets men off “softly”: quosdam molliter ruina deposuit, Ep. 13.11. Note that Ep. 74.18 echoes this phrase as well as in ipso flore. When musing about the fall of empires, Seneca’s language in the NQ is consistent with that of his Epistles. This may also allow us to posit a “two-handed” approach in which the works operate in tandem to bestow advice and philosophical teaching to Lucilius, cf. Williams 2014 for more on the broad interactions between these texts.

ex fastigio suo nullas habitura reliquias iactat: Cf. Dial. 10.4.1 about those who would desire to escape the trappings of power: cupiunt interim ex illo fastigio suo, si tuto liceat, descendere; nam ut nihil extra lacessat aut quatiat, in se ipsa fortuna ruit. Ep. 92.26 also features this language in a larger discussion that resonates with this section: non video enim quomodo non in imum agatur e fastigio suo deiecta virtus. For people falling from such great heights, cf. NQ 4a.pr.22: uno enim tempore vidit Pompeium Lepidumque ex maximo fastigio aliter ad extrema deiectos. At the conclusion of this book, we hear of the final remains of the human race and the language here may be priming the reader for its appearance at NQ 3.27.12: editissimis quibusque adhaerebant reliquiae generis humani… This sentence as a whole focuses much more on the destruction of the city than its creation.

[3.pr.10] magna ista quia parvi sumus credimus: For the use of these terms when discussing perspective in Seneca, cf. Ep. 43.2: navis quae in flumine magna est in mari parvula est; Dial. 5.31.3. Seneca aims to recalibrate our perspective so that we realize the sublimity and grandeur of natura. A similar use of magna…credimus can be found at Ep. 89.1, where Seneca writes: relictis iis quae nunc magna magnorum ignorantia credimus. There it is the immensity of philosophy that provides proper perspective on the worldly goods to which we aspire. Hutchinson 1993: 48 writes of this passage, “In outdoing normal human conceptions of greatness here he is also in a sense outmatching the very sublimity he has been creating. For Seneca the highest sublimity lies not in massive destruction but in unshakable virtue and the unchanging heavens”. This will be important for perspective during the flood at 3.28.4-5.

non ex natura sua: This phrase is repeated to discuss the color of the Nile at 4a.2.5. natura sua is used of the elements themselves in NQ (of water: 3.10.5, 3.27.8; of air: 3.15.7, 6.17.1; of fire: 7.23.1) and is found of the behavior of some animals at Ep. 124.20. In the NQ, one might think that when elements (or individuals) act contra naturam suam problems may arise, but the two instances of this phrase are not very momentous: the buoyancy of ships (2.9.2) and lightning spoiling food (2.53.2). Seneca claims the ultimate goal of ratio is secundum naturam suam vivere (Ep. 41.8), cf. Ep. 66.39: ‘Quod est summum hominis bonum?’ ex naturae voluntate se gerere.

ex humilitate nostra magnitudo est: Seneca pairs the two prepositional phrases with ex to point out the contrast between our smallness (humilitate nostra) and an object’s true nature (natura sua). humilitas is rather rare in Seneca’s works (8 times total), but it does feature later in the NQ when Seneca is dismissing the claim that mountaintops should be warmer because they are closer to the sun: excelsa sunt ista, quamdiu nobis comparantur; at vero, ubi ad universum respexeris, manifesta omnium est humilitas. inter se vincuntur et vincunt… (4b.11.2). For magnitudo, cf. note 3.pr.4 supra.

Quid praecipuum in rebus humanis est?: This key question structures the following six sections and the answers touch upon topics from global expansion/conquest to fortune to the correct attitude towards death. Seneca blends physics, politics, and ethics, indicating that the end result of his NQ will be the recalibration of one’s view of what is foremost in human life. For Cicero, praecipuus was the adjective used to indicate meritorious Stoic “indifferents” (ὰδιαφορά) in Stoic philosophy (Tusc. 5.47, Fin. 3.52). There may be a hint of that here, but Seneca is aiming far beyond mere discussion of “indifferents”. Seneca creates a similar question at Ep. 92.25: quid est in virtute praecipuum? If this section is meant to act as the preface to the work as whole, it is notable that praecipuus only appears one additional time in the NQ, when Seneca muses on people who especially fear death-by-earthquake: hoc habet inter cetera iustitiae suae natura praecipuum quod, cum ad exitum ventum est, omnes in aequo sumus (6.1.8). The phrase rebus humanis will appear at the close of this book at the end of “human affairs”, i.e. the flood (terminus rebus humanis, 3.29.5). Seneca elsewhere believes that the only immortal work in rebus humanis is literature (Dial. 11.18.2), and applies in rebus humanis to discuss the perspective towards wisdom, dignitas, and placing oneself beyond the reach of fortune (Ep. 84.13).

classibus maria complesse: The first answer is heavily contextualized with the exploits of Hannibal and Alexander, but also touches upon Roman expansion and imperialism. Livy has a similar phrase about Antiochus: mox in Graecia fore, terras maria armis viris completurum (35.35.7), and Seneca puts fawning words in the mouth of one of Xerxes’s advisors: alius vix illi [Xerxes] rerum naturam sufficere, angusta esse classibus maria, militia castra… (Ben. 6.31.3, cf. NQ 5.18.10 where it is the army of Xerxes that “fills” Greece: cum impleverit). Seneca recalls this later in the NQ when discussing the way that Romans have perverted the use of the winds: ut nos classes partem freti occupaturas compleremus milite armato et hostem in mari aut post mare quaereremus (5.18.5). At Ag. 1006, Cassandra looks forward to telling the Trojans in the Underworld of the Greek disaster at sea: repletum ratibus eversis mare, which gives this passage a more sinister feel (the sea is filled with maimed and shattered ships).

in Rubri maris litore: The Red Sea (Mare Rubrum) is probably not used with precision here. Its name was applied to the Arabian Gulf, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean indiscriminately (cf. Pliny Nat. 6.107, Curtius 8.9.14). Elsewhere in Seneca, it is used to indicate the sea bordering India and applied to Bacchus (Herc. F. 903) and Alexander the Great (Ben. 7.2.5). If the sea is not just a site for expansion, but for warfare and shipwreck, the “Red” Sea may also indicate bloody conquest. That being said, the Romans were very familiar with trading routes in the Red Sea reaching ports in India, see Lytle 2016a: 118-22 and Harper 2017: 93-98. Seneca uses it here as well to anticipate the great flood that will wipe out the world at the book’s conclusion: peribunt tot nomina, Caspium et Rubrum mare, Ambracii et Cretici sinus… (3.29.8).

signa fixisse: For a similar phrase used with Roman expansion in Seneca, cf. Dial. 6.3.1 about Drusus: intraverat penitus Germaniam et ibi signa Romana fixerat ubi vis ullos esse Romanos notum erat. Horace has a similar phrase at C. 3.5.18-21, but about Roman spoils affixed on Carthaginian temples. It can also be found when Seneca describes the expanse of Bacchus’s soldiers in Oedipus (figere…tua signa, 116), a passage that also evokes “Roman imperial space” (Boyle 2011: ad 114-23).

deficiente ad iniurias terra: The “manifest destiny” of Rome (imperium sine fine, Aen. 1.279) is here given negative connotations as Seneca focalizes the experience from the perspective of the conquered region. Seneca sees exploration as exploitation and gives a sympathetic view of lands that have been bled dry. Seneca has ad iniurias fortunae at Dial. 9.8.9 and at the heart of iniuria is the sense of a wrong done contrary to justice, thus questioning the legal and moral right of expansion.

errasse in oceano ignota quaerentem: When land can not be found for exploitation, one must take to the ocean. This in itself may be an “error” (OLD 5). If Hannibal canvassed kings seeking war (forms of pererrare and quaerere, 3.pr.6 supra), Alexander the Great also fits this characterization; in Ep. 119 (written after this passage), Seneca writes of Alexander in a similar manner (quaerit, quod suum faciat, scrutatur maria ignota, in oceanum classes novas mittit et ipsa, ut ita dicam, mundi claustra perrumpit, Ep. 119.7). The sentiment of this sentence can be paralleled in Seneca the Elder’s Suas. 1 “Alexander deliberates whether to navigate the Ocean”, Ep. 91.17, Ep. 94.62, as well as NQ 5.18.10: Sic Alexander ulterior Bactris et Indis volet quaeretque quid sit ultra magnum mare et indignabitur esse aliquid ultimum sibi. At Ben. 7.2.5-6, Seneca imagines Alexander on the shore of the “Red Sea” and sending Onesicritus, his helmsman, ahead of him: Illius ne ea quidem erant, quae tenebat aut vicerat, cum in oceano Onesicritus praemissus explorator erraret et bella in ignoto mari quaereret. Onesicritus himself wrote a work about Alexander, in which he seems to have inserted many flights of fancy – which leads to criticism from Strabo (15.1, passim), Plutarch (Alex. 46), and Diogenes Laertius (6.84). The general impulse of ignota quaerentem could be a positive expression for the type of research that Seneca is endorsing in the NQ (after all, quaerere is the verbal root of quaestio) and he often features quaerere in vital moments such as the soul’s observation of the heavens: curiosus spectator excutit singula et quaerit. quidni quaerat? scit illa ad se pertinere (1.pr.12), it is the first word of this book’s proper doxography: quaeramus ergo de terrestribus aquis…(3.1.1), it is the final word of Book 7 (7.32.4). When chronicling the written knowledge of the world, Seneca realizes that things unknown now will be discovered in the future: multa venientis aevi populus ignota nobis sciet (7.30.5 cf. Dial. 8.5.1: cupidinem…ignota noscendi). Seneca hopes that his NQ can help to add to the knowledge of the universe and, in so doing, change the perspective of readers who believe the borders of the empire are important – at 1.pr.8-10 he mentions how small such worldly gains are in comparison to the universe: punctum est istud in quo navigatis, in quo bellatis, in quo regna disponitis, minima etiam cum illis utrimque oceanus occurrit (1.pr.11). For more on the “problematic nature of transoceanic travel” in Seneca, cf. Romm 1992: 165-71 and Beaulieu 2016: 10-11 for more on Roman attitudes to the Ocean in general.

animo omne vidisse: “to have seen the all with the mind”. Other manuscripts have vicisse and while such martial language does fit the passage, it takes away from the point Seneca is building towards at the end of the sentence: vitia domuisse. One must see the “entirety” first before understanding what vices need to be overcome. There is a possible intertext to Lucretius’ idea of the universe (omne immensum peragravit mente animoque, 1.74) and Epicurus’ own mind which journeyed to discover the secrets of the universe, cf. Kennedy 2000: 206-7 and Williams 2016: 175-76. For Gunderson 2014: 68 and Williams 2012: 135, 271, passim this phrase embodies the goal of the NQ as a whole. Gunderson writes, “It is less the seeing than the having thus seen that matters…There is the period before one saw thus and the period after one has so seen…What one sees with the mind’s eyes is instead that everything is itself but a single, unitary thing, an omne” (2014: 68). It is important to Seneca that this happens in the mind (animo) rather than simply through the eyes (that leads to the behavior of Hostius Quadra, NQ 1.16.9, or those that feast their eyes on mullet, 3.18.1). Many of the following “answers” to quid praecipuum…est involve the mind or soul (animus, cf. 3.pr.11, 3.pr.12, etc.). Williams 2005a: 162 writes how “the study of ‘the all’…presupposes a seamless devotion (cf. sibi totus animus vacet) that is only made possible by a radical form of inner conversion”.

qua maior nulla victoria est: Even in Seneca, victoria is usually used of military triumph (Ben. 4.33.2, Ben. 5.16.3, Ep. 82.20, Dial. 4.23.4), but he makes a similar contrast between the victoria of the sapiens and that of the military victor at Dial. 2.19.4: vos enim rem geritis, illa parta victoria est. Contemplating and contextualizing the victories of figures such as Hannibal and Alexander and showing their ultimate insignificance are important for Seneca in this preface. Seneca also exploits wordplay with victoria at Ep. 9.18-19, when Stilbo responds to Demetrius Poliorcetes: ‘omnia’ inquit ‘bona mecum sunt’. ecce vir fortis ac strenuus! ipsam hostis sui victoria vicit (Seneca also tells this story at Dial. 2.5.7). Seneca implies a possible verbal connection between victoria and vitia and, probably, vita.

vitia domuisse: True victory is over the vices in one’s soul, not the “enemies” at one’s borders. In Ep. 68.13, in which he writes of old age as the best time for study, he claims: iam despumavit, iam vitia primo fervore adulscentiae indomita lassavit. For the struggle against vitia elsewhere in Seneca, cf. Dial. 9.7.3, Dial. 10.6.4, Dial. 10.16.5, Ep. 7.2, Ep. 11.6, Ep. 122.5. For the victory of reason over vice, essentially Seneca’s argument here, cf. Dial. 12.13.3: non singula vitia ratio sed pariter omnia prosternit: in universum semel vincitur. For vitia in NQ, cf. 1.pr.6 where Lucilius is praised: effugisti vitia animi; vice is connected with luxury at 1.17.10 and 7.31.1; the general human tendency to move towards vice at 4a.pr.19. Seneca will also write of the vitia of various waters (3.15.4, 3.26.8) and his use of vitia resonates with the larger ethical message of the NQ. At the conclusion of this book, Seneca is less optimistic about finding virtuous men today: virtus difficilis inventu est, rectorem ducemque desiderat; etiam sine magistro vitia discuntur (3.30.8). Seneca is setting himself up as the sort of magister needed for teaching virtus and abolishing vice, a quality even Quintilian recognized as one of Seneca’s best: egregius tamen vitiorum insectator fuit (Inst. 10.1.129).

innumerabiles…in potestate: Seneca even cheapens the unique quality of rulers by claiming there have been an almost infinite number over time (cf. note on iniri…numerus at 3.pr.9 supra). Their power over nations and cities is diminished by the following declaration and it is impossible not to see a not-so-covert reference to Nero, an emperor who at this period certainly was exercising very little power over his own desires and predilections with his recent matricide, divorce of Octavia, and marriage to Poppaea. Cicero makes a similar claim about the difference between great military leaders and great orators (de Orat. 1.7: Quis autem dubitet quin belli duces ex hac una civitate praestantissimos paene innumerabilis, in dicendo autem excellentis vix paucos proferre possimus?). Seneca contrasts the motions of the few planets (paucorum motus) we can see with the innumerable (innumerabiles) others too distant for our sight at Ben. 4.23.4.

paucissimi qui se: Seneca uses variants of this expression (se habere in potestate) fairly often when discussing the Stoic sage or philosophical ideals, cf. Ep. 90.34 about the sage who understands potentissimum esse qui se habet in potestate; Ben. 5.7.5: quem magis admiraberis, quam qui imperat sibi, quam qui se habet in potestate? Seneca redefines the elite as a philosophical elite with these individuals being paucissimi, cf. Dial. 4.10.6: Non irascetur sapiens peccantibus. Quare? quia scit neminem nasci sapientem sed fieri, scit paucissimos omni aevo sapientis evadere… If these are to be equated with the Stoic sage, then they are a very small number indeed – Cato the Younger and Socrates are the most frequent examples of the Stoic sage in Seneca (cf. Dial. 2.2.1 for Cato; Ep. 64.10 and Ep. 104.21, 27-8 for Socrates). This sentence enacts a sort of reverse-oikeiosis as we move from populos to urbes to se.

[3.pr.11] quid est praecipuum?: Seneca keeps this word order for the remaining repetitions of this phrase in order to emphasize praecipuum. This refrain structures the conclusions, while also offering different points of view on what is praecipuum. Such multiple points of view also become important for sections such as the death of the mullet (with a similar refrain), and the flood, where Seneca seems to enjoy ending the world with different types of water. For such repetitions of phrases in Senecan prose, cf. Traina 1987: 31-4.

erigere animum: Variations of this phrase are found in Seneca at Ben. 3.28.3: erigite audacter animos, Dial. 9.1.12: ubi lectio fortior erexit animum, and Ep. 104.22: sed animum indurare et adversus minas erigere. Usually it simply means “to take heart” but Seneca will make it more concrete by the following prepositional phrase, cf. Ep. 23.4: animus esse debet alacer et fidens et supra omnia erectus.

supra minas et promissa fortunae: supra is important in the NQ because of the shift of perspective from worldly to above (1.pr.5), but here the idea of being above fortune’s threats and pledges also echoes other Senecan passages (cf. supra fortunam, Dial. 2.1.2, Ben. 4.32.2, Ep. 41.2, Ep. 44.6; Med. 520: Fortuna semper omnis infra me stetit). For more on the “view from above” cf. Hine 2006: 45-6, Hadot 1995: 238-50 and Pfeiffer 2001: 51-62. This phrase will be reformulated at 3.pr.15 (altos supra fortuita spiritus tollere) and supra may be further contextualized by supra imperantes at 3.pr.9. Livy has inter tantas fortunae minas at 2.12.8.

nil dignum putare quod speres: Vottero 1989: ad loc. is exhaustive about the problem of hope in Seneca’s ethical thought and see Richardson-Hay 2006: 221-7 (on Ep. 5.7-9) on Stoic views of hope. Hopes for the future are suspect (Ep. 59.14, Ep. 101.4), can become excessive (spes spem excitat, Dial. 10.17.5, Cl. 1.1.7), and should be tempered (Ep. 104.12). nil dignum is found in Horace (Serm. 2.3.4) and this whole passage has a Horatian feel. In the NQ hope (spes) can be moderated by recognizing one’s mortality (2.59.3), can lead to further understanding about the cosmos (6.5.2: plurimum ad inveniendum contulit qui speravit posse reperiri), but also can lead to suspect actions, such as mining for precious metals (5.15.5). Seneca has a number of instances of (in)dignus putare in his philosophical works (e.g. Dial. 1.3.14, Dial. 5.10.4, Dial. 7.21.4: nec enim se sapiens indignum ullis muneribus fortuitis putat).

quid enim habes: Hine 1996: ad loc. proves that habes is more idiomatic than habet in this construction. Note the use of habere in the previous two sections as well (habitura, habuerunt) moving from the impersonal to the personal – “what do you have?”.

quod concupiscas: This is the only use of this verb in the NQ, but Seneca often has it in his philosophical works: wise men nihil humile concupiscent (Dial. 2.8.3, cf. Ep. 114.27); sometimes with this same construction: videamus hoc quod concupiscimus quanti deferatur (Ep. 42.8), destitutus sum, nihil vidi, nihil audivi quod concupiscerem, ad quod reverterer (Ep. 68.9). Seneca implies with this question that the only thing one can really desire is death, especially for an old man (nil habet quod speret quem senectus ducit ad mortem, Ep. 30.4), but the following sentence seems to take this thought in a different direction.

a divinorum conversatione: This conversatio divinorum is ultimately what Seneca is hoping to reach through the course of study in NQ. The preface of NQ 1 addresses this emphatically (on this preface, cf. Weber 1995, Inwood 2005: 191-5). divinus appears often in the NQ to describe the natural world (esp. lightning 2.31.1, 7.24.1) and the soul (1.pr.12, 7.25.2). For more on conversatio, cf. Dial. 6.23.1 where Seneca advises Marcia: praeter hoc quod omne futurum incertum est et ad deteriora certius, facillimum ad superos iter est animis cito ab humana conversatione dimissis; also Ep. 94.40-1, Ep. 7.2: inimica est multorum conversatio. Vottero 1989: ad loc. points out the conversatio is ultimately derived from the verb conversi, which denotes “to live with”. Seneca posits a strong interaction with divinity by this phrase, and additional passages from his prose works discuss the difference between divine and human matters, cf. Dial. 8.6.1: ab humanis ad divina respicias; cf. Dial. 11.9.3, Ep. 110.9.

quotiens ad humana reccideris: Seneca views this motion back to earthly matters from heavenly concerns as a physical movement. Williams 2008: 226 connects this movement to the preface of NQ 4a and the discussion of flattery there. Cf. Dial. 12.7.1: a caelestibus agedum te ad humana converte. Seneca will use the phrase also of the Stoic practice of praemeditatio (cf. Ep. 76.33: tu hodie ista denuntias: ego semper denuntiavi mihi et hominem paravi ad humana). Hine suggests reccideris to improve the rhythm of the passage (1996: ad loc.), whereas the manuscripts have recideris. The rhythm then is recalled by the forms acciderit and accidere in the following sentence. The movement from interacting with the divine to falling back to the “lower” concerns of mortal men is nicely paralleled in the work as a whole as Seneca moves steadily upward to the discussion of comets in Book 7 and the theological discussion in the Preface of Book 1 only to return back to earth with the discussion of Hostius Quadra at the conclusion of Book 1 and sublimia in general in Books 1 and 2. For more on this movement, cf. Williams 2012: 335-7.

non aliter caligabis quam…redierunt: This clause is reminiscent of Plato’s famous cave analogy, cf. Plato Rep. 514a-520a; Inwood 2005: 166. There, those who come from the dim light of the cave of representations into the bright light of the realm of true forms will be blinded and wish to return to their cave. Seneca imagines that movement back into the cave of human concerns and the eyes growing dim in their readjustment to this darkness from the brilliance of the divine. For more on Platonic influence in Seneca, cf. Donini 1979, Setaioli 1988: 117-40, Tieleman 2007, Inwood 2007a, and Reydams-Schils 2010a. For the same contrast between the darkness in which we grope and divine luminosity, cf. Ep. 79.12 and especially NQ 1.pr.2: altera [i.e. theology] multum supra hanc in qua volutamur caliginem excedit et e tenebris ereptos perducit illo unde lucet. The contrast between ethics and theology that is explicit there is first hinted at here, although it is interesting that this phrase springs not from explicit discussion of physics or the heavens but simply from the movement of the soul to a position (metaphorically) above the play of fortune. Seneca often uses caligare in the sense of “to grope about” (Ep. 71.24: non tantum quid videas, sed quemadmodum, refert: animus noster ad vera perspicienda caligat, Dial. 7.1.1, Ep. 57.4). The brightness of the heavens that can be appreciated from the “view from above” is also described at Sen. Ep. 102.28-30 with many terms from that passage also making an appearance in this preface. Forms of densa umbra appear at Med. 609, Ag. 94, Ep. 41.3, and Ben. 4.13.1, although these are not paired with “bright sunshine” (claro sole).

[3.pr.12] laeto animo: First attested in Hor. C. 2.16.25: laetus in praesens animus, and Livy 26.17.6: quam rem cum laeto animo Romanus accepisset. Often Seneca will advise his readers to accept or face adversity with aequo animo (e.g. Ep. 66.36, Ep. 98.10), but “with a joyful mind” seems even more emphatic – the verticality of movement in the previous sentence suggests that he may have chose laeto because of the metathesis with elato or even tolerare (cf. Dial. 2.9.3 for a similar play: inde tam erectus laetusque est, inde continuo gaudio elatus; Lausberg 1998: 231). He stated that Socrates drank the poison “joyfully” at Dial. 1.3.13: ille venenum laetus et libens hauriet. Seneca consoled his mother, Helvia, by saying that he was joyful (laetum, Dial. 12. 20.1), especially because he could engage in the sort of cosmic contemplation that he pursues in the NQ. Thus, the conclusion of his Consolatio ad Helvia can be seen as a precursor and intertext to the work he is attempting to do now as an old man in the NQ.

adversa tolerare: Seneca speaks of M. Antony’s ability to endure hardships in similar terms (Dial. 11.16.2: tulit hoc tamen tam triste vulnus eadem magnitudine animi M. Antonius qua omnia alia adversa toleraverat…). This phrase recalls NQ 3.pr.8 above with forms of adversa and animo. At NQ 6.1.10 Seneca uses similar language to face earthquakes bravely: proinde magnum sumamus animum adversus istam cladem.

quidquid acciderit: Seneca advises good men to do similarly in Dial. 1.2.4: scias licet idem viris bonis esse faciendum, ut dura ac difficilia non reformident nec de fato querantur, quidquid accidit boni consulant, in bonum vertant; non quid sed quemadmodum feras interest. Note the similar esse faciendum construction as at 3.pr.7 supra. Also, the wise man will look upon accidents kindly at Ep. 81.25: non calumniatur verba nec vultus; quidquid accidit benigne interpretando levat. In some sense, the entire NQ asks the question of “Why does X happen?” (cf. NQ 1.2.9, 1.3.2, 2.53.1, 3.11.2, 3.17.2, etc.). Thus Seneca connects the psychological responses to human events and the larger cosmic happenings of nature, while underlining that both are ultimately caused by god.

sic…quasi: Cf. Dial. 7.20.3: ego sic vivam quasi sciam aliis esse me natum et naturae rerum hoc nomine gratias agam.

volueris tibi accidere: Seneca is giving a concise version of the advice found in de Providentia and positing Lucilius (or the general reader) as someone capable of fulfilling the role of the good man there, cf. Dial. 1.6.2: quid ergo miraris, si id deus bono viro accidere patitur quod vir bonus aliquando vult sibi accidere? We should date de Providentia to this same period (62 – 65 CE), cf. Marshall 2014: 37 and Smith 2014:115-16. Seneca repeats accidere also at Ep. 76.23 to emphasize that one with knowledge of divinity and natura will not judge such events as misfortunes: itaque quidquid illi accidit aequo animo sustinebit; sciet enim id accidisse lege divina qua universa procedunt.

debuisses…si scisses: Contrary-to-fact condition indicating that the reader’s understanding of events in the past has been flawed. Ideally, after reading the NQ this will be rectified and the reader will have the proper grasp of events. While it may be hard to believe one would “want” (velle) such misfortunes to happen, Seneca aims to transform this perspective throughout many of his philosophical works (Dial. 1.3.1, Dial. 7.16.2, Dial. 9.13.3). Cf. Colish 2014 on the idea of “acting against conscience” that often features a novel calibration of such “wants”.

omnia ex decreto dei fieri: Connected in a comic manner at Plaut. Most. 666: quidquid dei dicunt, id decretumst dicere. For the decrees of fate, cf. Ovid Met. 15.781: ferrea…veterum decreta sororum. NQ 2 has a long examination of fate (2.35.1-2.38.4), one can read this as an abridged version. Seneca writes in de Providentia that one should be cheerful in the face of fortune and consider it a consolation that everything happens according to the decrees of god (Dial. 1.5.8-9). The law of fortune and that of nature are interconnected at Ep. 91.15 as well. Seneca employs ex decreto in two other works (Dial. 7.19.1 about the teachings of Epicurus: ex decreto Epicuri; Ep. 104.32 of Cato’s decision to kill himself: perit itaque ex decreto suo). In the NQ, Seneca will use a similar construction of omnia…fieri when discussing what certain philosophers argue (2.19.1: Anaxagoras ait omnia ista sic fieri) or where there is consensus of opinion (2.12.2: convenit de illis, omnia ista in nubibus et e nubibus fieri). There may be a “test” implied in the flood, which is also decreed to happen (3.30.1: quando mergerentur terrena decretum est), that the reader should not lament such an event and understand that it is part of god’s will (cf. the plague of Lucretius 6.1137-1286 as a “test” for the addressee to gauge their reaction to death and suffering, see Morrison 2013: 211-12).

flere, queri et gemere desciscere est: Seneca also pairs forms of flere and queri at Ep. 99.8: flet aliquis factum quod aiebat non posse non fieri? quisquis aliquem queritur mortuum esse, queritur hominem fuisse. Here, flere contrasts the use of ferre above, indicating that those who do not “bear” the workings of fortune will weep. Medea, in a similarly verb-heavy line, is said to show many emotions: haeret minatur aestuat queritur gemit (Med. 390). Seneca imagines that the precept of “following god” should help those who lament having to endure the hardships of life at Dial. 7.15.6: habebit illud in animo vetus praeceptum: deum sequere. quisquis autem queritur et plorat et gemit, imperata facere vi cogitur et invitus rapitur ad iussa nihilominus. The string of infinitives steadily grows in syllables from two to four. Seneca often associates desciscere with philosophical positions (cf. Dial. 8.2.1: probabo tibi non desciscere me a praeceptis Stoicorum, Dial. 5.5.1 about ira, Ep. 122.9 for those acting against nature). Gareth Williams (per litteras) points out the lack of knowledge implied by descisco, especially marked by the use of scisses above and sciat below. The double cretic clausula helps to give this the ring of a sententia.

[3.pr.13] contra calamitates: Dial. 1.4.1 makes a complimentary point about the great man: at calamitates terroresque mortalium sub iugum mittere proprium magni viri est. Seneca points out the difference between those long inured to suffering and the weak-spirited at Dial. 12.2.3: fleant itaque diutius et gemant, quorum delicatas mentes eneravit longa felicitas, et ad levissimarum iniuriarum motus conlabantur: at quorum omnes anni per calamitates transierunt, gravissima quoque forti et inmobili constantia perferant. Although one might believe an immense flood, lightning strike, or earthquake could be deemed a calamitas, Seneca only utilizes this word here.

fortis et contumax: Cf. Cl. 1.24.2: Natura contumax est humanus animus et in contrarium atque arduum nitens sequiturque facilius quam ducitur. In the NQ, contumax can emphasize the power of the lightning bolt (2.52.1) and that of the flood waves at the end of the book (3.30.6, in that passage it is also infestum – see the following note). This strong ‘c’ alliteration elevates the power of the soul contra calamitates such as lightning and the flood, while describing their destructive qualities in language equally hostile and defiant. Seneca stresses that the Polyxena’s animus fortis and her view towards death were a worthy subject for tragedy (Tr. 1146, 1153). Dial. 5.37.3 and Ep. 113.24 also detail the features of the animus fortis.

luxuriae non aversus tantum sed infestus: aversus is to be preferred to adversus, cf. Vottero 1989: ad loc. It is not enough to merely be turned away (aversus) from luxury, but one must actively fight against it (infestus). infestus is now given a more positive definition than usually in Seneca, where it is used to define someone/thing hostile to the view of the speaker/writer. The insidious power of luxuria will be a motif throughout the NQ and luxuria had been censured in many of Seneca’s previous works (e.g. Dial. 3.21.1, Dial. 4.28.8, Dial. 7.13.2, Dial. 12.10.10, Ep. 78.23-24, Ep. 95.15-19, passim, Ep. 110.12-13, Ep. 122.14; NQ 3.17.2, 3.18.1, 4b.13.1, 7.31.1). For Seneca’s ability to resist luxuria, cf. Dial. 9.1.9. In NQ, luxuria is also a creative, yet baneful, force that competes with natura in ways that Seneca ultimately condemns (see note on 3.17.2 below, Berno 2003: 80-85, 163-65, and Williams 2012: 75-80, 85-7).

nec avidus periculi nec fugax: One should not seek out danger, but should not flee from it either. In de Providentia Seneca writes, avida est periculi virtus et quo tendat, non quid passura sit cogitat (Dial. 1.4.4). Here the stress is not so much on virtus as the soul’s view on fortune (see following note). fugax is a poetic word (cf. Hor. C. 2.5.17: quantum non Pholoe fugax; Ovid Trist. 4.10.38; Sen. Phaed.773: res est forma fugax), but he will use it again in the NQ to describe the battle between crocodiles and dolphins: fugax animal audaci, audacissimum timido (4a.2.14), 6.6.2 of breath (spiritu tam tenui fugacique), and of air at 7.22.1 (in re fugaci et mutabili). It appears in prose only in Livy previous to Seneca (5.28.8, 28.8.3, 30.28.3).

fortunam non expectare sed facere: For the contrast, cf. Dial. 5.5.5 about anger: vincit malignitatem et invidiam; illae enim infelicem fieri volunt, haec facere; illa fortuitis malis delectantur, haec non potest expectare fortunam; Ep. 72.4 on the happiness of the wise man: non enim ex alieno pendet nec favorem fortunae aut hominis expectat. Cf. Curt. 10.9.17: tutissimum ex praesentibus videbatur expectare potius quam movere fortunam. The absolute sense of “to make one’s (own) fortune” appears unattested before this passage, but Ep. 118.4 features (in a larger passage about facing fortune): hoc est privatam facere fortunam. The focus on fortuna in this preface encourages the reader to keep fortuna in mind throughout the NQ – it will appear at the conclusion of this book as an indication that the boon of good fortune can be destroyed quickly and easily: unus humanum genus condet dies; quicquid tam longa fortunae indulgentia excoluit, quicquid supra ceteros extulit…pessundabit (3.29.9), and reappear at the opening of 4a with some frequency (4a.pr.7, 4a.pr.21, 4a.pr.22).

adversus utramque: Both good and bad fortune.

intrepidus inconfususque: Like the “good man” of Dial. 3.12.2: officia sua vir bonus exequetur inconfusus, intrepidus; et sic bono viro digna faciet ut nihil faciat viro indignum. Seneca coins the term inconfusus (“undismayed”), which he uses adverbially with prodire here and with exequetur in Dial. 3.12.2 (hence the changed position of the words in these passages). inconfusus will be picked up by Apuleius when discussing the elements of the cosmos (Mun. 21.11).

prodire: To actively advance in the face of (adversus) fortune, whatever its guise, is a trait of the philosophically-trained mind. When in exile Seneca is able to muse that the place of exile does not matter: alacres itaque et erecti quocumque res tulerit intrepido gradu properemus (Dial. 12.8.5).

nec illius tumultu nec huius fulgore percussus: The use of the demonstratives illius…huius indicates “the latter…the former” with respect to the two types of fortune. Thus the tumult (tumultu) is of bad fortune and the “flash/glitter” (fulgore) is of good fortune. In either case, however, the soul is “stricken” (percussus). Seneca uses comparable language about Lucilius at Ep. 21.1-2 (retinet te huius vitae…fulgor, fulgore…percussa). fulgor appears in Seneca for regal pomp (Thy. 415), beauty (Phaed. 770, Apo. 4.1.31 – of Nero), and wealth (Dial. 6.18.6). Both of these terms will be associated with phenomena germane to the NQ: tumultus for earthquakes (6.13.1, 6.13.5) and fulgor for the coronae that surround stars and the moon (1.2.1, 1.3.3) and other sudden atmospheric lights (1.15.1, 2.12.6). The sublime animus is likened to the realm of the atmosphere above all storms and lightning at Dial. 5.6.1: omni tumultu caret: inferiora fulminantur. eodem modo sublimis animus…

[3.pr.14] admittere in animo mala consilia: Seneca has admittere+consilium of Livia’s advice to Augustus: ‘Admittis’ inquit ‘muliebre consilium?’ (Cl. 1.9.6). Elsewhere in Seneca, mala consilia is found of Aegisthus’s words to Clytemnestra: quid voce blandiloqua mala / consilia dictas? (Ag. 289-90), and of foolish or unthinking individuals at Ep. 10.2: nemo est ex inprudentibus qui relinqui sibi debeat; tunc mala consilia agitant, tunc aut aliis aut ipsis futura pericula struunt, tunc cupiditates inprobas ordinant. Seneca has similar language when discussing the Stoic position on emotions: quod [Stoici] dicamus dolorem aut admittandum in animum non esse aut cito expellendum, cf. Ep. 85.15. Also, cf. Publilius Syrus Sent. M.54: malum est consilium, quod mutari non potest.

puras…tollere: Clean hands were necessary in making prayers to the gods: cf. Ovid Met. 9.702-3, Sen. Oed. 790-1. For the juxtaposition of making prayers to the gods with a wicked conscience, cf. Ep. 10.4-5. For good prayers in general, cf. Ep. 32.5, 67.7; for the silly objectives of most prayer, cf. Ep. 31.5: quid votis opus est? fac te ipse felicem; Ep. 60.1-2, NQ 2.35. tollere will be repeated in the following section with spiritus, which connects the religious actions here with the philosophical view from above later and recalls the Vagellius quotation at 3.pr.3 supra.

nullum bonum petere: Seneca is fond of the sound and rhythm of nullum bonum and has this phrase at Dial. 7.4.2, Ep. 4.6.2, Ep. 90.35, Ep. 102.7, and Ep.102.8. Seneca examines the concept of the “good” often in his letters and Dialogi, and he defines it at Ep. 23.7 in ways complementary to this preface.

quod ut ad te transeat aliquis dare debet aliquis amittere: Further defining the good that you should not seek. Asyndeton and anaphora (aliquis) and wordplay (admittere/amittere) creates the stark contrast that goods depending on another’s beneficence or loss are not to be desired, because they are not in your control. The question of reciprocity in gift-giving as well as the social and philosophical background of such a practice can be found throughout de Beneficiis. Especially pertinent to Seneca’s view here include Ben. 2.15.2, 5.25.1, 5.8.1 (includes the phrase aliquis dare debet), and 6.8.2. At Ep. 32.4 Seneca encourages Lucilius not to pray for riches because such gain will come at someone else’s loss, while Ep. 36.4 claims that the best sort of benefit will aid both the giver and recipient. Forms of transire are important to this work as a whole and bridge ethical and physical changes (see note on 3.pr.3 supra).

optare (quod sine adversario optatur) bonam mentem: Seneca reports this is the sort of “old-fashioned prayer” (votorum…veterum) that one should address to the gods at Ep. 10.4: roga bonam mentem, and encourages Lucilius again and again to strive for a “good mind” as a goal: Ep. 17.1: ad bonam mentem; Ep. 23.1: te exhorter ad bonam mentem; Ep. 37.1, 41.1, 50.5, 68.14, passim. Such a prayer, Seneca parenthetically suggests, is not common and will find few challengers. Seneca has been stressing cognates of adversarius in the preface, see adversis (3.pr.7), adversa (3.pr.9), adversa (3.pr.12), adversus (3.pr.13). In de Providentia, Seneca writes that virtus needs an opponent: marcet sine adversario virtus (Dial. 1.2.4), but later in the NQ, the opponent is merely a rival critic: pauca enim admodum sunt sine adversario; cetera, etsi vincunt, litigant (4b.5.1). This phrase not only connects these two sections, but shows how legal rhetoric (adversarius, s.v. OLD 3) infuses Seneca’s account – cf. Wray 2009: 247-50 (on forensic and judicial analogies in the letters and tragedies) and Lehoux 2012: 77-105, who postulates the “judicial model” as the key to understanding Seneca’s epistemology.

magno aestimata mortalibus: At Dial. 4.36.6, Seneca mentions the “highly prized honors” of political office (magno aestimata…insignia), and often investigates the (defective) attitude towards worldly goods and social position (Ben. 1.11.1, 2.29.5; Ep. 45.9, 47.17, 74.27). For his purpose in the NQ, it is important to esteem/measure elements and events according to natura writ large, and not merely by our calculations: cf. 3.25.6: grave autem et leve est, non aestimatione nostra, sed comparatione eius quo vehi debet, and 4b.11.4 (about the relative size of mountains): at quisquis mundum mensura sua aestimaverit et terram cogitaverit tenere puncti locum, intelleget nihil in illa posse ita eminere ut caelestia magis sentiat, velut in propinquum illis accesserit.

casus: Even if some chance should bring one of these “goods” into one’s home, receive it ambivalently. Seneca’s tragedies often mention the workings of chance with the connotation of a “fall” about to happen, cf. Thy. 35-6: miser ex potente fiat, ex misero potens, / fluctuque regnum casus assiduo ferat. Above the levis…casus indicates a “light misfortune” but casus can lead to positive as well as negative results (as in this sentence, s.v. OLD 3). To be fortified against chance is one of the goals of Stoic philosophy, cf. Ep. 74.19: adversus hos casus muniendi sumus, Ep. 85.38: ad utrosque casus aptatus est: bonorum rector est, malorum victor. Elsewhere in NQ, it has a range of meanings from mere accident at 1.17.6, to death by lightning bolt at 2.59.13, to the various grammatical cases at 5.17.1, and even earthquakes at 6.32.2.

sic intueri quasi: In the NQ intueri can be used for “investigation” (2.31.1, 2.42.1), but usually is associated with eyesight (1.3.6, 1.3.10, 1.16.4) and often the limits of eyewitness knowledge (3.28.5, 7.25.7). For sic…quasi, cf. 3.pr.12 above.

exitura qua venerint: This advice is mirrored in Ep. 18.13 about wealth: quod uno consequeris modo, si te etiam sine illis beate victurum persuaseris tibi, si illas tamquam exituras semper aspexeris. If a benefit is given rightly, it will become an undying benefit in the recipient: in partem interiorem animi numquam exitura descendunt (Ben. 1.15.4). Note the use of exiturus of the waves at the conclusion of the book (3.30.2). This section as a whole features multiple metaphors featuring movement in order to point out how the animus must withstand possible incursions, how “goods” are transient (even “mortal” exitura) and probably improperly defined as such by the multitude, and how a “good mind” is the most important possession. Such metaphors of movement are important to Seneca’s larger project in the NQ.

[3.pr.15] altos supra fortuita spiritus tollere: This repeats and varies the quotation of Vagellius at 3.pr.3 and the guidance at 3.pr.11, and shows the general hortatory nature of this section as a whole, cf. Limberg 2007: 136-42. Whereas the advice at 3.pr.11 then turned to hopes and desires, here Seneca begins similarly but moves in a different direction. Even though the sentiment is parallel, it is notable that Seneca provides novel touches in diction such as pairing tollere with spiritus and not the customary animos. Seneca gives similar words to Megara at Herc. F. 384-5: dominare tumidus, spiritus altos gere: / sequitur superbos ultor a tergo deus. If this prologue is aiming to designate important terms for later books, spiritus as both “air/wind” and the Stoic pneuma unites much of NQ 5, is the ultimate source of earthquakes in NQ 6, and is important for the discussion of lightning in NQ 2.6-11, cf. Schiesaro 2015: 247 for pneuma in the NQ; Long and Sedley 1987: 1.278, 280-89, 292-4 and White 2003: 134-6, 185-6 for more on pneuma in Stoicism in general. Elsewhere Seneca defines the highest good as animus fortuita despiciens, virtute laetus (Dial. 7.4.2), and the strong man cum ratione fortuita despiciens (Ben. 2.34.4). It is interesting that, in spite of the general Stoic belief that all things are controlled by god/fate (causa pendet ex causa, Dial. 1.5.7), Seneca uses fortuita of apparently “chance” events somehow beyond the rationale known to man (NQ 2.32.4, 2.55.3, 7.27.6). For more on the Stoic “totalizing worldview” and Seneca’s attempt to elucidate it in the NQ, cf. Schiesaro 2015: 246-8.

hominis meminisse: For memini + gen. in Seneca, cf. Ep. 81.7: iudex…iniuriae oblivisci iubebit, officii meminisse. The sentiment is similar to that of the “Epicurean” interlocutor of Ep. 123.10: hoc est vivere, hoc est se mortalem esse meminisse. This formulation will be picked up by Pseudo-Quintilian [Quint.] Decl. 9.17: inter simultates quoque meminisse hominis.

sive felix est: The parallel structure of the remaining clauses helps to emphasize Seneca’s message that by being mindful of mortality, one will recognize the fleeting nature of happiness and sorrow. Seneca enjoys playing with the contrast between felix/infelix (cf. Ep. 94.67, Ben. 4.40.2, Ep. 110.4 about death: prope est rerum omnium terminus, prope est, inquam, et illud, unde felix eicitur et illud, unde infelix emittitur), most emphatically in the final line of Ep. 124: brevem tibi formulam dabo qua te metiaris, qua perfectum esse iam sentias: tunc habebis tuum cum intelleges infelicissimos esse felices (Ep. 124.24).

hoc non futurum diu: In a letter to Lucilius reflecting his attitude towards death, Seneca writes: paratus exire sum et ideo fruar vita, quia quam diu futurum hoc sit, non nimis pendeo, Ep. 61.2. This letter should be dated to around the time of the completion of the NQ. He also discusses the ultimate importance of one’s intellectual perception of goods/evils, cf. Ep. 76.35: ideo sapiens adsuescit futuris malis, et quae alii patiendo levia faciunt hic levia facit diu cogitando; Ep. 107.4.

si non putes: The “sting in the tail” of the clause that shows how one can actively determine the valence one puts on difficult circumstances. Seneca believes the individual has the power to verify what makes one truly felix or infelix. The play between knowledge (scias) and thought (putes) and the modification of “evils” appears in his Dialogi, cf. Dial. 6.9.5: quicquam tu putas non futurum quod scis posse fieri, quod multis vides evenisse?; Dial. 1.3.14: ut omnes sciant non esse haec mala quibus ego dignum Catonem putavi; Dial. 9.10.2 also stresses how one’s perception of evils should be informed by knowledge: cum sciret quibus aerumnis nasceremur.

[3.pr.16] in primis labris animam habere: Seneca’s focus on the mind (animus) now gives way to a conception of the soul (anima) at the point of death (for the distinction, cf. Ep. 4.4.2: difficile est…animum perducere ad contemptionem animae, and Tr. 951-2. This phrase indicates a willingness to die, should the need arise, cf. Ep. 30.14: non dubitare autem se quin senilis anima in primis labris esset nec magna vi destraheretur a corpore. The Roman belief is that the soul (anima) leaves through the final breath of the dying individual: Seneca’s description of Julius Canus’ death focuses on his interrogation of the soul as it leaves his body (Dial. 9.14.9-10). While the sentiment applies to Seneca (and Lucilius) as senex, the thrust is that this advice holds for all, cf. Ep. 70 and Ep. 77 for Seneca’s view on suicide, Griffin 1976: 367-88, Plass 1988: 101-2, Hill 2004: 146 for Seneca as “suicidocentric”, and Ker 2009a: 247-79. Arguments against the fear of death will pepper NQ 2 and 6, cf. Scott 1999: 60-2 who contends that the study of physics in these books, “produces a wisdom that reveals fate and thus removes fear [of death]” (62). Of course, Lucretius’ DRN aims to do something similar, but from the opposing philosophical point of view, see Morrison 2013 for Lucretius and, broadly, Schiesaro 2015 for Seneca and Epicurus, and Williams 2016 for Seneca and Lucretius.

e iure Quiritium liberum: Such a stance towards death will cause one to be free (liber) “according to the law of the Quirites”. Originally the word denotes the citizens of the ancient Sabine town Cures, but gradually it became the way Romans referred to themselves in a civil capacity. The ius Quiritium in Roman law designates full Roman citizenship, cf. Cic. Pro Caec. 96.9: qui enim potest iure Quiritium liber esse is qui in numero Quiritium non est? and Cic. Mur. 26.4. Seneca is not only setting the reader up for the following distinctions between servitude and freedom, but is also making a profound point about how such a view will allow one to be free under the worst conditions of servitude (Dial. 6.20.3), or even under the principate (cf. Ker 2009a: 264-5, 267-8). It also contrasts the difference between the Stoic conception of a cosmopolitan world-citizenship with the more limited Roman jurisdiction (cf. Schofield 1991 and Vogt 2008 for more on early Stoic views of cosmopolitanism, and Lavery 1997 for Seneca’s view). As Vogt 2008: 3 explains “The Stoics envisage a law that applies to everyone, a law that is fundamentally different from the various laws that regulate life in particular political states” (her emphasis). If a Roman citizen was ordered to commit suicide and did so, he could still have control over his estate, but the “staging” of the suicide could indicate political protest (Plass 1995: 92-115) and, for Seneca, “Liberty..is an effect of in primis labris animam habere”, (Rosenmeyer 2000: 108n.33).

e iure naturae: This phrase is not common in Seneca, but does appear later in this book about waters under the earth (NQ 3.16.4) and in his tragedies at Phoen. 478 and Oed. 25. Cicero likewise couples this phrase with the “law of the Roman people” at Fin. 3.47.12. Seneca implicitly endorses the polysemy of the word libertas by presenting alternative definitions according to alternative “jurisdictions”. This example sets up the reader for alternative meanings of words according to their philosophical or “standard” meanings, cf. the note on spiritus at 3.pr.15. In Ep. 90.34, Seneca writes how the wise man understands nature and the “law of life” (vitae lex), which involves knowledge of god, and obedience to their decrees (nec nosse tantum sed sequi deos). Watson 1971 discusses natural law in reference to Stoicism, Mitsis 1999 shows how Stoic ideas of natural law came to influence the idea of natural rights, Inwood 2005: 224-48 investigates natural law in Seneca, Beretta 2012 examines natural law in Seneca and Lucretius, and Citti 2015 shows its importance in declamation and Seneca’s own influence on later declaimers.

qui servitutem suam effugit: To be free (liber) in Rome is, legally, not to be a slave (servus), but Seneca gives this definition his own particular spin. For the Stoics, only the wise man is free (cf. Hor. Serm. 2.7.83, Epist. 1.1.106-7, SVF 3.589-603). For more on freedom in Seneca, cf. Degl’Innocenti Pierini 2014 and de Pietro 2014: 358-60. “self-enslavement” (servitutem suam) will be further defined below, but can be paralleled at Ep. 80.4: quid autem melius potes velle quam eripere te huic servituti. Tacitus features the phrase in a more political context, Agr. 31.3: nata servituti mancipia semel veneunt, atque ultro a dominis aluntur: Britannia servitutem suam cotidie emit, cotidie pascit.

adsidua et ineluctabilis: Further describing the servitus. adsidua is relatively common in the NQ, and appears at the conclusion of this book when applied to erosion (3.29.6), but also defines the cacophony of desires afflicting most individuals (4a.pr.2): necesse est itaque adsidua sit in tam magno vitiorum contubernio rixa. This same struggle seems to be at play here so one can read the preface of Book 4 as a recollection and expansion of this passage. ineluctabilis appears only in Vergil’s Aeneid (2.324 and 8.334) before its two appearances in NQ (also at 6.7.2 about the supposed swamp by the source of the Nile) and would seem to be a conscious poetic touch of Seneca at this point in his preface.

per diem ac noctem…premens: Seneca’s comic Claudius would listen to the lawyers “day and night” (diem et noctem, Apo. 7.5.2), but this phrase per diem ac noctem is found at two additional moments in the NQ (3.25.8 and 6.16.3), and at 3.10.2 we find [spiritus] per dies noctesque aequaliter fluit. This phrase also looks back to the beginning of the preface and the call there to add night to day (nox ad diem, 3.pr.2). While there are natural occurrences that should move equally at all times (also cf. 1.pr. 13, 1.14.2), one’s slavery to the body and worthless desires should not.

sine intervallo sine commeatu: Seneca will use sine intervallo to describe the colors of a rainbow (1.3.8) and forms of intervallum will appear 25 times in the NQ. commeatus in the sense of “rest, furlough” can also be found at Ep. 54.1: longum mihi commeatum dederat mala valetudo.

[3.pr.17] sibi servire: One should actually be a slave to philosophy not oneself, cf. Ep. 8.7: hoc enim ipsum philosophiae servire libertas est. True libertas is defined as: nulli rei servire, nulli necessitati, nullis casibus, fortunam in aequum deducere (Ep. 51.9), Ep. 113.30: imperare sibi maximum imperium est. This use of the reflexive sibi is probably meant to recall 3.pr.2: sibi totus animus in order to indicate the disadvantages and of this sort of slavery to the self.

gravissima est servitus: the sibilance of this clause and its rhythm (double cretic) gives it the feel of a sententia. Also cf. Dial. 9.2.14 where such selfishness is gravissimus comes. Edwards 2009: 154-9 remarks on the legal language that often surrounds Seneca’s conception of freedom in relation to slavery as well as the political connotations libertas can have in the principate. For the latter, cf. Braund 2009: ad 1.1.8 on libertas.

quam discutere facile est: In spite of its very burdensome nature, it is easy to “shatter/dispel” such slavery. At Ep. 95.8 wisdom discutit…inpedimenta et iactat obstantia. In the NQ we find that ethics errores nostros discutit (1.pr. 2), and this verb is applied to certain phenomena (1.6.3, 7.2.2) as well as the various easy ways we may be killed (circumspicite quam levibus causis discutiamur, 6.2.3). At NQ 4b.13.10, Seneca repeats the quam…facile est construction to speak about proper hunger (quam facile est extinguere sitim sanam) – it would appear most phenomena, even the most destructive are “easy” for nature, cf. 3.30.1: sunt omnia…facilia naturae, so it should be relatively easy to make progress in one’s quest to live according to nature.

si desieris: The repetition of this phrase and the quid questions at the end of this section add to its insistent protreptic tone. Note Seneca’s quotation of Hecato (1st century BCE Stoic philospher based at Rhodes) at Ep. 5.7: ‘Desines’ inquit ‘timere, si sperare desieris’. Again, one’s perception matters for supposed necessities: desideria ipsa moriuntur; non est autem acerbum carere eo quod cupere desieris (Ep. 78.11).

multa te poscere: To stop “expecting a lot from yourself” (Hine) is not a plea for slovenly otium but rather an encouragment to focus on what is really important. When Seneca muses about the earth as the matter of the world (mundi…materia), he claims that it supplies the numerous demands of all living things: hinc ipsi mundo tam multa poscenti subministrantur (NQ 2.5.2) and does so per diem noctemque. Seneca may want to contrast those that do not live according to nature and nature itself by recalling this moment in Book 2.

tibi referre mercedem: Seneca the Elder writes ut sibi mercedem referrent (Contr. 10.4.pr.3 excerpta). The rewards of studying nature will be self-sustaining without any specific “profit”: quod hominem magnificentia sui detinet nec mercede sed miraculo colitur (NQ 6.4.2).

ante oculos et tuam naturam posueris et aetatem, licet prima sit: Cf. Cic. Ad Her. 2.22, 4.45, 4.48, passim for this expression and its importance for the orator. Seneca features it at moments in which he wants to encourage reflection: Dial. 6.2.2: duo tibi ponam ante oculos maxima…exempla and Ep. 91.8: tota ante oculos sortis humanae condicio ponatur. At Ep. 11.8 Seneca translates an Epicurean maxim that encourages one “to keep a man of high character ever before your eyes” (ante oculos habendus). If this is what we should keep before our eyes, Seneca displays his disgust for those who place different images before their eyes, such as the mullet-eaters at NQ 3.17-18 and Hostius Quadra at NQ 1.16. For more on the mullet-eaters see below as well as Roby 2014: 155-7 where she finds, “The diners’ insistence on witnessing the mullet’s death for themselves turns them into parodic empiricists”. Although Lucilius is only a couple years younger than Seneca, Seneca believes this advice will hold no matter the age of the reader (licet prima sit) precisely because of one’s mortal natura, cf. Ep. 12.6.1-2: ‘Molestum est’ inquis ‘mortem ante oculos habere.’ primum ista tam seni ante oculos debet esse quam iuveni non enim citamur ex censu. Seneca frequently writes of his attempts to think about death: e.g. Ep. 26.5-7, Ep. 49.9-10, Ep. 54.7, Ep. 61.2-4. Such thoughts will reappear when discussing the fear of death at NQ 6.32.1-12.

tibi ipse dixeris: This sort of self-address is very common in Seneca and appears throughout his dramatic works and prose treatises. Star 2012: 23-83 tackles this subject with aplomb.

quid insanio?: The first in a series of questions that are answered at the conclusion of the section. The use here resembles his description of the salutatio at Dial. 10.14.3: isti qui per officia discursant, qui se aliosque inquietant, cum bene insanierint… and his address to those who misjudge the importance of a retinue at Ep. 87.5: ‘insanitis, erratis, stupetis ad supervacua, neminem aestimatis suo…’. Note that luxuria stokes its own madness at NQ 7.31.1: inventi luxuria aliquid novi, in quod insaniat.

quid anhelo?: Such panting is a mark of madness at Dial. 5.4.2 (anhelitus crebros), but can also be used of the final breath (in extro anhelitu, Ep. 30.14) and Seneca’s own asthmatic condition (Ep. 54.6). In the NQ it is used of fish purveyors who bring today’s catch to market at a run (cum anhelitu et clamore, 3.18.2) and in an analogy for the occurrence of earthquakes (6.14.2).

quid sudo?: Like anhelo used to denote strain from exertion, and also a sign of madness (Oed. 923). The problem is that too often we sweat to achieve unnecessary things, cf. Ep. 4.11.2: ad supervacua sudatur; as opposed to the sweat-worthy labors (Dial. 1.1.6, Ep. 67.13, Ep. 86.11). Without philosophy, life is not worth the sweat and bother: detrahe hoc inaestimabile bonum, non est vita tanti ut sudem, ut aestuem (NQ 1.pr.4). The earth itself seems to sweat at times (NQ 3.15.7) and, in a bold simile, just as when we expend our energy we sweat, so the earth will dissolve in the flood: quemadmodum in sudorem eunt vires, ita tellus liquefiet (NQ 3.30.4).

quid terram, quid forum verso?: A fine zeugma – verso applies more literally to terram and figuratively to forum (s.v. OLD 2). Cf. Ver. G. 1.118-9: haec cum sint hominumque boumque labores / versando terram experti. Two of the primary virtuous pursuits for a Roman citizen – farmer and politician – are contrasted with the pursuit of philosophy.

nec multo opus est nec diu: The simple life requires little for happiness and, regardless, life is short – much like the celestial phenomena that are too brief to merit a name (NQ 7.19.2: nec diu durant) or the clouds of the sky (NQ 1.5.8: nec diu cohaesurae). As a whole, this section promotes “attunement to the cosmic now as a goal in and of itself, detaching us from the anxious rush of life” (Williams 2012: 45).

[3.pr.18] proderit nobis: Cf. Dial. 5.6.31: proderit nobis illud Democriti salutare praeceptum; Ben. 6.12.2: ille, qui totus ad se spectat et nobis prodest… In this final section of the preface, Seneca lists the benefits that the study of nature will produce.

inspicere rerum naturam: In order to live “according to nature” (propositum est nobis secundum rerum naturam vivere et deorum exemplum sequi, Ben. 4.25.1), we must first investigate nature: its component parts (NQ 2.2.1, 3.12.1), secrets (NQ 6.5.2, 7.30.6), and powers (NQ 6.21.1, 6.32.6). At the close of the preface, the call to investigate the rerum natura will signal to the reader a rivalry with Lucretius’ own De Rerum Natura, which covers many of the same topics. Hine prints the reading of Z: rerum inspicere naturam, but Seneca’s practice is to keep rerum natura together as a unit (as in Ψ). For more on the term rerum natura in Seneca, cf. Kreuzwieser 2016: 34-37, 41-46, and for more on Seneca’s general notion of natura see the preface and Rosenmeyer 2000.

discedemus a sordidis: This is what the animus aspires to at NQ 1.pr.11: si sordidum omne detersit… Throughout the NQ Seneca stresses that contemplatio of nature is also, ultimately, the study of god, see Setaioli 2007: 353-55. The study of nature (wordplay with discere and discedere) will convince us to remove ourselves from lowly and base concerns/topics/people, cf. Inwood 2009: 216 “We begin from the simple appeal of avoiding what is lowly and dirty…and move on to the more familiar justification of physics in terms of its moral payoff”. At Ep. 99.17, Seneca writes about the opposite impulse that occurs when we give in to the impulses of the mob: a natura discedimus, populo nos damus nullius rei bono auctori et in hac re sicut in his omnibus inconstantissimo.

animum ipsum…seducemus a corpore: As the wise man will do, cf. Ep. 78.10: ideo vir magnus ac prudens animum diducit a corpore. The body/soul divide is stressed throughout Seneca’s prose works, e.g. Ep. 92.10, 33; Dial. 7.22.2, and NQ 7.25.2. This Platonic division is well-deliberated in Reydams-Schils 2010a: 199-215 and Inwood 2009: 217 points to Ep. 65.19-24 as illustrating a similar pay-off: “The defence of serious cosmological activity concludes with an assertion of the close connection of god and our mind (in contrast to the body) and the way that an awareness of our place in the cosmos enables us to put misfortune and death into perspective”.

summo magnoque opus est: Manuscripts differ between summo and sano, cf. Vottero 1989: 149 for discussion (he reads sano). Does the mind need to be “elevated” (summo) or “healthy” (sano) for these investigations? While there is evidence in Seneca of sanus animus (Ep. 9.13, Ep. 114.22), there is little evidence for summus animus aside from Dial. 3.19.5. Nevertheless, the strong movement upwards in this preface and the distancing of the enlightened mind from concerns of the body convince me that summo is the preferred reading. The repetition of opus est from 3.pr.17 (nec multo opus est nec diu) stresses what is needed.

in occultis: When considering philosophical models and the tendency of ratio to not be satisfied with the manifest world, Seneca employs similar language, Ep. 95.61: ratio autem non impletur manifestis; maior eius pars pulchiorque in occultis est. Hidden matters need models and doctrine to explain them, much like what we find detailed in NQ, and the very inquiry into hidden matters is first emphasized at 3.pr.1 supra, which leads to the ring composition of this preface as a whole. Cf. Roby 2014 for more on Seneca’s use of scientific models in the NQ.

exercitata subtilitas: At times Seneca disparages excessive subtilitas in philosophical discussions (Ep. 58.25, Ep. 82.24: quaedam inutilia et inefficacia ipsa subtilitas reddit), but here he gives it a more positive spin, which is then reflected by a later use of the word in the NQ (2.50.1). The ability to theorize and think critically about hidden matters will only help the proficiens as one attempts to learn about the natural world.

in aperta deterior: Elsewhere Seneca examines the difference between hidden and open vices (Ep. 56.10, Dial. 9.1.1) and in the NQ Seneca posits the horizon as the line between the visible and the hidden: quae inter aperta et occulta est (5.17.2). non + deterior is an example of litotes and can be seen in an example of subtilitas at Ep. 85.30. deterior here probably is meant to recall in deterius above at 3.pr.8. Roby 2014: 178 emphasizes the “playful inversion of the traditional formula that analogy moves from visible to hidden things” and how this would act as “a thought-provoking programmatic statement of the rich rhetorical and epistemological adventure the reader is about to undertake”.

nihil est autem apertius his salutaribus: An interesting movement from the study of things “visible” to those very things being equated with the remedies against vice. For examples of these “remedies”, cf. Dial. 5.6.3, 5.41.1 and Ep. 88.39 (precepts); and actions such as separating yourself from the crowd, Dial. 8.1.1. Here Seneca would seem to be making a connection between the study of nature and the creation of such remedies and we should read this as an important theme in the work, even if he disparages our ability to practice what we preech at the conclusion of this sentence. Seneca often claims to try to find something “beneficial” in the writings of poets (Ep. 108.9, Ep. 113.26) and later in the NQ will make a similar claim that also features language from this clause: omnibus enim rebus omnibusque sermonibus aliquid salutare miscendum est. cum imus per occulta naturae, cum divina tractamus, vindicandus est a malis suis animus ac subinde firmandus… (2.59.2). Seneca puts words into Lucilius’ mouth to indicate how philosophy can act as a cure: ad salutare philosophiae contuli studium, NQ 4a.pr.14.

contra nequitiam nostram furoremque discuntur: Seneca often rails against nequitia, as the root of ira (Dial. 4.12.1), as the expression of internal wickedness (Ep. 42.4), and as a spur for evil (Ep. 88.7). He also discusses how it is consistent throughout time (cf. Ben. 1.10.1: regnare nequitiam). nequitia is important in the NQ as the first diminishment of primitive innocence (3.30.8: cito nequitia subrepit), as the opposition to sapientia and still on the rise (7.32.1), and as a stimulus to further vice for Hostius Quadra (1.16.8: quo nequitiam meam, si ad naturae modum pecco?). Manilius pairs furor and nequities at 2.600-602. nostram furorem is a Vergilian phrase, cf. Ecl. 10.60: tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris and will be repeated at the conclusion of NQ 5: si bene illorum furorem aestimaveris, - id est nostrum, in eadem enim turba volutamur, - magis ridebis… (5.18.16). discere is an important verb for the NQ as Seneca earlier claimed that he aimed to teach (docere, 3.pr.7) ethics in part through the understanding of physics. The reader should apply his learning towards natural phenomena (1.pr.3, 1.pr.13), recognize that philosophia could be strengthened by learning (7.32.4: hoc minores addiscerent), but also keep in mind that sine magistro vitia discuntur (3.30.8) – indeed the same form appears as the final word of the book!

quae damnamus nec ponimus: damnare appears at 4a.pr.10 and 6.19.1. The ironic and pointed use of ponimus is particularly “Senecan”, as he gives particular emphasis to the final word of the clause (e.g. Ep. 55.5: non continuo sibi vivit qui nemini; Ep. 5.9: multa bona nostra nobis nocent). This befits the conclusion of this preface (cf. Ep. 77.20: tantum bonam clausulam impone). The hypocrisy of those implicated in this phrase is damning, but see Jones 2014 for a fascinating articulation of hypocrisy as a strategy Seneca adopts in his Epistulae. Seneca ends with ponimus as he began with ponam (3.pref.1), so we can see ring-composition on a larger level (discuntur) and smaller level in this final sentence. For more on this conclusion, see Gauly 2004: 90-96.
******
******