[3.13.1] ut Thales ait, ‘valentissimum elementum est’: Thales of Miletus is generally considered the father of philosophy and is one of the traditional Seven Sages. Among these sages, Thales stands out for the variety of his pursuits: philosophy, geometry, science, even politics. His philosophical system is based on the idea that water is the original element (Aristotle Meta. 983b6-13, 17-27, cf. Schofield 1997 for more on the idea of ἀρχή) and that god “is the mind that formed everything from water” (Cicero N.D. 1.10.25). Thales has been well-served by the edition of Wöhrle (2009). Seneca cites Thales four times in the NQ, cf. 3.14.1 infra, 4a.2.22 (on the flooding of the Nile), and 6.6.1 (on water as the cause of earthquakes), see Hall 1977: 433-34, Setaioli 1988: 435-36 for more on a possible Stoic source for Seneca’s discussion of Thales, and Parroni 2005: 160 for his employment of Thales in the NQ. Seneca will use comparative and superlative forms of valens to explain the workings of the physical world (e.g. 6.17.2, 2.54.3). Here it implies both strength as well as potential (s.v. OLD 2a, 5b). This fragment is absent from Graham 2010, but is DK 11A12. The power and life-giving abilities of water is one of the reasons that Seneca begins the Naturales Quaestiones with this element.
ex hoc surrexisse omnia: According to Aëtius (Graham 2010: Ths. 16) and Aristotle this is because of Thales’ recognition that the seeds of all things have a moist nature and that heat arises from water. Vitruvius likewise stresses Thales’ views about water at 2.2.1 and 8.pr.1: Thales Milesius omnium rerum principium aquam est professus. The questioning of origins is the sort of musing fitting to a philosopher: nec intra haec humani ingenii sagacitas sistitur; prospicere et ultra mundum libet, quo feratur, unde surrexerit, in quem exitium tanta rerum velocitas properet, Ep. 110.9.
sed nos: Here referring to the Stoics, as often in the NQ and in Seneca’s philosophical writings, e.g. Ep. 65.2, Ep. 82.19, NQ 7.22.1, NQ 1.8.4.
in eadem sententia aut in vicinia eius sumus: esse+in = “we depend on (s.v. Lewis and Short I.A.5) the same idea or, at any rate, a closely related one” here referring to the Stoic idea of ἐκπύρωσις in which the universe is periodically consumed by fire. After such a conflagration has died down, the Stoics believed that water would be created and life would begin again (cf. Plutarch On Stoic self-contradictions 1053B “He [Chrysippus] says that when conflagration has occurred through and through…as it goes out again and condenses, it turns into water and earth and bodily nature” and Long and Sedley 1987: 274-79 for further sources and discussion, see note 3.pr.5 supra). in vicinia is an emendation of Madvig and is paralleled at Ep. 79.5: Primi sunt qui sapientiam nondum habent sed iam in vicinia eius constiterunt.
qui occupet mundum et in se cuncta convertat: occupare will be used later of the flood waters at NQ 3.28.6. Seneca’s concluding diatribe of NQ 5 features this verb often (5.18.5, 5.18.9: [Mors] occupabit vos in vestra domo. sed occupet nullum molientes malum!). Seneca likes the phrase in se+convertere and uses it often in his philosophical prose (e.g. Dial. 6.21.7, 12.18.5, NQ 5.12.3). Seneca has prepared the reader for such elemental conversions in NQ 3.9-3.10, cf. convertat (3.9.2), convertitur (3.9.3).
hunc evanidum languentemque considere: Accusative+infinitive construction still predicated on dicimus. Seneca will use evanescere to discuss hot water that must be cooled before use (NQ 3.24.1). Vergil writes about the fall of Troy, Tum vero omne mihi visum considere in ignis / Ilium et ex imo verti Neptunia Troia, A. 2.624, cf. A. 9.145. Seneca employs similar language of the depraved night-owls who do not go outside during the day and look like the walking dead (Ep. 122.4: languidi et evanidi albent, et in vivis caro morticia est).
in hoc futuri mundi spem latere: Lucan’s Caesar tells his soldiers, nec sanguine multo / spem mundi petitis (7.269-70) about their hope for rule. Otherwise there are no parallels to futurus mundus or other components of this striking phrase. The idea of “hiding” found in latere is paralleled at NQ 7.30.4 where Seneca writes about our unsurprising ignorance about certain phenomena “since the greatest part of the cosmos, namely god, lies hidden!” (cum maxima pars mundi, deus, lateat!). Remember the huge veins of water hiding earlier in the work (3.3.1), which will be further described at 3.15.1 infra.
ignis exitus mundi est, umor primordium: Later in this book, Seneca will hypothesize that destruction can happen by fire or water, see note on NQ 3.28.7 infra. primordia is common in Lucretius (quoted by Seneca at Ep. 95.11) and of Pythagoras’ speech in Ovid (Met. 15.67, 15.391). Elsewhere in Latin, exitus and primordium are not used as antonyms. If water is the source of the cosmos, it is also the source of this book and Seneca’s quaestiones. Such a sense can be seen in Latin translations of Aratus (Iove Musarum primordia, Cic. Arat. 1). The Stoic foundation of this idea is well-explored in Hahm 1977: 57 who claims that after the ἐκπύρωσις, “The initial condition is a mass of pure fire (SVF 2.605). This entire mass of fire changes to air, and then from air to water (SVF 1.102, 2.580, 581, 590). At this point nothing but a mass of water would be visible to an observer. The four elements of which the present cosmos consists are produced from this water”. There may be some wordplay with umor hiding in primordium.
miraris ex hoc posse amnes semper exire: Another rhetorical question for the interlocutor or reader, now enriched with wordplay between exire and exitus of the previous sentence. There is a possible allusion with Lucretius’ own use of flood/fire “myths” to prove the earth’s mortality at 5.338-50. There, he remarks on the floods caused by rain: aut ex imbribus adsiduis exisse rapaces / per terras amnes atque oppida coperuisse (5.341-2). While Seneca has been foreshadowing the flood to come with his discussion of ἐκπύρωσις, for Lucretius both are marshaled to prove the mortal nature of the world (an idea that Seneca supports).
qui pro omnibus fuit et ex quo sunt omnia?: Pro here has the sense of “as good as/the equivalent of” (s.v. OLD 9b). ex quo sunt omnia restates ex hoc surrexisse omnia at NQ 3.13.1 and echoes Cicero’s words on divine providence (ex quo et oriuntur et fiunt omnia, N.D. 2.88.8) and the Stoic conception of fire (ex quo omnia generari, N.D. 3.18.11). In Book 2 of this work, Seneca likewise writes of god/natura in a similar way: hic est ex quo suspensa sunt omnia; hic est ex quo nata sunt omnia, 2.45.2. This question then hints as the absurdity of asking about the origin of rivers when water takes on a quasi-divine status in its potential for creation.
hic in diductione rerum ad quartas redactus est: “In this distribution of elements, this has been reduced to a fourth…”
sic positus ut: The water was positioned in a place (i.e. underground) where it could supply the various terrestrial waters.
sufficere: See note supra on NQ 3.4.1. Here it is used intransitively with the dative gerundive construction (OLD 5a) “to have sufficient resources for”. At NQ 3.4.1, Seneca will also group together the same three waters: quamcumque rationem reddiderimus de flumine, eadem erit rivorum ac fontium.
fluminibus edendis, ut rivis, ut fontibus posset: One must supply sufficere and edendis with rivis and fontibus. Note his repetition of this at NQ 6.7.3: neque enim sufficeret tellus ad tot flumina edenda, nisi ex reposito multoque funderet. Such repetitions of phrases throughout the work help to hammer home foundational concepts that the reader must adopt to understand his work and his world view.
******
******
