[3.14.1] Thaletis inepta sententia est: After endorsing with some modifications Thales’ belief in the power and potential of water, Seneca dismisses his belief that the earth essentially rests on water (DK 11A15), according to Thales “like a piece of wood” (cf. Arist. De Caelo 294a28-31), although Seneca reports it is “in the manner of a ship” (more navigii). For Barnes 1979: 9-11, the analogy may be weak, but marks a fundamental feature of Presocratic thought “from Thales onward, analogical illustration and argument are frequent; the analogies are often drawn from humble and unscientific areas, and they are sometimes put out with some ingenuity”. It is notable that Seneca often uses forms of ineptus to refer to jokes and comic business (Dial. 9.11.8, Dial. 4.10.1), so his dismissal (explode) takes on theatrical overtones. In the Naturales Quaestiones, this first appearance of ineptus is followed by later uses in literary criticism about Ovid (pueriles ineptias, 3.27.13), an amusing vignette about hail-watchers (4b.6.1), and Lucilius’ complaint that the physics of the account are mere quibbling (4b.13.1) and not constructive (istas…ineptias quibus litteratior est quisque, non melior).
terrarum orbem aqua sustineri: orbis terrarum/terrae is commonly used (OLD 12) to indicate “The central land surface of the world (as conceived by the ancients surrounded by Ocean, and consisting roughly of Europe, Asia, and Africa), the world”. Seneca will muse on why certain objects float on water at NQ 2.9.3 (aqua enim cederet nec posset pondere sustinere, nisi ipsa sustineretur).
vehi more navigii: An analogy he will repeat at NQ 6.6.1: hac…unda sustinetur orbis velut aliquod grande navigium et grave his aquis quas premit. In that section he dismisses Thales ideas more systematically, while often recalling the language found here (cf. 6.6.3 as well). This analogy may also foreshadow Seneca's later use of naufragium to describe the flood at 3.28.2.
mobilitateque fluctuare tunc cum dicitur tremere: mobilitate implies that the land has nothing mooring it in place. fluctuare can be used of earthquakes (cf. NQ 6.1.4) and here Seneca/Thales points to the similarity in movement between earthquakes (tremere) and the rippling of waves or a ship at sea.
‘non est ergo mirum si abundat umore ad flumina profundenda’: This direct quote is not found elsewhere in the fragments of Thales. The argumentative strategy and appeal to the everyday (non est…mirum) is paralleled in Seneca’s own arguments. If Thales believes it overflows with moisture because it is resting on water, Seneca believes that there is copious amounts of water in the earth that can supply such rivers. The language recalls earlier moments from this book (see supra 3.6.2, 3.8.1) as well as Lucr. 6.267: flumina abundare ut facerent camposque natare.
‘cum in umore sit totus’: “Since it is completely resting on water”. Of course, as Aristotle comments, this only begs the question of what the water is resting on… (De Caelo 294a28-294b1). Vottero reads cum mundus changing the idea into Thales’ claim that the material principle of everything was water (Vottero 1989: 151; for Thales’ quotation see Aristotle Mete. 983b20). While this gives us a known idea of Thales, it does not follow the logical flow of the paragraph with its emphasis on the naval imagery.
[3.14.2] hanc veterem et rudem sentitiam explode: explodere originally meant to “drive off the stage by clapping” (OLD 1), but Seneca uses it elsewhere to mean “to cast out” (Dial. 6.10.6). Here the sense is “reject” but the theatrical feel aids the reader’s dismissal of the sententia, much like Cicero’s descriptions of missteps on the stage (Q. Rosc. 30.10, de Orat. 1.259.3). Later in the NQ, Seneca will be more forgiving of these “old and unsophisticated” views, cf. 6.5.2: illud ante omnia mihi dicendum est opiniones veteres parum exactas ese et rudes. circa verum adhuc errabatur; nova omnia erant primo temptantibus…
nec est quod: While I see Hine’s rationale for non est quod or positing a lacuna (cf. Hine 1996: 48), Seneca is adding the further details of the cracks in the earth and the bilge water seeping through. Admittedly, this could be conjectured from the quotation, but Seneca is adding his further mocking description to it.
in hunc orbem aquam subire per rimas et facere sentinam: Seneca will utilize this language later when discussing earthquakes and dismissing Thales’ idea that the earth floats on water (NQ 6.6.4). There, Seneca also makes the point that if this was the case, any crack would quickly become a torrent, not a mere leak of bilge water (sentina). Also cf. Dial. 4.10.8 and Ep. 30.2 for the idea of ships “taking on water”. Seneca diminishes the sense of water’s power by now referring to it as mere sentina. Is this also a diminished echo of Thales’ (false) sententia?
Aegyptii quattuor elementa fecerunt: This excursus into Egyptian thought seems out of place (note Haase’s proposed transposition), but may have come to Seneca’s mind because of his mention of Thales (and Seneca is planning Books 3 and 4a to be read in tandem, see Merrills 2017: 162-83). Not only was Thales associated with Egypt (cf. Diogenes Laertius I.24-27), but if Seneca is compiling the earliest Greek concepts of water, it may have inspired him to exploit his extensive knowledge of Egypt (for this connection, cf. Lloyd 1991: 286-87). He had lived in Egypt from approximately 19 – 31 CE and had already written De situ et sacris Aegyptiorum which is lost, cf. Vottero 1998: 130-31 and cf. André 2003 for more on Seneca’s general view of Egypt. In a similar vein, Vitruvius begins his book on water by a survey of Greek sources before discussing the sanctity of water in Egyptian religion, cf. 8.praef.4. I have found no testimony of the following information in Egyptian scientific and philosophical texts (cf. Donadoni 1949), although the explicit binarism is an Egyptian trait, cf. Wilkinson 2003: 74 “The endless duality found throughout the cosmic, geographic and temporal aspects of the Egyptian universe (heaven-earth, existence-nonexistence, stasis-change, north-south, desert-fertile, day-night, etc.) is found in pairs of gods and goddesses which represented these and many other binary aspects of the world”. Plutarch writes of Egyptian belief of the four elements, Isis and Osiris 376D and states earlier (365 D) that “the nature of moisture, being the source and origin of all things, created out of itself the three first substances: Earth, Air, and Fire”. Although it is difficult to tell if this is his own view or that ascribed to the worship of Isis and Osiris, it is very similar to Thales’ own belief.
deinde ex singulis bina paria: See Vottero 1989: 152 for this reading. The movement from a tetrad to an ogdoad is seen in Egyptian religion and is often features four sets of two gods and goddesses. The god and goddess of water were Nun and Naunet, cf. Wilkinson 2003: 78: “Although the four goddesses are clearly only linguistically feminine forms of the names of the four gods, they are nevertheless seen as necessary complements of the male deities”. That being said, the other members of the ogdoad were personifications of infinity, darkness and hiddenness/wind and not fire, air, and earth. This may be an example of Seneca’s own clever syncretism of Greco-Roman philosophical thought with Egyptian substructure. For more on the Egyptian concept of primeval water previous to creation, cf. Clagett 1989: 264-65, Silverman 1991: 33-38 for gods associated with natural phenomena, and Wright 1995: 75-77, 163-64 for more on Egyptian cosmology.
aëra marem iudicant qua ventus est: qua in this and subsequent clauses indicates “wherever/whenever” (OLD 4a). In each example the masculine manifestation of the element tends to be active, stronger, and larger than the female. The winds that Seneca mentions at NQ 5.16.1-5.17.5 are all masculine in gender.
nebulosus et iners: Seneca will comment on such “misty/cloudy” conditions at NQ 5.3.2: atqui nullum tempus magis quam nebulosum caret vento. At Med. 583, however, Seneca uses nebulosus to describe the wind Auster, which would seem to be paradoxical.
aquam virilem vocant mare: Variatio of virilem for marem to avoid any confusion with the adjective mas-maris used with aër previously. Seneca, however, may be slyly indicating how such Latin etymological play could hint at the sea being “masculine water”.
muliebrem omnem aliam: Although the Nile’s flood is usually represented by Hapi, one of the sons of Horus. For more on the linguistics of Egyptian words for water, cf. Shaman 2014: 168-70.
ardet flamma: As with air, there seems to be a difference between the active and passive qualities of fire.
innoxius tactu: The use of innoxius here to describe a flame that creates light but is harmless may remind the reader of the flames that touch the head of Ascanius (A. 2.683-4: tactuque innoxia mollis / lambere flamma comas). At Ep. 79.3 Seneca writes to Lucilius about a fertile region in Lycia where there is harmless fire (quod sine ullo nascentium damno ignis innoxius circumit).
terram fortiorem marem: Cliffs and stones are considered masculine. The slight personification of the earth here will be taken up in the following chapter with the analogy between the earth and the human body.
huic tractabili et cultae: Land that is manageable and cultivated would be the farmland bordering the Nile as well as the region of the Nile Delta.
[3.14.3] mare unum est: Is this still Egyptian hydrological theory or now Seneca’s? Seneca’s belief in underground sources would support this idea (NQ 3.8.1), but does it make the sea fundamentally different from elemental water? Seneca imparts its unique nature with the use of unus as Vottero 1989: ad loc. understands, comparing it with the use of unitas at NQ 2.2.4, where Seneca clarifies: si quando dixero unum, memineris me non ad numerum referre, sed ad naturam corporis nulla ope externa sed unitate sua cohaerentis. He will go on to describe the sea and ocean as “eternal”, see the note at 3.22.1 infra. As Parroni 2002: ad loc. and Bravo Díaz 2013: ad loc. stress, the major point that Seneca wants to convey is that the Egyptians believed water was one of the original elements (whether “male” seawater or “female” fresh water) and that it exists in inexhaustible quantities. Therefore, this is essentially the Egyptian view, as Seneca will clarify at NQ 3.15.1, but aspects of it are clearly endorsed by Seneca.
ab initio scilicet ita constitutum: ab initio is used in a similar sense at NQ 6.15.1 about the formation of the earth. The sea is primordial and unique (although it is elementally defined as water).
habet suas venas quibus impletur atque aestuat: The use of the reflexive suas creates a slight contrast with the various “veins” of waters at NQ 3.3.1. If the earth is like the body and the body has various types of liquid in it (explicitly mentioned at 3.15.2), it will have veins of salt water that also influence its volume and tides (cf. 3.26.8, 3.30.2). I read the impletur of Ψ (as does Vottero 1989: ad loc.), in part because of the parallel at 1.pr.4: ut hoc corpus causarium ac fluidum, periturumque nisi subinde impletur, farcirem et viverem aegri minister?
quomodo maris sic et huius aquae mitioris: The comparison here between the “masculine” water of the sea and even the “milder” feminine waters of lakes, rivers, and springs. Seneca has been working towards this moment with this digression in order to tie this idea back to his interlocutor’s possible objections at 3.10.2, 3.11.1, and 3.12.1.
vasta [maris] vis in occulto est: maris is an intrusion and should be omitted. Seneca writes about the vis of various waters at NQ 3.11.2 and 3.11.4. He uses vasta vis of the power of fire at Ep. 91.11 and NQ 6.32.5, although here it seems to be indicative of the amount of this resource (s.v. OLD 8b). His use of in occulto recollects his desire to exercise his intellect in investigating this sort of topic at 3.pr.1 and 3.pr.18 and will be used later in this work 3.19.4 and 7.30.2. Elsewhere I have argued that Seneca is encouraging his reader at these moments to pay attention to his language and hunt for hidden material, see Trinacty 2018b.
quam nullius fluminis cursus exhauriet: Looking back to NQ 3.4.1: primum ergo quaeramus quomodo ad continuandos fluminum cursus terra sufficiat. He will use similar language to describe the reduced flow of certain rivers at particular times of the year, NQ 3.26.2: exhauriunt flumina and to postulate how dry rivers may reappear, NQ 3.15.7: exhausta replentur.
abdita est virium ratio: Hine nicely renders this “The scale of its resources is hidden” but there is also the sense of “The reason for its strength is hidden” so that it doesn’t merely restate the previous sentence, but offers a slightly different sense between the singular vis and plural virium. Such a doubling of meaning well shows the way that Seneca applies the same terms for physics and ethics. There is the impression that these underground waters are really the ones that Seneca is trying to elucidate in this book, cf. the note on NQ 3.23.1 infra. When Seneca writes of exercising one’s ratio, it is exactly on such hidden material, see Ep. 95.61: ratio autem non impletur manifestis; maior eius pars pulchriorque in occultis est and the note on 3.pr.18 supra.
tantum ex illa quantum semper fluere sit emittitur: The antecedent of illa is ratio. possit seems to be the most natural emendation for the manuscripts’ sit. The subjunctive is to be explained as a relative clause of result “it sends out as much water as it needs to always be able to flow”. He will return to this topic at NQ 3.19.4.
******
******
