[3.15.1]: Seneca expands upon aspects of the Egyptian system by developing in more detail the analogy that the earth is like the human body. For Roby 2014: 168 such a detailed analogy also “evokes a kind of pathos”. Armisen-Marchetti 1989: 283-311 is still the best discussion of analogy in NQ, Althoff 1997 discusses this analogy in the NQ, Kullmann 2010: 70-74 provides Stoic background, and Taub 2003: 143-44 concludes “His drawing out of the analogy between the earth and the human body is elaborate and vivid, and more detailed than that found in Aristotle’s Meteorology or Manilius’ Astronomica”. For more on the pneumatism of the body/earth, cf. Lapidge 1989: 1383-84 and Le Blay 2014. This is important for tying together the behavior of the earth/cosmos and human behavior and therefore for the connections between physics and ethics. It also hints broadly at the mortality of the world and its eventual “death” as well as Seneca’s frequent analogy between medicine (which cures the body) and philosophy (which cures the mind), see Seal 2015: 219.
quaedam ex istis sunt quibus adsentire possumus: The opening of this section features “the combative legalistic language Lehoux observes” (Roby 2014: 168), but it also evokes the Stoic assensio given by the mind to natural impulses, cf. Ep. 113.18. This qualifies the Egyptian view of water – while Seneca believes in a hidden plentitude of water, he is silent on any further paired gendering of the elements and believes that the analogy with the human body is the best way of understanding the sources of terrestrial waters.
hoc amplius censeo: This is the language of senatorial procedure according to Hine 2010: ad loc. Cf. Cic. Phil. 13.50 and Dial. 7.3.3 for the identical formulation and s.v. OLD 4 for the senatorial overtones. It is notable that the censors were in charge of overseeing water quality in Rome, see Freudenburg 2018 for possible ramifications.
placet natura regi terram: placet is being used absolutely “It is agreed/decided” (OLD 5). This verb appears again at 3.28.7 and 3.28.2 about the destruction of the world by flood and bridges Latin legal decrees (Senatorial decrees began with the phrase, placet Senatui) and a sort of “pleasure” that comes from these decisions/control. natura here stands for the Stoic φύσις, which has control over the earth, cf. Long & Sedley 266-68, Cic. N.D. 2.81, 2.82: dicimus natura constare administrarique mundum. Elsewhere in the NQ, Seneca identifies natura with god, fate, and the cosmos, cf. NQ 2.45.1-3. Also see the note infra on NQ 3.29.2: corpus natura gubernabile.
ad nostrorum corporum exemplar: Gross 1989: 132-33 examines how this is a fusion of Stoic thought and Greek medical doctrine. Aristotle draws an extended analogy between air in the earth and wind in the human body (Mete. 366b14-19 and Taub 2003: 98-102 for more on analogy in Aristotle). Pythagoras’ speech in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (15.342-5) stresses that the earth should be compared to a living creature, as does Cicero (N.D. 2.83). Armisen-Marchetti 2015: 157 writes how Seneca’s analogies in the Naturales Quaestiones, “render visible what are no longer simple figures of style but a whole separate scientific method,” and Williams 2005a: 157 stresses that Seneca’s “analogy supplies a more systematic cohering device in the Natural Questions generally”. In this case it is notable that the extended metaphor becomes a veritable dissection of the earth with Seneca the attentive doctor who searches out the diagnostic clues.
in quibus et venae sunt et arteriae: Aristotle criticizes the way earlier writers discuss the vascular system at HA 511b13ff. and HA 496b4ff., cf Lloyd 1991: 179-81, 189-90 for discussion. The medical writer Praxagoras of Cos (late 4th/early 3rd century BCE) distinguished between veins for blood and arteries for air (pneuma), an idea that Seneca puts into practice in his discussion of the earth. Cf. Lewis 2017 for more on Praxagoras. Lucretius 2.1118-19 discusses “vital veins of life” in the mundus and Cicero uses the same language to talk about veins and arteries in the body at N.D. 2.138, as do the writer of the Aetna (98-101) and Pliny at Nat. 11.219-220. This is the only time Seneca uses the term arteriae in his works. Fun fact - there are 60,000 miles of arteries in the human body!
illae sanguinis hae spiritus receptacula: illae…hae = “the former…the latter” (A&G 297a-b). Cf. Ep. 78.5 where receptaculum is also paired with spiritus. At NQ 3.28.4 the receptacula become the refuges where flood survivors gather. Seneca elaborates on the arteries for spiritus at NQ 6.14.1-4, drawing a distinction from Aristotle and those who believe in the earth’s exhalations (NQ 6.13.1-2, naming Theophrastus and Strato).
in terra quoque sunt alia itinera per quae aqua, alia per quae spiritus currit: alia…alia = “some…others” (A&G 315a). Seneca will return to this idea when discussing earthquakes at NQ 6.20.4. Pliny Nat. 2.166 writes about how water travels in the earth through a network of veins.
adeoque ad similitudinem illa humanorum corporum natura formavit: illa [itinera] is the emendation of Haase, Gercke, and Oltramare of illam. Ad similitudinem + gen. = “after the manner (of), in the likeness (of)” (OLD 1d). Seneca has natura formavit also at Ep. 36.8, but otherwise this does not appear often in Latin (Horace Ars 108 is the only other previous example, although Pliny Nat. 2.166 is similar).
ut maiores quoque nostri aquarum appellaverint venas: The subjunctive appellaverint is preferred to appellaverunt because it is a result clause. Maiores nostri include Aristotle (Pr. 935b10: αἱ φλέβες τῆς πηγῆς), Polybius 34.9.7 and Ovid Fast. 3.2987 and Trist. 3.7.16. Seneca will continue to employ this terminology in the NQ, cf. 3.19.4, 4a.2.26, 6.4.1. For a reverse application of this nomenclature, see Ovid Met. 1.410 where the rocks thrown by Deucalion and Pyrrha become people and the veins in the stone become the veins of the human beings.
[3.15.2] quemadmodum in nobis: Seneca makes the analogy even more universal and applicable by discussing the various liquids of the body and those in the earth. Seneca likes using quemadmodum to introduce such comparisons (7 times in NQ) and will use the body as model for the earth again at NQ 6.14.2: quemadmodum in corpore nostro…
non tantum sanguis est sed multa genera umoris: One may believe that Seneca will go on to discuss the theory of the humors and this role of bile as one of the multa genera umoris, but he does not do so even though he is familiar with the theory, cf. NQ 4b.13.5, Ep. 95.16, Ep. 94.17. Blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile were the four humors (an idea that originated in Hippocrates) and good health relied on the proper balance of these humors. For a succinct and clear overview of humoral doctrine, cf. Mattern 2013: 53-54 with references. MacAuley 2010: 45 muses on connections between the earth’s water and the human body “seventy-one percent of the earth’s surface is water. Ninety percent of a baby’s body is fluid, mostly water, and it can even be said that humans are a kind of ‘muscular water,’ especially given that before birth we lie protected in an envelope of the liquid. In composition, seawater is, in fact, close to that of blood with a main difference being that blood contains iron (and less salt) while seawater possesses magnesium. Our connection with the oceans is still evident in fact that our eyes must be bathed frequently in salt water, and our body – like the sea – requires a prescribed range of saline in order to sustain life”.
alia necessarii alia corrupti ac paulo pinguioris: The partitive genitives help to distinguish the various kinds of liquids. necessarius means “essential for life”. corruptus usually has a moral sense, but here means “tainted” (aquam elleboro corruptam, Front. Str. 3.7.6) or “altered”. pinguis was used of water of NQ 3.2.2 supra and the sense here is that “thicker” or “more viscous” liquids can harden into brain tissue or marrow. Even though the progression of the sentence may make the reader think that those liquids are not to be classed as “essential for life,” the parenthetical clause certainly features necessities (marrow, brain).
in capite cerebrum, muci, salivaeque et lacrimae: Thicker fluids are mentioned first in this list. Seneca does not discuss the brain often in his works: it is capable of being “moved” by good fortune (Dial. 1.4.10) and bad (Ep. 36.1) and can suffer from fevers (Ep. 95.17). In general, the Stoics believed that the heart was the hêgemonikon (the “control-center”) for the body, a conception that Galen (who believed the brain ruled the psyche) will criticize again and again, cf. Gill 2009 for the Stoic view and Galen’s response. Catullus 23.16-17 mentions saliva and mucus with sudor and pituita in the list of bodily humors whose excess would signal disease. For tears in the Greco-Roman world, see the essays collected in Fögen 2009. Elsewhere in his works, Seneca writes of “thick” saliva spat at Cato (Dial. 5.38.2), which can obstruct one’s breathing (NQ 6.2.5), but also a new topic which has set Lucilius’ mouth “watering” (Ep. 79.7).
in ossibus medullae, et quiddam additum articulis per quod citius flectantur ex lubrico: In his tragedies, Seneca mentions marrow rather often to indicate the innermost reach of passion (e.g. Med. 819, Phaed. 282, Ag. 132). It appears sparingly in his prose works (Ep. 94.5, Ep. 114.25). Pliny writes of people who lack marrow in their bones who accordingly lack thirst and do not perspire (Nat. 7.78) and devotes a section of Book 11 to marrow (Nat. 11.214). Synovial fluid, a viscous white liquid, lubricates the joints of the body, which could have been detected in ancient dissection and vivisection. For a (chilling) description of ancient vivisection, cf. Mattern 2013: 153-55. Seneca will often use lubricus to discuss Fortune or uncertainty (e.g. Thy. 392, Dial. 11.9.5) and it is commonly applied to rivers (OLD 3), but here it is a neuter substantive as an ablative of material (A&G 403) “a certain oily substance, added to the joints.” It will reappear at NQ 3.27.6 to discuss the way the ground becomes unstable during the flood.
sic in terra quoque sunt umoris genera complura: Completing the comparison. Vitruvius’ comparison between earth and human liquids is similar: in eo autem multa genera sunt umorum, uti sanguinis, lactis, sudoris, urinae, lacrimarum (8.3.26) and the comments of Callebat 1973: ad loc.
[3.15.3] quaedam quae matura durantur: matura is found in one branch of manuscripts and durantur should be accepted to parallel putrescunt below. The idea of maturation fits with the later language (metallorum fructus) and is consistent with Senecan usage elsewhere, cf. Ep. 124.11: cum frumentum aestas et debita muturitas coxit. Bravo Díaz 2013: ad loc. stresses that this should be understood in tandem with the aging of the earth and the personification of the earth as a living thing.
hinc est omnis metallorum fructus: fructus is the conjecture of Codoñer Merino 1979 and Vottero 1980: 348-49 and is a clear improvement over the manuscripts’ humus, which is nonsensical. With matura above, it gives the sense of a life-cycle of the liquids which come to fruition as a metal. Cf. Ep. 23.5: levium metallorum fructus in summo est, where Seneca uses mining to discuss true gaudium, and, for the expression, Livy 45.40.2: ex fructu metallorum.
ex quibus petit aurum argentumque avaritia: Seneca often connects avaritia with mining in the NQ, cf. 3.30.3, and esp. 5.15.1-4. In his de Beneficiis, he addresses avaritia and associates it with aurum argentumque, Ben. 7.10.1-5. Theophrastus believed that metals obtained by mining come from water (hence they can melt), cf. Irby-Massie and Keyser 2002: 228 and Caley and Richards’ 1956 commentary on Lap. 1-2 for further references. Seneca liked the rhythm of aurum argentumque and it appears frequently in his prose, e.g. Ep. 95.73, Dial. 7.25.1.
quae in lapidem ex liquore vertuntur: Referring to magma and igneus rock as well as certain crystals (cf. NQ 3.25.12), but Seneca has seeded this ground with the elemental transformations of NQ 3.10.1 and waters that can turn into stone, see the note on NQ 3.2.2 supra.
in quaedam vero terra umorque putrescunt: vero stresses the opposite action from durantur to putrescunt. Lucretius uses putrescere of rock (5.832), and Pliny uses it of water becoming “stale and fetid” (Nat. 31.34, cf. OLD 1c), not quite the same sense here where both work together to create the subsequent viscous fluid. If we look upon these elements as organic in some way, their transformations will mimic those of animate organisms in their maturation or putrefication and, of course, this further acts to personify nature. Similar language will appear during the flood, cf. NQ 3.29.6.
sicut bitumen et cetera huic similia: The nature of bitumen (a sticky, black, highly viscous form of petroleum) was a topic of inquiry for Greek and Roman philosophers, cf. Hdt. 1.179, Theophrastus Lap. 12, Lucr. 6.807; Pliny Nat. 2.235, 2.237, 35.178; Strab. 16.1.15 on naphtha; Ov. Met. 15.350 (in a part of Pythagoras’ speech), Vitr. 8.3.8. Seneca only mentions it here and at NQ 3.20.2.
haec est causa aquarum secundum legem naturae voluntatemque nascentium: If NQ 3.9.3 supra gives a reason for the production of water underground, this final sentence sums up that these waters also follow the “law and will of nature”. This striking phrase is unparalleled. Seneca uses lex naturae in praise of poverty (Ep. 4.10 – cf. Richardson-Hay 2006: ad loc., Ep. 25.4, 27.9) and of death, cf. Dial. 12.13.2: si ultimum diem non quasi poenam sed quasi naturae legem aspicis, ex quo pectore metum mortis eieceris. Elsewhere, the wise man (e.g. Cato) will obey quickly whatever the law of the universe orders: magnus animus deo pareat et quidquid lex universi iubet sine cunctatione patiatur, Ep. 71.16. The treatise as a whole shows the workings of the laws of nature, in spite of Roman expectations/desires, and the proper attitude one should have towards frightening or inexplicable phenomena (3.28.7 and 3.29.3 about the flood, 6.1.12 about earthquakes, 7.25.3 and 7.28.2 about comets). Cf. 3.pr.16 supra and Kullmann 2005 for more on the “law of nature”. Cicero writes of the naturae voluntas at Fin. 5.55 and Seneca writes in Ep. 66.39: “Quid est ergo ratio?” naturae imitatio. “quod est summum hominis bonum?" ex naturae voluntate se gerere.
[3.15.4]: saepe umores vitia concipiunt: concipere here means “to contract/catch” (OLD 8) and is derived from Cicero Leg. 3.32: Quo perniciosius de re publica merentur vitiosi principes, quod non solum vitia concipiunt ipsi, sed ea infundunt in civitatem, cf. Man. 2.908. Seneca’s use of vitia for water also recalls his larger message of conquering one’s vitia (3.pr.10). For Rosenmeyer 1989: 128, this passage highlights how, “Liquidity is both the setting and instigator of everything that is wrong with the world”. Seneca will return to this when discussing the tastes of water at NQ 3.20.1.
aut ictus aut quassatio aliqua aut loci senium aut frigus aut aestus corrupere naturam: The list of possible culprits for altering the nature of water feature many forces which could also influence the human body. quassatio is used of earthquakes (cf. NQ 3.11.1: ipsius quassatione terrae), but also of the trembling that accompanies fever (Ep. 95.17). Cicero also writes of the mundus suffering from old age (Tim. 18), but it is not elsewhere applied to the land or a place. Cold and heat may influence the elemental make-up of water, as explained in NQ 3.10 supra. The presence of heat was known to influence the taste and character of waters, but Vitruvius mentions even cold waters who feature odore coloreque corrupto, 8.3.2. Seneca writes of corruptus umor in a medical context at Ep. 78.8 and this helps to explain the use of corrupti at NQ 3.15.2 supra.
suppuratio contraxit umorem: Continuing the use of medical analogies with the earth, Seneca writes here of ulcers that fester under the surface (s.v. contraho OLD 4d). Most manuscripts have some form of sulphuratio here, but cf. Hine 1980: 195 for the reading here. Seneca writes of suppurationes at Ep. 14.6 and at Ep. 80.6 and Seneca knows that sulfur or heat would actually cause water to expand, not contract (see Dial. 4.25.1).
qui modo diuturnus est, modo brevis: Pliny writes of long-lasting suppurationes (Nat. 21.140, 25.61) as well as brief ones that can be easily cured (Nat. 23.24).
[3.15.5] ergo ut in corporibus nostris: It is notable how Seneca varies this phrase throughout 3.15 moving from ad nostrorum corporum exemplar to quemadmodum in nobis to in nostris corporibus and now in corporibus nostris.
percussa vena est: The only other times percutire is used with vena in Latin literature is when Seneca writes about the practice of blood-letting to lose weight at Ep. 70.16: ad extenuandum corpus vena percutitur and when Scribonius Largus writes of a tourniquet (Larg. 84). Blood-letting was very common in Rome, cf. Jackson 1988: 70-72 with references. It is difficult to read this and not think about Seneca’s own suicide and the various veins he had lanced without success, cf. Tac. Ann. 15.63.
tam diu manat donec omnis effluxit: donec + perfect indicative to denote an actual fact in past time (A&G 554). Elsewhere in the NQ, effluere is used of water (3.28.5, 4a.2.23) and air (6.14.4)
donec venae scissura subsedit atque iter clusit: Here I take the reading of Vottero 1989 and Oltramare 1961, which I prefer to Hine (“until the fissure in the vein has abated and has closed the path (of the blood)”. scissura is usually used of some crack or fissure in the earth (Dial. 6.16), but here of the wound in the vein. For the phrase iter clusit, cf. Ep. 55.2: illinc lacu velut angustum iter cluditur, and Herc. F. 281: iterque clusum est. Note a similar opposition of verbs at Ep. 22.17: Non enim apud nos pars eius ulla subsedit: transmissa est et effluxit. For more on iter in this work, cf. 3.5.1 and 3.11.1 supra. There is a nice blending of language that would be fitting for the earth as well as the body in this clause and the analogy encourages readers to look inside themselves as well.
aliqua alia causa retro dedit sanguinem: retro in the sense of “so as to restore the original state of affairs, back again” (OLD 3c), cf. Phoen. 192 and Oed. 576 for its use with dare. The use of alia causa may evoke its earlier appearance at NQ 3.11.3 supra.
ita in terra solutis ac patefactis venis: ita signals the close of the comparison. Celsus writes of opening a vein similarly (patefacta vena, 7.31.2).
rivus aut flumen effunditur: This idea has been building since NQ 3.4.1 (quamcumque rationem reddiderimus de flumine, eadem erit rivorum ac fontium), furthered by NQ 3.9.1 (ita infra terras flumen aut rivum) and NQ 3.13.2 (sic positus ut sufficere fluminibus edendis, ut rivis, ut fontibus posset). rivus denotes a stream or brook whereas flumen is used of larger rivers.
[3.15.6] interest quanta aperta sit vena: The vascular system was studied especially by Praxagoras, Herophilus (f. 290 BCE), and Erasistratus (fl. 280 BCE), cf. Longrigg 1998: 88-89 for more information and references, but it is clear Seneca knew of the different sizes of veins in the body.
quae modo consumpta aqua deficit: Seneca begins to denote the ways in which water may stop flowing from tapped underground source. The repetitions of modo indicate “at one time…at another” (s.v. OLD 6), although here the sense is more spatial, since different veins in the earth will suffer different fates “in one case…in another”. The idea of veins “failing” (deficit) can be found in a satiric medical context at Horace Sat. 2.3.153: deficient inopem venae te, ni cibus atque / ingens accedit stomacho fultura ruenti.
modo excaecatur aliquot impedimento: A probable reminiscence of Ovid Met. 15.272: flumina prosiliunt aut excaecata residunt (Pythagoras’ speech about miraculous waters) or Pont. 4.2.17: limus venas excaecat in undis (a metapoetic image). Celsus employs excaecare in a similar way (7.7.15). impedimentum “blockage” may evoke the teachings of Asclepiades of Bithynia (2nd C. BCE) “He believed that all disease was due to excess fluids or to blockages but also described ‘particles’ moving around the body. A blockage could even be combined with a flux, if blocked excess particles moved to another part of the body and then poured out by a different route” (King 2001: 33).
modo coit velut in cicatricem comprimitque quam perfecerat viam: As in NQ 3.15.5 with the vein closing the way, so Seneca elaborates on that moment with another medical/bodily analogy. Seneca uses coire of a cicatrix at Ben. 6.26.2 and of binding wounds at Ep. 95.15 (in which he writes about medicine more comprehensively, cf. Gazzarri 2014: 209-12). The presence of so much medical terminology in this section activates the comparison that Seneca is like a “doctor” of the earth as well in his inquiry, cf. notes at NQ 3.1.2 and 3.15.1 supra. If Seneca usually considers himself, as philosopher, to be a medicus of the soul, this work shows how such an analogy will also blur into the physical/scientific in his meteorological inquiries. With all the analogies of the world like a human body, we may recall how the Stoics in general were notable for their idea that the cosmos was a living creature, cf. Furley 2005: 436: “The decision to view the cosmos as a living creature may be regarded as the foundation of Stoic cosmology. We can guess at the reasons that made it an attractive picture. Like living organisms, the cosmos is a material body endowed with an immanent power of motion. It consists of different parts, which collaborate towards the stable functioning of the whole, each part performing its own work. The relation of the parts to each other and to the whole exhibits a kind of fitness, not always obvious in detail indeed, but unmistakeable in the larger picture. This sense of fitness suggestions rationality: it is an easy inference that the cosmos itself is possessed of reason, and since reason is a property confined to living creatures, this again suggests that the cosmos is a living being”.
modo illa vis terrae, quam esse mutabilem diximus: Cf. NQ 3.9.3 supra for the elemental changes of the earth into water. The phrase vis terrae can be found at Cic. N.D. 2.25.9, Div. 1.38, 1.79.
desinit posse alimenta in umorem convertere: alimentum was earlier (NQ 3.11.3 3.11.4) indicative of the water needed for plants to grow. While the earth can elementally transform into water, it obviously does not always happen (cf. 3.9.3 supra for the right conditions), and here Seneca posits “fuel” or “material” (OLD 3) necessary to convert terra into umor. Cf. NQ 2.5.1 where terra offers alimenta to everything and the close of this book where mankind seeks “old forms of nourishment” due to the flood (NQ 3.27.5: fame laboratur et manus ad antiqua alimenta porrigitur). Seneca may be thinking of Lucretius here, who writes how the earth gave birth to animals and produced nourishment for them from its veins, sicut nunc femina…dulci repletur lacte, quod omnis / impetus in mammas convertitur ille alimenti, 5.813-15.
[3.15.7] exhausta replentur: To explain why certain springs and rivers reappear after being dry for some period of time. Seneca writes about mortal things with similar language: mortalia minuuntur, cadunt, deteruntur, crescent, exhauriuntur, inplentur, Ep. 66.12.
per se viribus recollectis: Pliny writes of attempting to recover one’s strength after illness in a similar manner: qui longa aegritudine non colligant vires (Nat. 24.28). Seneca has spiritum eius collegit at Ben. 4.37.1. but I wonder if the use of recolligere would recall the opening of the work, where Seneca writes of his own desire to “gather up” what life still remains (3.pr.3).
aliunde translatis: Recalling NQ 3.11.1 supra, but without the focus on earthquakes.
saepe enim inania apposita plenis umorem in se avocaverunt: Plato writes of this osmosis “experiment” in the Symposium 175d4-e2 where Socrates says it would be beneficial if wisdom were “the kind of thing that flowed from what is fuller into what is emptier in our case, if only we touch each other, like the water in cups which flows from the fuller into the emptier through the thread of wool” (trans. Sheffield 2006: 13). The active siphoning of water was done through a diabetes, cf. Columella 3.10.2; both Irby-Massie and Keyser 2002: 204-25 and Lloyd 1991: 83 discuss experiments about hydrostatics and pneumatics in the ancient world. Cf. Hine 1996: 48 for the reading avocaverunt here.
si facilis in tabem est, ipsa solvitur et umescit: facilis in + acc. = “prone to” (OLD 8b). tabes appears relatively often in Seneca to indicate “putrefaction/decay” (here and NQ 3.29.6), “moral decay” (NQ 7.31.1), and fluid created as a result of putrefaction (Ep. 95.16) or dissolution (NQ 4a.2.21). Seneca writes of mankind’s tendency towards decay at Dial. 6.11.3: ipso rurus situ et otio iturum in tabem. Seneca will return to the land’s ability to dissolve into water during the flood, NQ 3.29.4: [terram] quam diximus esse mutabilem et solvi in umorem. umescere is rare, coined by Vergil (G. 3.111).
idem evenit sub terra quod in nubibus: A topic that would have been further explained in the missing opening of NQ 4b. Condensation of moisture in clouds and the subsequent precipitation was a topic that Seneca ascribes to Posidonius at 4b.3.2, although he muses about clouds as dense air at NQ 2.26.1 (see Hine 1981: ad loc.). Condensation of air into water was well known, cf. notes on 3.9.1 and 3.10.1 supra.
ut spissetur : Haase’s supplement, which can be supported by NQ 2.26.1: aër spissus et ad gignendam aquam praeparatus, and 2.30.4 (cf. Hine 1981: ad loc.). cf. Luc. 4.76-77: polo pressae [nubes] largos densantur in imbres / spissataeque fluunt. Note Seneca use of gignere below.
gravior quam ut: A&G 535c on the clause of Result or Characteristic after comparatives with quam ut or quam qui.
manere in natura sua possit: Cf. the use of natura sua at NQ 3.10.5 and the similar discussion there about the condensation of air to create water.
gignat umorem: Seneca uses gignere of elemental creation at NQ 2.25.1 and 2.26.1.
colligitur roris modo tenuis et dispersus liquor: roris modo “in the manner of dew”. This example has metaliterary implications as the poetics of dew has a long history (cf. Boedeker 1984: 80-99) and tenuis was the Latin equivalent of Callimachus’ λεπταλέην (cf. Clausen 1994: 174-78). For Seneca’s own use of this in his own literary theory of aemulatio, cf. Ep. 84.4. The verb colligere has been stressed not only in the preface (tam sparsa colligam, NQ 3.pr.1), but also in the very opening definition of terrestrial waters (3.2.1, 3.3.1). The upshot of recognizing a double-meaning in this phrase is that it hints at the various opinions and sources being collected by Seneca in creating his doxography and explaining these phenomena.
qui ex multis in unum locis confluit: Seneca will later use in unum+confluere to discuss separate winds joining forces at NQ 5.12.3. If read in conjunction with Ep. 84, the metaliterary resonances are reinforced (cf. Ep. 84.4, 84.10). Seneca will use multis locis to discuss the various “pores” in the earth from which air can emerge (NQ 6.15.1) and the larger Stoic analogy of earth to the human body is important for this “sweat”.
sudorem aquileges vocant: Varro is our first source for the activities of an aquilex (Men. 444), but Vitruvius gives the best sense of how to find water (8.1.1-7), and remarks on the sudores collected from winter storms, which have optimum saporem, cf. Callebat 1973: ad loc. Pliny the Elder also comments on their activity (Nat. 31.43-48).
quia guttae quaedam vel pressura loci eliduntur vel aestu evocantur: For the connection between sweat and “pressure”, cf. Lucr. 5.487. Seneca will use pressura later of “water pressure” employed in certain instruments (NQ 2.6.5). For the connection between sweat and heat in Seneca, cf. Ep. 11.2: quibusdam etiam constantissimis in conspectus populi sudor erumpit non aliter quam fatigatis et aestuantibus solet…
[3.15.8] haec tenuis unda vix fonti sufficit: The conclusion of this chapter contrasts the water created in the earth that “barely suffices for a spring” and huge rivers issuing forth with vigor. For the thin trickle of a river, cf. Seneca’s description of Ismenos: tenuis Ismenos fluit / et tinguit inopi nuda vix unda vada (Oed. 42-43).
at ex magnis cavernis magnisque conceptibus: There are textual problems with this opening. at should be preferred to et because of the contrast with the previous sentence. cavernis makes more sense than the MSS causis, and Seneca will stress the existence of these caverns throughout the work as a whole, especially at NQ 5.15.1, where the spelunkers of Philip of Macedone discover flumina ingentia et conceptus aquarum inertium vastos in an abandoned mine (cf. NQ 5.14.3, 6.13.4, 6.24.3). conceptus keeps up the larger analogy of this chapter (ad nostrorum corporum exemplar) in that it can mean “conception/embryo” as well as “cistern, water basin,” although Seneca appears to be the first author to use it in the latter sense, cf. TLL 4.23.12-17.
excidunt amnes: Note the use at NQ 6.8.4 where Nero’s centurion reports the source of the Nile: ‘ibi’ inquit ‘vidimus duas petras, ex quibus ingens vis fluminis excidebat.’ Elsewhere Seneca will contrast excidere and fluere (Ep. 33.6), as the subsequent elaboration on the flow of the output clarifies.
nonnumquam leniter emissi: For the reading of leniter vs. leviter, cf. Hine 1996: 49. I am convinced by Shackleton Bailey’s conjecture (1979: 451) with the parallel of Vitr. 9.8.6: aut vehementem aut lenem in ea vasa aquae influentem cursum. Add Seneca’s use of leniter at Ep. 100.1 about the sound (which is important here) of Fabianus’ oratory: est decor proprius orationis leniter lapsae. multum enim interesse existimo, utrum exciderit an fluxerit. For more on the use of rivers and streams as metaphors for rhetorical style, cf. Worman 2015: 272-82.
si aqua tantum pondere se suo detulit: “If the water flows down only by its own weight.” Note Seneca’s description of the various waters found under the earth at NQ 6.7.3, and he elsewhere expresses the idea that water naturally moves downward (NQ 2.24.1: sicut aqua natura defertur). That idea can be found elsewhere, cf. Ovid Met. 15.240-41: ex illis duo sunt onerosa suoque / pondere in inferius, tellus atque unda, feruntur. Seneca must be thinking of an elevated spring or water source for this (originally subterranean) water to emerge, yet necessarily move downward. For more on this conundrum, cf. NQ 3.26.3 and Robinson 2011: 25-26. For a schematic of such terrestrial waters, see the introduction.
nonnumquam vehementer et cum sono: The loud outpouring recalls the quotation of Vergil featured at NQ 3.1.1 (see note supra). Seneca will write later about how the discharge of air often is accompanied cum sono, cf. NQ 5.4.2, 2.16.1, 2.54.2. The adverb vehementer is not common in NQ, but when it appears often is connected with the action of spiritus, cf. NQ 5.13.4, 2.6.4, 2.12.5.
si illam spiritus intermixtus eiecit: For the contrast between eiecere and emiterre, cf. Ep. 24.8: [Cato] generosum illum contemptoremque omnis potentiae spiritum non emisit, sed eiecit. Cf. NQ 3.3.1 supra for the way spiritus can influence water. For more about water and breath being intermingled, cf. NQ 2.9.2-3. The ejection of water with such force was not uncommon in Rome when pipes burst, as we can infer from the description of Pyramus’ death in Ovid Met. 4.121-27.
******
******
