[3.17.1] Multa hoc loco in mentem tibi veniunt: Seneca opens this section appealing to the reader’s quick wit and imagination. This section acts as a response to the (surprising) idea that fish can be dug up from the ground in certain locations by positing the even more incredible acts of contemporary luxury (incredibiliora…opera luxuriae, 3.17.2). The repetition of locis/loco is a nice way of connecting the physical locations of Theophrastus to “at this point” in the text/time/mind of the reader. Seneca provides some examples of what may be coming into the mind of the reader, and it is notable that the reader is expected to react with mockery at the findings of Theophrastus, a noted philosopher. Sometimes the interlocutor, whether we believe it to be Lucilius or another, can be stubborn or incredulous, cf. Williams 2005a. Later Seneca will use the phrase in mentem…venire to highlight an intratext, NQ 6.1.15. For more on this section, cf. Berno 2003: 68-85, Gauly 2004: 96-104, Tutrone 2012: 283-87.
quae urbane in re incredibili ‘Fabulae!’ dicas: For the textual difficulties of the passage, see Hine 1996: 51-52. Seneca uses fabula to describe legends such as Scylla and Charybdis (Dial. 6.17.2, Ep. 45.2), or the cattle of the Sun (NQ 3.26.7), gossip (Ben. 3.23.3, Phaed. 759), or stories about the afterlife (Tro. 371), but here the exclamation is from comedy (“Nonsense!”) and, indeed, this section as a whole has a comedic feel to it, cf. Ter. Andr. 224, 553, Haut. 336, Phorm. 492. Berno points out how this adynaton has a Plautine air about it, cf. Asin. 99-100: iubeas una opera me piscari in aere, / venari autem rete iaculto in medio mari (2003: 68), and the fishmonger later in this digression has Plautine antecedents. Davidson 1997 remarks on how ubiquitous fish are in Greek New Comedy: “Anyone who picks up a collection of fourth-century comedy is likely to be struck immediately by the large number of references to the consumption of fish. Characters regularly turn aside to enunciate long and metrically elaborate shopping-lists for fish, menus of fish and recipes for fish-dishes, with the ingredients and method of preparation graphically described” (6). Seneca updates these comedic tropes in this excursus and concludes in a more more acerbic and satiric manner. For more on Seneca’s relationship with Roman comedy, see Trinacty 2020.
non cum retibus aliquem nec cum hamis sed cum dolabra ire piscatum!: piscatum is the supine of purpose (A&G 509) and the accusative/infinitive construction can be seen as an extension of the accusative of exclamation, which expressions “depend upon some long-forgotten verb” (A&G 397d), here supply a verb like “Imagine!”. Common fishing equipment was a net, rod, and fishing hook (cf. Ep. 89.22, Herc. F. 156, Ben. 4.20.3 for other examples in Seneca; there is also a small corpus of epigrams of fisherman dedicating their gear: AP 6.4-5, 23-30, 38, 90, 105, 192-93). See Gallant 1985: 12-25 and the essays collected in Bekker-Nielsen and Casasola 2010 for the technology of fishing. The dolabra was a type of pick-axe used to make trenches (Col. R.R. 2.2.28), and Frontinus reports the bon mot that Corbulo was accustomed to saying “the enemy must be defeated by the pick” (dolabra hostem vincendum esse, Strat. 4.6.2).
expecto ut aliquis in mari venetur!: For expecto +ut, s.v. OLD 2b. venari can be applied to fishing, e.g. Pliny Nat. 16.3, but is traditionally used of hunting game on land.
quid est autem quare non pisces in terram transeant: Seneca employs quid est…quare numerous times in his prose works (e.g. Ep. 3.3, Ep. 71.15, Dial. 2.13.1 has quid est autem quare). This seems like a laughable impossibility, but the idea of fish moving to the land is found in Theophrastus’ work and as part of an adynaton in Vergil’s Eclogues 1.60-64. Pliny tells the story, found in Trebius Niger, about a giant octopus who would nightly cross land (and fences) to reach tanks where salted fish were made (Nat. 9.92). For more on these sites see Trakadas 2010. If Seneca is referencing Vergil’s passage (as Parroni: 2002 ad loc. seems to think), he does so in order to show that such “impossibilities” are actually possible. Indeed, such impossibilities are trumped by the works of luxury (opera luxuriae), cf. Ep. 122.7-9 for the variety of ways that vice and luxury transcend nature. During the flood, of course, fish are able to cross over land literally (a common topos in flood descriptions, cf. Hor. C. 1.2.7-12) and it was already known that octopuses (Aristotle HA 622a31, Opp. Hal. 4.264-307, Ael. NA 9.45) and moray eels leave the sea (Pliny Nat. 9.76, Ael. NA 1.50) – for food and to mate with snakes, respectively.
si nos maria transîmus, permutavimus sedes: For the idea that mankind’s ability to cross the sea and migrate has perverted nature and is, in some way, unnatural (especially because men tend to set out because of war), see NQ 5.18.1-16 and Med. 318-39. Medea tells Jason that it is not novel for her to mutare sedes because she has followed him, Med. 448. For positive benefits of such movement, cf. NQ 6.1.6: in pestilentia mutare sedes licet, and Seneca’s view of migration when he is in exile (Dial. 12.7.1-10), summed up by ita fato placuit, nullius rei eodem semper loco stare fortunam, 12.7.10. See Edwards 2018 for the concept of exile and tropes of displacement in Seneca. The repetitions of forms of transire may resound with previous uses when Seneca describes elemental transformation (e.g. note on 3.10.3 supra) – all of these supposedly miraculous events are nothing compared to the works of luxury.
[3.17.2] hoc miraris accidere?: For a similar phrase, cf. NQ 3.24.4. I wonder if some of this section may be riffing on a story Cicero tells about duplicitous fishing at a villa in Syracuse, cf. Cic. Off. 3.59 where the neighbor states, mirabar quid accidisset. For a brief discussion of this story, see Lytle 2016b: 127-28.
quanto incredibiliora sunt opera luxuriae!: For more on luxuria in Seneca, cf. the note on NQ 3.pr.13 supra and Motto 2000: 33-43. luxuria in essence is contrary to the law of nature, cf. Ep. 90.19, 119.15, NQ 4b.13.4. For connections between what is “incredible” and luxury, cf. Dial. 10.12.8 and for man’s abuse of nature’s gifts because of luxury, cf. Pliny Nat. 2.156-59. Often times the very expression of luxury is to replicate natura as in the villa of Vatia (Ep. 55) which has two artificial grottoes and an artificial river full of fish. For more on what such works of luxury might involve throughout the empire, cf. Dalby 2000, and for more on attacks against immorality and luxury, cf. Edwards 1993: passim.
quotiens naturam aut mentitur aut vincit: In as much as many Roman works of luxury are aimed to mimic or transcend nature (e.g. opulent piscinae, villas that encroach on the sea, golden mirrors as big as the body, cf. NQ 1.17.8; snow to cool drinks in all seasons, cf. NQ 4b.13.1-4), they can seem incredibiliora, cf. 7.22.1 for the aeterna opera naturae. This is a striking phrase summing up the adversarial (but emulative) relationship between luxuria and natura, cf. Pliny Nat. 21.45: vicisse naturam gaudens luxuria. In a sense the observers of the mullet are also somewhat like the philosopher in their examination of oddities and marvels of the natural world, but they pervert any potential understanding by treating it as a mark of luxury. This same problematic perversion is found in the stories of the spelunkers of NQ 5.15.1-4, and Hostius Quadra (NQ 1.16.1-9). For each there is the wrong motivation for such observations whether Philip’s avaritia, Hostius’ voluptas, or the gourmand’s luxuria. This use of mentior (cf. Ep. 120.8 for a similar meaning) with natura is only found here but natura is paired with vincere elsewhere, cf. Cic. Ver. 2.5.98, Sen. Suas. 2.9.11.
in cubili natant pisces: cubile can mean a “lair” or “den” but does not seem to be used of a tank for fish (TLL 4.6.1271.79-1272.71). Seneca will later write of a “clear tank” (perlucido vivario, NQ 3.18.4) from which the fish must be removed. Here cubile probably indicates the dining couch itself (TLL 4.6.1271.25-31). Obviously the fish would be in a sort of aquarium, but Seneca wants to shock with the image of fish swimming on the couch much like the pisces in terram transeant above. It will become apparent that Seneca is writing about the contemporary trend of watching red mullets die before eating them because these fish change color as they die (Pliny Nat. 9.66). Seneca wrote a (lost) treatise, De piscium natura (cf. Berno 2015a: 82). The connection between certain fish and luxury was common in Greece (Davidson 1997: 3-20) as well as Rome (Pliny Nat. 9.53, Wilkins 2005, Déry 1998) stemming, in part, from the piscinae of the wealthy (cf. Higginbothen 1997: 55-64 for more fishpools and Roman status; Marzano 2013: 213-33 for the “extremely complex design” of Roman fishponds). See Dial. 5.40.1-5 for Seneca’s version of the story of Vedius Pollio, his piscinae, and Augustus’ rebuke and Ep. 55.6-7 for the complex fishery of the villa of Servilius Vatia. There was a trend for red mullets at this time, not only to be explained by the visual spectacle but also a general “craze” for a product associated with the rich and famous, as attested by Martial, Seneca, and Juvenal, who write about the exorbitant prices that large mullets demanded (cf. Andrews 1949). Seneca stretches his description of this culinary luxuria, repeating details and returning to it from different angles, as Jones 2013 hypothesizes “The continual repetition and return to the description illustrates how unsatisfying this pleasure is – it cannot last, and whets the appetite for still more of the same – which does not go any further to sating desire” (79).
sub ipsa mensa capitur qui statim transferatur in mensam: There are numerous mosaics showing the seafood that the Romans enjoyed or even the leftovers of such a meal, which Vottero 1989: ad loc. thinks Seneca references by sub ipsa mensa capitur (cf. Pliny Nat. 36.184). That sort of optical illusion would be fitting for what we know of the dining habits of the rich, if we can believe Petronius (Sat. 31ff.) or even the life-like nature of such mosaics, statuary, and paintings (cf. Sat. 29). There are fishponds in many of the gardens of Pompeii and the fish could be transferred to tanks placed under the table at meal-times (Pliny Nat. 9.64). Pliny the Younger describes the impressive water works of a villa in detail at Ep. 5.6.36-40. Seneca mentions that there are certain homes in which water flows around the diners as they eat (Dial. 9.1.8-9) so it is possible we are supposed to think of this arrangement (see Higginbotham 1997: 207-213 for evidence of such a system at villas in Pompeii). Columella 8.17.7 mentions that the mullet is particularly delicate and does not adjust well to new conditions, including ponds, but other authors, e.g. Cic. Att. 2.1.7, Mart. 10.30.24, mention them in ponds. For more on the fish of Pompeii, cf. Reese 2002. The fish needs to be transfered immediately (statim) to the table for the “show” to begin and the use of transferatur is probably meant to pick up the use of forms of transire above and the surprise of fish being caught “under the very table” (sub ipsa mensa) is meant to mimic the surprise that fish could be “under ground” (sub terra, 3.17.3) as he will emphasize in the following section.
parum videtur recens mullus, nisi qui in conviviae manu moritur: The red mullet is only considered fresh if it dies in the hand of the diner. While this is common enough even today in restaurants (e.g. lobsters), the Roman practice becomes an appalling spectacle. The power dynamics may recall that of the emperor and his subjects, cf. Cl. 1.1.2: ego vitae necisque gentibus arbiter, qualem quisque sortem statumque habeat, in mea manu positum est. Oppian reports that when Marcus Aurelius fishes, he takes pleasure in watching the captured fish quiver and writhe in his hand (Hal. 1.56-72). The red mullet is a small, bottom-feeding fish (called τρίγλη in Greek, probably because it was thought to spawn three times a year, cf. Aristotle H.A. 543a5). It only became a delicacy in Roman society and especially during the late Republic and early Empire (it would appear even a two-pound mullet is rare; Juvenal mentions a six-pound mullet selling for 6,000 sesterces at 4.15-17, see Gowers 1993: 203-5 for interpretation). Seneca will go on to mention how contemporary luxury has changed the concept of “fresh” fish (NQ 3.18.2). Seneca mentions it with the oyster at Ep. 77.16 as particularly extravagant dishes and tells the story of an absurd bidding war over a large mullet at Ep. 95.42. For more on this fish (Mullus barbatus and Mullus surmuletus, difficult to distinguish besides the size), see Thompson 1947: 264-68. Andrews 1949 and Alexander 1955 briefly discuss this passage, while Capponi 1972: 538-44 discusses all ancient testimonia, Higginbotham 1997:49-50 gives a concise overview of their habits and Roman attitudes, and Berno 2003: 65-110 offers the most thorough literary analysis of this passage as a whole and its relationship to the book.
vitreis ollis inclusi afferuntur: olla (orig. aul(l)a) includes any jar or pot, usually for cooking, although sometimes it can be used of cinerary urns (s.v. OLD 1c). There are no other citations of olla being made of glass in our sources, but one can find glass vessels of such size, and the introduction of glass-blowing technology in the first century CE probably led to an increase in such vessels (cf. Stern 1999). Pliny (Nat. 9.66) has very similar language in his account (vitro spectetur inclusus) and later in his account, Seneca will simply call it vitreum (NQ 3.18.4).
observatur morientium color: In their death throes, the red mullets take on a variety of different shades. Writers such as Pliny (Nat. 9.66) and [Ovid] Hal. 123 remark on the change of color. Pliny’s account may be indebted to Seneca’s. Berno 2003: 74-75, 90-91 stresses that Seneca creates a death-spectacle in his description of the dying mullets and the faulty application of one’s observational skills on such opera luxuriae. Gauly 2004: 100-102 on the parallels with theatrical spectacle. It is a commonplace that the convivium often included a memento mori (cf. Edwards 2007: 164-67), is this Seneca’s elaborate take on such a memento?
quem in multas mutationes mors luctante spiritu vertit: Seneca has accented such mutationes of elements (NQ 3.9.1) and seasons (NQ 3.16.3), and it will later be important to the flood passage (NQ 3.27.3). Seneca will write spiritu luctante to describe the wind inside the earth that causes earthquakes (NQ 6.12.2). The fish can be thought of as a microcosm of the larger living organism of the earth, which is being exploited by man for luxuria.
alios necant in garo et condiunt vivos: For more on the production and exchange of the Roman fish sauce, garum, cf. Corcoran 1963a and Curtis 1991. In the collection of recipes of Apicius, it is called for in nearly every dish. Mullet recipes can be found, see Dalby 2003: 280 for this recipe preserved in Apicius (cf. Pliny Nat. 9.66). Davidson gives the following (modern) culinary advice, “Rock mullet may be grilled or fried. Their delicate but firm fresh needs no sauce or stuffing…The liver is a delicacy” (2014: 676). For connections between gastronomy and Roman society/literature, cf. Gowers 1993: esp. 1-49. necare is a strong verb for killing fish and Seneca emphasizes that this process of “pickling” the fish in fish sauce is done while the unfortunate fish are still living, vivos (the similarity between condire and condere would also lead to the image of being “buried alive” in the fish sauce).
[3.17.3] ubi sunt qui fabulas putant: Repeating fabula from the opening of the chapter to emphasize that the “tall tale” of fish underground shouldn’t be considered miraculous, when culinary creations have reached such heights of luxuria.
piscem vivere posse sub terra et effodi, non capi?: If gourmands demand fish be buried in garum while still alive (vivos), it shouldn’t be a surprise that fish can live in water underground (sub terra) and be “dug out” (effodi), not captured (non capi). After all, mullets are captured under the table (capitur, NQ 3.17.2) of these wealthy connoisseurs.
quam incredibile illis videretur si audirent natare in garo piscem: incredibile here concluding its concentrated use (3 times) in this section. For things that “seem incredible” because of our ignorance, cf. Ep. 92.25: incredibilia nobis haec videntur et supra humanam naturam excurrentia. maiestatem enim eius ex nostra inbecillitate metimur et vitiis nostris nomen virtutis inponimus. Horace’s Nasidienus serves a lamprey with shrimp swimming around it (Sat. 2.8.42-43). Later in this book, there will be the “unnatural” pairing of wolves and sheep swimming together in the flood (NQ 3.27.14) and and natare will be stressed as the verb of choice to describe the action of the flood (NQ 3.27.15: scies quid deceat, si cogitaveris orbem terrarum natare).
nec cenae causa occidi sed super cenam: super cenam = “over dinner, at the table” (s.v. OLD 1d). An alliterative phrase concluding in a cretic+trochee clausula. In Dial. 7.11.4 Seneca mentions that Apicius’ luxurious meals would display animals of every kind “at the table” (super mensam). Apicius is also mentioned with scorn at Dial. 12.10.8-10. Although he is not mentioned by name here, he surely lurks behind the description. See Richardson-Hay 2009 for more about Seneca’s attitude towards food.
cum multum diuque in deliciis fuit: in deliciis here means “treated as a pet” (s.v. OLD 3d, usually with habere, cf. Sen. Apo. 13.3) and mullets were said to be favored as pets because they would come when called, cf. Mart. 4.30.3-7, 10.30.22-4, Varro Agr. 3.17.4, Cic. Ad Att. 2.1.7, Pliny Nat. 10.193. Of course, delicia can also denote luxurious habits or self-indulgence, cf. Sen. Ep. 114.2 and the note on NQ 3.18.3 infra.
oculos ante quam gulam pavit: The phrase pascere + oculos to mean “feast the eyes (upon)” appears first in Terence Phor. 85, but then appears elsewhere (and not uncommonly) with scenes of death or torture, cf. Ov. Met. 14.728, Cic. Ver. 5.65. Lucretius uses the phrase to describe the pleasing effects of certain colors (2.418-22) and Seneca may be alluding to the Lucretian passage. The bold zeugma is unattested elsewhere. Manilius writes how “Nereus feeds gluttony from the deep” (gulam Nereus ex aequore pascit, 5.196). Pliny (Nat. 9.66) remarks that “gourmands” (proceres gulae) enjoy watching red mullets die and such “appetites” (gulae) for Seneca are negative as a rule, Ep. 89.22: profunda et insatiabilis gula, Ben. 3.28.4, Ep. 124.3. For the decadent culinary creativity associated with the belly, cf. Petr. 119.1 and Mart. 13.62.2: ingeniosa gula est. This sort of behavior is analogous to that of Hostius Quadra who feeds his eyes and his own appetites (mendacio pascar, NQ 1.16.9). Horace had claimed of fancy convivia that ducit te species (Sat. 2.2.23-24). See Edwards 1997a for more on the relationship between pleasure and spectacle. Although Seneca stresses the visual element here, at Dial. 7.11.4 he hits upon all five senses when he writes of Nomentanus and Apicius enjoying music, sniffing perfume, eating delicacies, and reclining on soft cushions while they enjoy the spectacles with their eyes (spectaculis oculos).
******
******
