[3.18.1] Permitte mihi paulum: Seneca’s moral “digression” gathers steam. Whereas before he was sure to tie his descriptions of the mullet to the “incredible” idea that fish live underground, now he focuses more sardonically and critically on the people who engage in such luxurious practices and their perverted senses. Seneca will use comparable phrases at other moments of departure, cf. NQ 5.15.1: nunc mihi permitte narrare fabulam, NQ 2.35.1: Permitte mihi illam rigidam sectam tueri eorum… At these moments in which Seneca transgresses the normal bounds of his topic, he also discusses transgressions of various sorts. Hine comments on such moments: “Seneca’s main concern is to emphasize the difference between understanding and controlling the world for the sake of power or pleasure, and the desire to understand it out of philosophical motives” (Hine 2010: 14).
quaestione seposita: Although he makes this claim, it is easy to see how he has already tied the ethics of luxuria into the physics of his quaestio. As Williams 2012: 77 explains, “so abrupt a change in direction in 3.18.1 intensifies his seemingly unstoppable outrage; but it may also be programmatic in function, starkly confronting his newly initiated reader with the special concoction of physicomoral investigation in this fresh undertaking”. The phrase itself has a legal ring, cf. Quint. Inst. 12.2.16.
castigare luxuriam: Seneca’s only use of this verb in NQ. For more on luxuria, cf. note on 3.pr.13 supra. Cf. Ep. 95.19 on the way luxuria (“ravager of land and sea” terrarum marisque vastatrix) mixes together so many different foods for the throat (gulam). Richardson-Hay 2009: 84 comments on the connections between cooks “professors of the kitchen” (scientiam popinae professus, Dial. 12.10.8) and their teaching, “Their doctrine is luxuria, a vice that signifies for Seneca an uncompromising corruption of moral being (Ep. 9.19) and of all that is good, right, safe, virtuous, and rational”.
‘nihil est’ inquis ‘mullo exspirante illo formosius’: Is there some insinuation against his interlocutor’s behavior in Seneca’s use of inquis? Others read illis to parallel 3.18.2, but by reading the illo of T the speech becomes more personal and damning. The beauty of the dying mullet is to be seen as a novel form of luxuria – not a product of conspicuous consumption in itself (fishermen had enjoyed it previously, see infra), mere excess (such as the thousand pound boar and flamingo tongues of Ep. 110.12), or a chef’s skill. The refrain of this chapter (nihil est…formosius) resonates within the NQ as a whole (of god, NQ 1.pr.14; of fruit in a glass bowl, NQ 1.6.5; of comets, NQ 7.27.6) and a similar formulation was found in his de Ira about the angry man who sees his own reflection: iratis quidem nulla est formosior effigies quam atrox et horrida qualesque esse etiam videri volunt (Dial. 4.36.3). In the NQ ex(s)pirare is used of dying at 3.18.2, 6.1.9, 2.59.10, 2.59.11 and of Aristotle’s exhalation theory at 1.1.7. The visual enjoyment of this spectacle aligns this episode with other moments of spectacle in Seneca’s works, see Littlewood 2004: 172-258 for this aspect of his tragedies, and Edwards 1999 for the body as spectacle and Seneca’s tendency to align the reader with the victim, not the agent (258).
ipsa conluctatione animam adficienti: This long ablative absolute highlights the struggle of the fish for “breath/life” (animam). conluctatio can mean “death-agony” (OLD 2a) and with adficere almost resembles a disease (cf. Ep. 53.7). For the gods, it is a pleasure to watch the virtuous man struggle (Dial. 1.2.7: ego vero non miror, si aliquando impetum capiunt spectandi magnos viros conluctantis cum aliqua calamitate). According to Seneca, we spend too much time struggling with our passions (cum affectibus colluctamur, NQ 1.pr.5) and need to attain a more divine perspective.
rubor primum, deinde pallor suffunditur: The various colors of the fish move from the ruddy rubor of life to the pale pallor of death. The movement of colors can be paralleled to the movement of water later in the book (NQ 3.26.1: quorum aqua per secretos cuniculos reddita tacite suffunditur) and the rainbow at NQ 1.3.1: illis colorem suffundat. Seneca will write of a similar color combination (of the moon) at NQ 7.27.1: quare modo rubeat, modo palleat; quare lividus illi et ater color sit…
squamaeque variantur: The rapid color change is a stress response and activates the pigment bearing cells (chromatophores) of the scales. For more on the science behind such changes, cf. Sköld et al. 2015.
incertas facies: The facies of fires in the sky will be discussed in NQ 1, cf. NQ 1.1.2: ignium multae variaeque facies sunt. The form (repetitions of facies at 1.3.6, passim) and coloration of a rainbow will come up for analysis as well in NQ 1. Cf. Aetna 469 for a parallel phrase: illinc incertae facies hominumque figurae. When the flood occurs, Seneca imagines humans ruinam an naufragium querantur incertos, 3.27.7.
inter vitam ac mortem coloris est vagatio: vagatio is a rare word and only appears here in Seneca. Seneca uses inter vitam mortemque to describe those dying from long illness at Dial. 6.10.5. For a change in color between paleness and flushed anger, cf. Seneca’s description of Medea: pallor fugat ruborem. / nullum vagante forma / servat diu colorem (Med. 859-61). Fishermen often scale the red mullet immediately before its death when the red color is most intense, “without which the fish would not be saleable” (Harris 1895: 267).
longa somniculosae inertisque luxuriae neglegentia: While luxuria can be associated with such slovenly and laid-back behavior in Seneca (e.g. Ep. 97.1, Dial. 10.1.3 and 10.14.4), in the NQ it is an unusually active force, cf. 1.17.8, 7.31.1. Seneca’s phrasing may be indebted to Cicero’s description of the senex character in Roman comedy: inertis ignavae somniculosae senectutis (Sen. 36.10). He will go on to describe the Etesian winds as somniculi and delicati (cf. NQ 3.18.3 infra) because they “can’t get up in the morning” (NQ 5.11.1). The difference between active/lazy luxury may be the speaker’s focalized point of view, as Hine 1996: 52 recognized “here we have the words of the luxury-loving interlocutor whose attitude is different”.
quam sero exper sero circumscribi se et fraudari tanto bono sensit: Hine’s excellent conjecture, drawing upon a suggestion of Erasmus, creates sense as well as anaphora of sero from the manuscripts’ sero expressero, see Hine 1996: 52. expergiscor is also paired with sero at Ep. 122.10. circumscribere here in the sense of “to deprived of” (OLD 6b). luxuria is the understood subject of experrecta est and sensit. Of course, the use of tanto bono is from the point of view of the speaker, as Seneca would not realize this as a good, see Motto 1970: 96-98 for extensive references to Seneca’s view of the “the good”.
hoc adhuc tam pulchro spectaculo piscatores fruebantur: In his earlier
Consolationes, Seneca wrote about enjoying the spectacle of the nature, Dial. 11.9.3 (rerum naturae spectaculo fruitur), and the heavens, Dial. 12.20.2 (pulcherrimo divinorum spectaculo fruitur). cf. Dial. 4.5.4 about Hannibal who sees a ditch full of human blood and exclaims “o formosum spectaculum!” By figuring this event as a spectaculum, the diners become analogous to the audience of a gladiatorial show or theatrical performance and Seneca gives us their heavily focalized impressions of the event, cf. Barton 1993: passim; Edwards 1999: 263 “Throughout Seneca’s writing different forms of spectacle – gladiatorial combat, athletics, theater – regularly reappear as image and simile. A preoccupation with spectacle also affects the way other material is presented”. luxuria demands that its products be expensive (NQ 4b.13.4: adeo nihil illi [luxuriae] potest placere nisi carum), and therefore it is unthinkable that poor fishermen should be the only ones to enjoy this show. For fishermen as paradigms of poverty, see Radcliffe 1926: 116-40 and Purcell 1995a: 135-36, but see Corcoran 1963b for relatively prosperous fishermen and Rowan 2014 for the wide consumption of fish by non-elites at Herculaneum.
[3.18.2] Quo coctum piscem? Quo exanimem?: One does not want a cooked or a dead fish, because that would deprive the audience of the show. For the extravagant preparation of fish in the homes of the rich, cf. Hor. Sat. 2.8.42-53.
in ipso ferculo expiret: The fish dies on the very dish on which it could be served and in front of the diner’s eyes. ferculum is also used of the platters of fine food that the rich ingest at NQ 4b.13.6.
mirabamur tantum illis esse fastidium: Seneca shows how the idea of “fresh fish” has changed with this new fad for mullet. The “fussiness” (fastidium) that these affluent diners show can be paralleled by the general world-weariness that plagues the rich who always search for novelty, cf. Dial. 9.2.15: fastidio esse illis coepit vita et ipse mundus, et subit illud tabidarum deliciarum: ‘Quousque eadem?’ On the ease of fulfilling one’s appetite, and the difficulty of fulfilling one’s fastidium, cf. Ep. 17.4: facile est pascere paucos ventres et bene institutos et nihil aliud desiderantes quam impleri. Parvo fames constat, magno fastidium. This is the only use of fastidium in the NQ.
ut nollent attingere nisi eodem die captum: Result clause expressing their fastidium. captum continues the use of capio from NQ 3.17.2 and 3.17.3. In general fresh fish was considered a delicacy for the Romans because it was hard so to maintain its freshness, cf. Déry 1998: 94 and the demand for fresh fish is what led to the profusion of piscinae. Salt-water piscinae were especially expensive to build and maintain and were almost exclusively owned by the rich. Note how Seneca finds ways to touch upon a number of the senses in this section, from touch (attingere) here to taste (saperet) and even hearing below (with the painting and shouting of the runners).
qui, ut aiunt, saperet ipsum mare: Ostensibly a common phrase, but unattested elsewhere in Latin. There is an anonymous English proverb “Fish should smell like the ocean. If they smell like fish, it’s too late.” There is a moment in Longus' Daphnis and Chloe when they spy a passing fishing vessel "they were rowing strenuously, hoping to get their freshly caught fish to the city for one of its rich men while still in good condition" (3.21).
ideo cursu advehebatur: Repetition of ideo “for that reason” stresses the absurdity of the action. Supply piscis with advehebatur. Cursu = “at a run” (OLD 1b).
ideo gerulis cum anhelitu et clamore properantibus dabatur via: “Porters” or “runners” (gerulis) take the fish from the harbor to the homes of the rich. Their “panting” (anhelitu) might remind the reader of NQ 3.pr.17 supra. In contrast, Seneca’s own “journey” in this work likewise requires speed (cf. NQ 3.pr.4 supra) and, in Ep. 37.3, Seneca writes, hanc tibi viam dabit philosophia. Bravo Díaz 2013: ad loc. sees possible Plautine influence with the porter as a type of servus currens and the passage may recall the memorable fisherman Gripus from Plautus’ Rudens. For more on fishmongers (cetarii) in Rome, cf. Marzano 2013: 243-45, 285-87 (for fishmongers associated with red mullet); Bond 2016: 149-51. The picture that such clamor evokes can be paralleled with Seneca’s depictions of the activities of the bath from the sound he hears (Ecce undique me varius clamor circumsonat: supra ipsum balenum habito, Ep. 56.1).
[3.18.3] quo pervenere deliciae: Anaphora of quo but with a different meaning “to what a state” (OLD 1b). For a similar sentiment about the reach of decadence, cf. Ep. 47.19: sed ad rabiem nos cogunt pervenire deliciae, ut quicquid non ex voluntate respondit, iram evocet; Ep. 86.7: Eo deliciarum pervenimus ut nisi gemmas calcare nolimus.
iam pro putrido his est piscis occisus: Any dead fish is rotten in the eyes of these hedonists. pro = “as good as, the equivalent of” (OLD 9b).
‘hodie eductus est.’: The words of the imagined fishmonger or fisherman trying to sell his catch or possibly the host trying to impress his guests. For educere of catching fish, cf. TLL 5.2.119.41-45. For the importance of eating fish quickly, cf. Quint. 6.3.90 and Purcell 1995a: 143 on sharing a particularly impressive catch, “It is not surprising, given the size of the larger Mediterranean species, and the perishability of fish, that the point seems often to have concerned the delicate question of the choice of people with whom to share the windfall”. There is evidence for fishing boats with tanks, cf. Marzano 2013: 296-98.
‘nescio de re magna tibi credere: The response of the gourmand. This passage is rife with textual problems, cf. Hine 1996: 53-54. Nescio+inf. = “to be unwilling” (OLD 3a), the re magna here must read against earlier configurations of magnarum rerum, cf. NQ 3.pr.1. and note supra. This would indicate to the reader the faulty view of the diners, who believe this should be considered a res magna.
ipsi oportet mihi credam: This combines the conjectures of Oltramare and Erasmus. If one wishes not to obelize me credas, there are two primary options – either to emphasize the contrast between tibi and me/mihi and change accordingly, or to make the fish the subject of ipse and change credam into doceat (vel sim). I believe that Seneca would prefer to stress one’s own conviction, cf. Ep. 10.1: audeo te tibi credere. See Hine 1996: 53-54 for extensive discussion.
huc adferatur, coram me animam agat: Seneca uses animam agere of the death of Claudius, Apo. 2.4 and of the way that one’s death will be the final accounting of one’s life: quid egeris, tunc apparebit, cum animam ages, Ep. 26.6. Seneca commonly has coram when discussing actions that have to be witnessed, cf. Ben. 6.38.5, Ep. 3.3, NQ 4a.pr.18.
ad hunc fastum pervenit venter delicatorum: Seneca also focuses on the venter as the seat of appetite (but easily appeased) at Ep. 17.4, Ep. 21.11, Ep. 60.3-4, and Ep. 123.3; the venter of rich gourmands is parodied at Ep. 89.22: infelices, ecquid intellegitis maiorem vos famem habere quam ventrem?, Ep. 95.24: Di boni, quantum hominum unus venter exercet!, and Ep. 114.26: aspice culinas nostras et concursanti inter tot ignes cocos; unum videri putas ventrem, cui tanto tumult comparatur cibus? He has strong words against the delicati at Dial. 5.8.4, Ep. 23.4, Ep. 114.20 (part of his style is like the man creed: iracundi hominis iracunda oratio est, commoti nimis incitata, delicati tenera et fluxa), passim. There is a jingle-like quality to pervenit venter.
ut gustare non possint: A like portrait of gastronomy gone wild can be found at Ep. 89.22. The only other use of the verb gustare in NQ deals with the supposed fondness of hail for blood sacrifice, NQ 4b.6.2: protinus illae nubes alio declinabant, cum aliquid gustassent sanguinis. The combination of vision and taste in this sentence is drawn upon in the following chapter where the underground fish are foul to see and harmful to eat: horridam aspici et turpem ac noxiam gustu, NQ 3.19.1.
nisi quem in ipso convivio natantem palpitantemque viderunt: In the words of Roller, the convivium “labels a late afternoon or evening meal taking place in a domestic dining room or garden, hosted by the proprietor of the residence, involving some combination of family members and guests numbering anywhere from a very few up to perhaps a dozen…and ordinarily employing a single triclinium, the three-sided arrangement of couches commonly used for dining during the period” (2006: 7). Seneca exclusively employs palpitare to describe the action of the heart elsewhere (Herc. F. 1299, Dial. 5.14.3, Ep. 74.4, Ep. 95.16). The very actions of natantem palpitantem bring to “life” the main course of the convivium. If this is the mullet swimming in garum or in its aquarium before being caught, the repetition of natare will be mimicked during the flood (3.27.14-15). The convivium was a place to observe and be observed, e.g. Dial. 2.15, Dial. 5.37.1-5, Ben. 1.14, Ep. 19.11, Ep. 47.8, Ep. 71.21, and D’Arms 1999 (who stresses the convivium as spectaculum), Roller 2006 (especially on posture), Edwards 2007: 161-78 on connections between the convivium and death. Is Seneca possibly thinking of Lucretius’ correlation at 3.938-9: cur non ut plenus vitae conviva recedes / aequo animoque capis securam, stulte, quietam?
tantum ad sollertiam luxuriae pereuntis accedit: sollertia (“cleverness, resourcefulness”) is elsewhere positive in Seneca’s writings, cf. Dial. 2.2.2, Dial. 11.18.8, Ep. 121.24. For the paradox that luxuria, in its desire for ever greater pleasures, leads to its own destruction, cf. NQ 4b.13.4: contra se ingeniosa luxuria, NQ 7.31.1: invenit deliciarum dissolutio et tabes aliquid adhuc tenerius molliusque, quo pereat, and Mantovanelli 2001: 72-76. See Vottero 1989: 155 for the readings of tantum and pereuntis. “How far the cleverness of deadly luxury has reached!” gives the sense of the lethal nature of luxury, but the implication is also that such luxuries will be short-lived.
tanto[que] subtilius cotidie et elegantius aliquid excogitat furor: luxuria is now identified with furor, commonly employed in Seneca when writing about any passion that has grown out of control, from love (Phaed. 184) to hate (Med. 396). For more on the creative potential of furor, cf. Schiesaro 2003: esp. 47-48 for Thyestes and “the moving forces of the tragedy, furor, nefas and furor-inspired poetry”. This furor is similar to the creative potential of crudelitas in Seneca’s de Clementia: ingenium advocat instrumenta excogitet per quae varietur atque extendatur dolor (Cl. 1.25.2). Seneca pairs subtilitas and elegantia in Ep. 124.1: non refugis autem nec ulla te subilitas abigit: non est elegantiae tuae tantum magna sectari… See Berno 2003: 88-89 and Williams 2012: 79 for the way Seneca evokes the subtilitas of 3.pr.18 here, “In the luxury diners’ quest for ever more exotic stimuli for their jaded senses, however, the positive connotations of subtilitas at 3 pref.18 is lost in the decadent times of 3.18.3” (Williams 2012: 79). excogitare in the NQ always has negative connotations and is associated with luxuria (4b.13.4) and dementia (5.18.4).
usitata contemnens: This is a sign of luxuria at Ep. 5.5: quemadmodum desiderare delicatas res luxurita est, ita usitatas et non magno parabiles fugere dementiae. Medea’s fury will impel her to seek a mode of punishment that is haut usitatum (Med. 899). Cf. the use of contemnere introducing the story of Hostius Quadra at NQ 1.16.1: intellegas quam nullum instrumentum irritandae voluptatis libido contemnat et ingeniosa sit ad incitandum furorem suum.
[3.18.4] ‘nihil est melius saxatili mullo’: In the past, Seneca avers, the “rock” mullet was considered the most delicious form of this fish. Cf. Plautus Rud. 299 for saxatilis and Columella 8.16.8 for fish that thrive in rocky environments. The French (rouget de roche) and Italian (triglia di scoglio) terms for red mullets highlight that they are found among rocks. The repetition of nihil est, now with melius, heightens the contrast between fish caught for food and for spectacle and may also recall the opening, NQ 3.pr.18: nihil est autem apertius his salutaribus quae contra nequitiam nostrum furoremque discuntur. It is clear this exemplum is resonating with the lessons (hopefully) learned in the preface.
‘nihil est moriente formosius’: variatio from the initial expression of NQ 3.18.1 supra. Also leading to the inability for these same observers to sit next to morienti amico to look upon mortem patris (NQ 3.18.6 infra).
‘da mihi in manus vitreum in quo exultet trepidet’: One can imagine an empty glass fishbowl would be the appropriate size to watch the fish endure its death throes. That being said, it is possible here that Seneca is describing their normal swimming behavior, since mullet often jump or skip on the surface of the water. Cf. 3.pr.8 supra for note on exultare where the fortunate individual puts too much stock in his success (one may see the mullet in a similar position). See NQ 6.1.4 for the trembling of those suffering from the traumatic after-effects of an earthquake. trepidare can be polyvalent for exuberant living behavior or the fear and trembling of death.
ubi multum diuque laudatus est: The laudatio was an “eulogy of the dead” (OLD 2b), making this spectacle into a faux funeral in some way. It is difficult to get a precise sequence of events. For example, is this vitreum full of water? Is the fish first praised while still alive? It would seem to be the case, if it is praised multum diuque. The lack of precision either shows that this was common enough that the audience would be able to supply the proper sequence or else that the particulars do not matter as much as Seneca’s general castigation of luxury and those who engage in such activity.
ex illo perlucido vivario extrahitur: For more on viviaria in Rome in general, cf. Kiple and Ornelas 2000: 457. The use of illo would seem to identify this vivarium as the vitreum previously mentioned. The mullet is removed and placed (on a plate under a glass bowl?) upon the table in order to be observed by all.
[3.18.5] tunc, ut quisque peritior est, monstrat: peritior implies that many of these have seen this spectacle before and their comments may be rehearsed.
‘vide quomodo exarserit rubor omni acrior minio!: minium is used for the red pigment made from either red lead or cinnabar. It is notable that this type of observation is similar to that Seneca himself will make about the varying colors of stars: cum in caelo quoque non unus appareat color rerum, sed acrior sit Caniculae rubor, Martis remissior… (NQ 1.1.7).
vide quas per latera venas agat!: agere = “stir up, agitate” (OLD 7). It is possible that Seneca hopes observations of these veins should recall the veins of the earth (e.g. NQ 3.15.1). The observer should not be faulted for this sort of scrutiny, but for the lack of “larger” understanding. The reader may also recall the extispicium of Seneca’s Oedipus and Thyestes for such details (Oed. 353-83, Thy. 756-8).
ecce sanguineum putes ventrem!: Again, should the reader think about the mullet as a representative living being, like a man (or the earth), which relies on veins and arteries for the movement of blood and air (cf. NQ 3.15.5, NQ 6.14.1)? venter is often metonymically to denote a glutton (OLD 2c) which makes the fish and diner somehow resemble one another, and cf. Ben. 7.2.2.
quam lucidum quiddam caeruleumque sub ipso tempore effulsit!: Brilliant white and blue colors appear at the point of death. The various parts of the fish’s body (per latera, ventrem) had been denoted, but this concluding flash occurs over the whole body. Williams, following Corcoran 1971: vol.1 244n.1, believes sub ipso tempore denotes “just before death” (OLD 8), a temporal translation as opposed to a particular place on the fish’s anatomy is “surely the more forceful sense here, bringing the brilliant spectacle to its climax just as the fish approaches its last breath” (2012: 78n.83). Note how the spectators of comets also remark on the colors: aut lucidiorem esse aut rubicundiorem et crines aut in interiora deductos aut in latera dimissos (NQ 7.11.3).
iam porrigitur et pallet: porrigere can be used to mean “to stretch out (in death)” (OLD 2b). For the pallor of death, cf. Herc. F. 555: Mors avidis pallida dentibus and his comments on Vergil’s pallentesque habitant Morbi (A. 6.275) at Ep. 107.3 and Ep. 108.29. For a similar color combination of the effects of a lightning strike, cf. NQ 2.40.6: coloratur id cuius alia fit quam fuit facies, tamquam caerulea vel nigra vel pallida.
in unum colorem componitur: The ability to resolve into one color or divide into many is also pertinent to Seneca’s discussion of the rainbow, cf. NQ 1.5.8. componitur may also hint at the very composition that Seneca has created in this description (OLD 8), and the word color could evoke the colores of declamation.
[3.18.6] ex his nemo morienti amico adsidet: For sitting next to the bedside of someone who is sick, cf. Ben. 6.25.2. Seneca stresses their lack of friendship first, before moving on to their lack of reverence for their family. For more on how death and friendship are intertwined in Seneca, cf. Ep. 6.3, Ep. 9.10, Ep. 62.2, Ep. 99.2. Part of the Roman “good death” would be to be surrounded by friends and family, cf. Noy 2011.
nemo videre mortem patris sui sustinet, quam optavit: The sting in the tail here highlights the common idea that legacy-hunting family members hoped for the death of the paterfamilias, cf. Champlin 1989 and Hope 2009: 27-31 for more on wills and such legacy hunting. cupiditias hereditatis was a common theme in declamation, cf. Sen. Contr. 5.4, [Quint.] Decl. min. 258, Decl. min. 377, and Lentano 2015 for discussion. sustinere + inf. often has a negative connotation (OLD 6) “to have the necessary will/courage”. The contrast between dying father/friend and dying fish makes a strong equivalency between their suffering and the callous spectator.
quotus quisque funus domesticum ad rogum sequitur!: quotus quisque = “there are few people who…/how few...” (lit. “In what proportion to the total is each person who”). For the basics of funerary rites and the procession (pompa) to the pyre, cf. Toynbee 1971: 43-55. The funus domesticum could denote any member of the larger household and all burials were held outside of the city walls so funeral processions were a frequent sight (Hor. Ep. 2.2.74). Seneca connects funerals and banquets at Ep. 122.2-3, where the all-night banquets are likened to funeral rituals. For the public nature of Roman funerals, cf. Bodel 1999.
fratrum propinquorumque extrema hora deseritur: For extrema hora signaling death, cf. Verg. E. 8.20, Luc. 8.610-11, Mart. 4.73.1, see TLL 6.3.2963.30-57. For the connections between brothers and kinsmen in funerary contexts, cf. Caes. B.G. 7.38.3, Livy 5.11.5.
ad mortem mulli concurritur: The impersonal use of the passive highlights the action involved (A&G 208d). For a similar use in Seneca, cf. Dial. 10.2.4: aspice illos, ad quorum felicitatem concurritur; bonis suis offocantur, and Ep. 36.2.
nihil est enim illa formosius: illa now referring to mors. Fitting because that is the emphasis of the previous sections of this chapter and it highlights the difference between funerary spectacle and that of the dining room. Death, and one’s attitude towards death, is a recurring theme in the NQ, cf. note on 3.pr.16 supra, 5.18.6, 6.1.9, 2.59.3-9.
[3.18.7] non tempero mihi: Seneca will repeat this formula at NQ 4b.6.1 before telling the story of the “hail watchers” (chalazophulakes) and the sacrifices designed to stop the hail from falling: non tempero mihi quominus omnes nostrorum ineptias proferam. This sort of apology is not uncommon in Seneca’s prose, cf. Vottero 1989: ad loc. for copious examples. Seneca is unable to restrain his words because of the unrestrained and debauched behavior he is describing, cf. Ep. 114 for his exposition of talis oratio, qualis vita.
quin utar interdum temerarie verbis et proprietatis modum excedam: For a similar use of tempero+quin, cf. Ben. 2.29.2 (s.v. tempero OLD 3b). temerarie (“rashly”) may have Epicurean overtones, drawing attention to the Epicurean pleasures just described, see Lucr. 2.1060. For proprietas about the fitness of language, cf. Quint. Inst. 8.2.6, 12.10.43. Seneca knows of the Stoic theory of proprietas verborum (cf. Ep. 81.9 and Hendrickson 1905: 259-60) and for additional moments in which Seneca writes about modum excedere, cf. Ep. 39.5, Ep. 81.6 and Berno 2003: 84n.73 for discussion. If Stoic conceptions of language stress the rational way proper language reflects the natural world, then this statement shows just how outrageous and irrational their behavior truly is. This is a particularly self-conscious statement, which prepares the reader for the upcoming sententia. For Seneca’s clever sententiae in general, cf. Quint. Inst. 10.1.128 on Seneca’s style (ingenium facile et copiosum), Summers 1910: lxxiii-lxxvii, and Dinter 2014.
non sunt ad popinam dentibus et ventre et ore contenti: popina usually denotes a lower-class dining establishment, but Seneca will use it contemptuously of extravagant meals, Dial. 7.11.4, 12.10.3 (both passages also rebuke luxurious dining habits). Seneca fragments these men into mere components of appetite: teeth, stomach, and mouth. The men themselves had fragmented the fish into particular parts.
oculis quoque gulosi sunt: Seneca coins the adjective gulosi, which is then picked up by Martial (7.20.1, 13.71.1) and Juvenal (11.19). This eye-catching new word may be indicative of not only the event which exceeds propriety (cf. Ep. 33.3 and the use of ocliferia there), but also Seneca’s quest for striking sententiae. Hutchinson 1993: 151n.9 remarks on Seneca’s elegance and artifice, “The very close, oculis quoque gulosi sunt, deftly takes up the phrase before the introduction, oculos ante quam gulam pavit (17.3), and pointedly combines what it had kept separate”. This movement from the appetite to the eyes hits upon what is problematic about luxuria in that it transforms even the most natural needs into decadent cravings, cf. NQ 4b.13.3-4 where water is now expensive. One can find analogues to this situation in the Thyestes, where spectatorship, appetite, and furor are operative, cf. Schiesaro 2003: esp. 235-7. Seneca claims his Stoic teacher, Attalus, was responsible for his own abstinence from elaborate dining: cum coeperat voluptates nostras traducere, laudare castum corpus, sobriam mensam, puram mentem non tantum ab inlicitis voluptatibus, sed etiam supervacuis, libebat circumscribere gulam ac ventrem (Ep. 108.14). Obviously, one can find modern parallels in fine restaurants where the presentation is as important as the food, cf. Styler 2006.
******
******
