[3.20.1] At quare aquis sapor varius?: The interlocutor begins a new topic on the various flavors of water which quickly gives way to miraculous qualities of certain springs and numerous quotations from Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The various tastes of the different aqueducts are catalogued by Frontinus (Aq. 1.13-15, 2.89-92), Vitruvius Book 8 often touches upon the taste of various waters and springs (cf. 8.3.26 for his summation), and Pliny Nat. 15.106.1-108.7 details thirteen common flavors, including water which should have “no flavor element” (nullus sucus). For Plato and Aristotle “flavours arise from the interaction between water, earth and the plants that filter them, and definite ratios among the flavours result in the most pleasant flavours” (Rudolph 2018: 57). There are nice reflections on the taste of spring water in Greece found in Kitto 1933: 122 “The Greek countryman is a connoisseur of waters”, and Glover 1946: 1-29. The sense of taste among the Romans has been the study of recent works by Gowers 2017 and Paulas 2017. See notes above on NQ 3.1.2, 3.2.1 for more on sapor in the NQ.
ex solo prima est per quod fertur: Vitruvius mentions how soil influences the taste of water (8.1.2). See Robinson 2011: 18-26 for mineral analysis of the waters of Peirene and how the land influences its taste (and does not protect it from contamination). A similar construction will be found at NQ 3.24.1: si [ignes] subiecti sunt ei solo per quod aquis transcursus est.
secunda ex eodem, si mutatione eius nascitur: As Seneca outlined above, the elemental transformation of earth into water is what allows there to be a consistent supply of water for rivers and springs, cf. NQ 3.10.1-5 supra.
tertia ex spiritu qui in aquam transfiguratus est: NQ 3.9.2-3 supra for the mutation of elemental air (aër) into water. That would seem to be his primary reference, but spiritus allows for play with the “harmful exhalation” below at 3.20.2. Seneca invents the term transfigurare and utilizes it two additional times, Ep. 6.1.1: Intellego, Lucili, non emendari me tantum sed transfigurari, and Ep. 94.48, cf. Bickel 1957 for the neologism.
quarta ex vitio quod saepe concipiunt corruptae per iniuriam: While the previous causes of taste were neutral in tone, here Seneca utilizes language that emphasizes negative connotations to this taste. The water is personified to somehow be “injured” and “corrupted” which results in a “defect” in its taste. For this use of iniuria, cf. TLL 7.1.11.1676.61-64. The use of corrumpere + aquam is used in the Digest to indicate the willing “pollution” of a neighbor’s well-water: Is qui in puteum vicini aliquid effuderit, ut hoc facto aquam corrumperet (D. 43.24.11 pr. Ulp. 71 ad Ed.). ex vitio appears at Dial. 12.11.4 of unnatural desires, and Seneca earlier wrote of waters that cured vitia, cf. NQ 3.1.2 supra. At the conclusion of this book (NQ 3.27.4-5), this same language reappears of problems associated with the flood and, at NQ 6.27.3 Seneca will return to waters that are dangerous and plague-ridden. It is notable that this same language is used of degenerate and decadent rhetoric and writing at Ep. 114.1 and the common connections between water and literary style, e.g. Hor. C. 4.2.5-8, Sen. Ep. 40.8: [philosophia] habeat vires magnas, moderatas tamen; perennis sit unda, non torrens.
[3.20.2] hae causae: In this sentence Seneca will show how these same causes do more than give flavor to water, they are also the reasons for the miraculous qualities of certain waters.
medicatam potentiam: Cf. Ben. 4.5.3: Quid medicatorum torrentium venae? The idea that such waters will have a distinct flavor can be seen also at Dial. 1.2.1 where Seneca writes that even tanta medicatorum vis fontium does not change the flavor of the sea. This section takes up from the mention of medicatae aquae at NQ 3.2.1 supra.
gravem spiritum: There is a seeming paradox in the spiritus being gravis, but Seneca believes the “exhalation” from water can be harmful. Certain waters get their force from the addition of spiritus, cf. NQ 3.16.4 supra and Seneca will later write about a harmful spiritus that abides in water struck by lightning at 2.53.1. Because elsewhere in Seneca’s work spiritus stands for the Stoic pneuma, Seneca may be thinking of Theophrastus’ idea that “smelling occurs by drawing in the breath (pneuma) to the brain through the nostrils at the same time as breathing” (De sensibus 25). For more on this and the elemental associations of smell being an intermediary between water and air (Plato Tim. 66e), cf. Totelin 2015: 19-20.
odoremque pestiferum: Livy employs this to describe the stench of dead bodies on the battlefield (25.26.11) and Seneca elsewhere writes of the pestiferi vaporis coming from the kitchens of the city (Ep. 104.6) and uses pestiferum to denote certain waters that develop underground (NQ 6.27.3). Seneca will focus on the odor of dandies of his day compared with the “heroic” odor of Scipio Africanus in Ep. 86.12-13. Vergil writes of the pestiferas fauces of a sulphur vent at Ampsanctus (A. 7.570, see Horsfall 2000: ad loc. for further information).
levitatem gravitatemque: The weight of water was alluded to at NQ 3.2.2 supra and will be further described at NQ 3.25.5-10 infra.
aut calorem nimium aut rigorem: The temperatures of various waters are also mentioned at Pliny Nat. 2.227-229, Vitruvius 8.2.9-8.3.5, and at NQ 3.24.1-4 infra. Cold water spas were thought to be beneficial for certain ailments (Strabo 5.3.1, 5.3.11, Pliny Nat. 29.10, 31.5; cf. Allen 2006: 116). It is possible that Seneca himself had engaged in hydrotherapeutic treatments for his own ailments and this may have informed his views in this book as well as more generally, see Griffin 1976: 41-42. For the contrast between calor and rigor, cf. Lucr. 6.368-9: prima caloris enim pars est postrema rigoris; / tempus id est vernum. Seneca will write about the coolness of certain springs (4a.2.26: quo tempore frigent interior terrarum et redit rigor fontibus) and rigor will become a “buzz-word” in section 4b.13, where Seneca objects to the trade in ice and snow and the use of frozen water by epicures.
loca sulphure an nitro an bitumine plena transierint: Cf. Pliny Nat. 31.59 for the medicinal qualities of springs rich in bitumen and potash/soda (nitrum) and NQ 3.24.4 for more on the way water passing through these regions will pick up heat and therapeutic qualities. The Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places claimed that all such waters were harmful to the health (7.48-57). Pliny catalogues various types of soda and discourses about its wonders and uses at Nat. 31.106-23. Sulphur and bitumen were common smells in Campania, especially around Lake Avernus and the Phlegraen Fields, and one can still visit the Bocca Grande where “the smell of sulfur is pleasantly stimulating” (Kroonenberg 2011: 39, and 30-57 in general for the geology and volcanism of this area). For the importance of sulphur springs as a source of healing, cf. Edlund-Berry 2006: 172 and Simon 1990: 220-24 especially on the deity Mefitis, who was the goddess of healing sulphur waters.
hac ratione corruptae cum vitae periculo bibuntur: Here there is not a sense of “injury” as above, but that the water picks up traces of sulphur, soda, and bitumen from the land and is thus corruptae. s.v. OLD periculum 2b for the use of the gen. of “person or thing endangered” and comparanda in Apul. Met. 4.3 and Celsus 8.9.1. Seneca does not use the phrase elsewhere. In small doses, such contamination will not hurt the drinker: Vitruvius claims that all suphurous water has a bad taste and smell (8.2.2), Pliny remarks that waters which are bituminata aut nitrosa are good for drinking and purging (bibendo atque purgationibus, Nat. 31.59, cf. Vitr. 8.3.3). Pliny gives further information about sulphur at Nat. 35.174-77 and bitumen at Nat. 35.178-82
[3.20.3] illinc illud de quo Ovidius ait: illinc = “from that source” (OLD 1b) and illud anticipates the flumen of the quotation. This quotation is the first of many from Met. 15 that were included in the speech of Pythagoras. It appears that collections of miraculous waters were particularly common because, in the words of Pliny, “in no part of Nature are there greater marvels” (in nulla parte naturae maiora esse miracula, Nat. 31.21). One may recognize this book as Seneca’s contribution and response to such paradoxographies, cf. Myers 1994: 150-54. Because he stresses the reasons for such miracula, it might be said that he is turning such paradoxographies into doxographical material. Pythagoras is important for this book, cf. Torre 2007 and Berno 2012.
flumen habent Cicones quod potum saxea reddit / viscera, quod tactis inducit marmora rebus: From Met. 15.313-14 when Pythagoras is espousing that certain waters even “give and receive new forms” (figuras / datque capitque novas, Met. 15.308-9, a clear echo of the opening lines of the Met.). While Pythagoras shies away from giving precise reasons for the marvelous waters, Seneca will actively explain how these mirabilia fontium come to be. As Beagon 2009 states, “Pythagoras’ message is that reality is wondrous rather than rational” (289), while Seneca wants to stress the rational explanations of such changes/wonders. The Cicones were a Thracian tribe located at the foot of Mt. Ismara and were mentioned elsewhere in Ovid (Met. 10.2, 11.3, cf. Verg. G. 4.520) in association with Orpheus. If drunk, it is said the river would turn one’s organs to stone, or cover material in “marble” (cf. Pliny Nat. 2.226, Nat. 31.29-30). See Bömer 1986: ad loc. If one wants to visit a similar type of water, see the “Petrifying Well” at Mother Shipton’s Cave in Knaresborough (North Yorkshire, England) where the mineral content of the water is so high that it turns objects into stone (teddy bears, a bicycle, a top hat) within a couple of years (basically the same process as stalagtites and stalagmites, but accelerated). The concentration of minerals in the water is so high that it is harmful to drink.
medicatum est et eius naturae habet limum ut corporibus adglutinet et obduret: See Hine 1996: 56-57 for the supplement of se and taking limus as the subject of the ut clause. The river itself is medicatum, following Seneca’s argument about the various conditions that cause waters to have certain qualities. Seneca writes of the mineral content (or possibly the silt and slime of the river) as limus. eius naturae…ut = “of such a nature…that”. There are two steps to the process in the result clause as the limus first binds itself to the foreign body and then hardens.
Puteloanus pulvis, si aquam attigit, saxum est: The famous Pozzolana ash used to make cement in Italy with the addition of lime and water (Pliny Nat. 16.202, 35.166). This material is common in the Bay of Naples especially and was instrumental to the Augustan and Imperial building programmes (Balmuth 2005). Vitruvius mentions numerous varieties (2.6.1-6) and his discussion centers around how it is native to volcanic areas that have e sulpure aut alumina aut bitumine ardentes maximos ignes (2.6.1). Seneca posits waters that act in an analogous way and seems to be relying on Vitruvius in this section (see note on NQ 3.20.4 infra). For more information on Roman concrete, cf. Martin 2015 and Rowland and Howe 1999:179-80 for the science behind it. For more on these areas in Greek and Roman thought, see Connors 2015.
sic e contrario haec aqua, si solidum tetigit, haeret et figitur: Seneca’s argument is built on the complimentary reaction (and rhetoric) of these two clauses. If Pozzolana turns to stone when it has touched water, then this water (if it has touched something solid) clings to it and, in a sense, turns it to stone. Seneca is calling attention to the way his language “by the inversion of the order” (s.v. contrarius OLD 6a) can also create the “opposite” effect (OLD 1). If water added to ash should merely create mud and not stone (saxum), so water, when it touches a solid object, should not cling to it and be made motionless (s.v. figere OLD 7), but merely flow past.
[3.20.4] inde est quod res abiecta in Tyaneum lacum lapideae subinde extrahuntur: Tyaneum is the suggestion of Gerke, taken from Vitruvius 8.3.9 where Vitruvius discusses a similar phenomenon in a broad lake in Cappadocia, in itinere quod est inter Mazaca et Tuana. This suggestion is unique to Vitruvius (cf. Callebat 1973: ad loc.) and I believe Seneca was struck by the mention as well as the vocabulary (repetition of a form of lapideus). The manuscripts’ eundem is impossible because no lake has been mentioned, cf. Hine 1996: 57 for discussion (although he would prefer to obelize the word). Seneca, almost uniquely, utilizes inde est quod for a transitional “hence” (Dial. 3.15.3, 4.2.5, 6.23.2, Ep. 74.11).
quod in Italia quibusdam locis evenit: Seneca will go on to describe the spring at Albulae, but there are other locations such as Veline lake and the river Sele near Sorrento (Pliny Nat. 2.226).
sive virgam sive herbam sive frondem demerseris, lapidem post paucos dies extrahis: Vitruvius makes a similar observation about the lake in Cappadocia, which encourages the conjecture supra: in quem lacum pars sive harundinis sive alii generis si demissa fuerit et postero die exempta, ea pars quae fuerit exempta invenietur lapidea (8.3.9). This is reminiscent of descriptions of the transformation of coral into stone when it is exposed to the air, cf. Ovid Met. 15.416-17 and Pliny’s description of a Pozzolana-like soil in Cyzicus, which demersa in mare lapidea extrahitur (Nat. 35.167).
circumfunditur enim corpori limus adliniturque paulatim: The mineral “mud” in the water gradually petrifies the object. Seneca has forms of circumfundere elsewhere in the NQ to describe air (6.14.3, of sound “waves” 2.9.4), water (6.64), and clouds (2.28.2). adlinere is found of the negative effect of the crowd, which “smears us unknowing” (nescientibus adlinit, Ep. 7.2) and of the Nile, which spreads its silt on the arid land ([Nilus] arentibus locis allinit, NQ 4a.2.9). For a dramatic example of a similar process, Tanzania’s Lake Natron has such a high mineral content that it dries and calcifies animals that come into contract with it, cf. Draxler 2013.
hoc minus tibi videbitur mirum: Once again Seneca tries to make the miraculous nature of this seem normal. With such standard paradoxographical lists, this effort is all the more notable. Seneca similarly addresses the reader’s sense of what is wondrous at Ep. 71.21: hoc mirum videtur tibi? (cf. Ep. 120.8, NQ 2.1.4).
si notaveris Albulas: Albula was an early name of the Tiber (e.g. Verg. A. 8.332, Ovid Fast. 2.389), derived from the sulphur springs close to the Tiber’s source. The water of Albulae Aquae has a notable bluish tint, but the mineral content is high in lime, which helps to give it is name as “White Waters”. It is mentioned by Pliny Nat. 31.10 and Strabo 5.311 (both of whom mention its curative properties). Because of its proximity to Rome, it would have been known to many of Seneca’s readers, hence the appeal to autopsy found in this section (it is probable these were the waters that Augustus frequented for his rheumatism, Suet. Aug. 82.2)
fere sulphuratam aquam circa canales suos tubosque durari: tubos is to be preferred to cibos or rivos, cf. Hine 1996: 58 and 3.24.3 infra in which Seneca discusses the use of pipes to distribute heat at Baiae. Vitruvius mentions the waters of Albula as particularly odiferous, in Tiburtina via flumen Albula et in Ardeatino fonts frigidi eodem odore, qui sulphurati dicuntur (8.3.2). Deposits of sedimentary rock (often limestone) are common around hot springs (see Mammoth Hot Springs), and pure sulphur deposits can occur around such hot springs (cf. Pliny Nat. 31.20, who claims that pumice accrues around the hot springs of Mattiacum). Empedocles claims that petrification happens because of heat and explains rocks and stones as the result of hot springs ([Arist.] Prob. 937a11-16, cf. note on 3.24.1 infra). Even purer spring water used for aqueducts would often be high in calcium carbonate and the resulting sinter would clog the passage of water in the aqueducts (see Hodge 2000: 98-99).
[3.20.5] Aliquam harum habent causam illi lacus: Furthering his response to Ovid, Seneca tackles lakes that cause drunkenness, madness, and sleep. Ovid describes these lakes as Aethiopes, probably referring to the general area because he does not know their name (cf. Bömer 1986: ad loc.). The introduction to this section seems purposefully vague, only to be answered as additional phenomena that can be accorded to sulphurata aqua, a.k.a. the medicatam potentiam of 3.20.2.
‘quos quisquis faucibus hausit,’ ut idem poeta ait, ‘aur furit aut patitur mirum gravitate soporem.’: Ovid Met. 15.320-21, see Bömer 1986: ad loc. for the reading. Another moment from the speech of Pythagoras, now explained as the effects of sulphur in the water. By connecting this to the final quotation of 3.20.6 = Met. 15.528-30, Seneca also ties such madness or deep slumber to drunkenness, and uses Ovid to help explain Ovid in a way that does not occur in the Metamorphoses. There, Ovid had contrasted Clitor’s spring (which makes one abstain from wine) to these stories, but Seneca does not include this water probably because of its fanciful aetia, which conflicts with Seneca’s four reasons.
similem habent vim mero, sed vehementiorem: merum usually refers to unmixed wine and is probably used here in part to set up the mera vina of the subsequent Ovidian quotation. Lucretius mentions vini vis and its similar detrimental effects at 3.476-80, which Seneca will echo at Ep. 83.20: ubi possedit animum nimia vis vini, quidquid mali urgit and below NQ 3.21.2. Whereas the madness or fainting spells could be independent phenomena, Seneca ties these into a “drunkenness” that the water causes in the same way as strong alcohol.
nam quemadmodum ebrietas, donec exsiccetur, dementia est: Seneca discusses drunkenness at other moments in his prose works, devoting all of Ep. 83 to the topic, cf. Ep. 83.18: nihil aliud esse ebrietatem quam voluntariam insaniam, Dial. 3.13.3, Ep. 19.9, and Ep. 59.15 (another connection with insania). In the NQ he mentions the effects of constant drunkenness at 4b.13.5. dementia appears elsewhere in the NQ to express excess fear (6.29.2) and man’s demented abuse of nature’s gifts (5.18.4, 5.18.6) and Seneca will use exsiccare during the flood passage (3.27.4, 3.29.8). That the sober man is “dry” is found at Dial. 7.12.4. See Motto and Clark 1990 for more on ebrietas in Seneca, and Graver 1998: 622-23 for more on the way ebrius is contrasted with siccus ac sobrius and drunkenness’ effect on one’s psychological state.
aut nimia gravitate defertur in somnum: The Ovidian and Senecan passages are the only two cited by the OLD 3b “overpowering quality (of sleep or sim.)”. Seneca elsewhere writes of “heavy sleep”, cf. Herc. F. 1051, Ep. 53.7, and those “half-asleep and sluggish” (semisomnes et graves, Dial. 10.14.4). Is the drunkard in some way mimicking the natural quality of water to flow downward (cf. aqua natura defertur, NQ 2.24.1). aut is a conjecture by Shackleton Bailey, who makes the fine observation, “both to set the comparison straight (cf. ‘aut furore movet aut sopore opprimit’) and because a topper does not as a matter of course fall asleep only after he has dried out” (1979: 451).
sic huius aquae sulphurea vis: Vitruvius uses vis aquae when discussing the way waters pick up the taste and composition of the lands through which they pass (8.3.9, 8.3.26). Livy mentions a certain spring which flowed with great power (fontem sub terra tanta vi aquarum fluxisse, 24.10.8). Pliny writes of the dangers of sulphur water and how the odor of the sulphur can “go to the head” (Nat. 31.60). He describes the maxime mira natura of sulphur at Nat. 35.174-77. The deposits caused by such water (3.20.4) may also lead to the “heaviness” of the water, which will cause such “heavy” sleep.
[et] habens quoddam acrius ex aëre noxio virus: The et should be deleted (following Haase 1852). Seneca may be playing with the similarity between vis/virus. Elsewhere in NQ, virus appears as a way to describe gold as a corrupting agent (5.15.4). Such “noxious air” will be elaborated in the following chapter (3.21.1-2) and Seneca will return to it at 6.28.1-3.
mentem aut furore movet aut sopore opprimit: Seneca elsewhere pairs forms of movere and mens when discussing the inspiration that can create sublime poetry (Dial. 9.17.11), individuals suffering curable madness (Ep. 94.36: de illis nunc insanis loquor, quibus mens mota est, non erepta), the bloodlust that a trumpet can cause (Dial. 4.2.4), and those suffering the extreme fear caused by earthquakes (NQ 6.1.3). Near the end of this work, Seneca will muse upon the sulphur smell that lingers after lightning, which can drive people mad (NQ 2.53.2). Seneca’s rhetorical oneupsmanship is on display as the similar sounds of furore/sopore respond to Ovid’s line and his use of furit/soporem. It is a pairing he used previously at Herc. F. 1049-50.
[3.20.6] hoc habet mali: Seneca incorporates the Ovidian quotation by providing a different verb and object than found in the original context, where it is introduced to contrast a spring that causes abstentious behavior. Seneca has a similar construction elsewhere, cf. Dial. 3.19.1: habet, inquam, iracundia hoc mali.
Lynceius amnis…bibisset: Ovid Met. 15.329-31. The concluding quotation is the longest of those offered. Seneca works through the passage of Ovid in rough order, omitting certain waters from Ovid’s paradoxography (Crathis, Subaris, Salmacis, Clitor’s spring). If Ovid’s Pythagoras stresses the element of wonder in these waters (see Beagon 2009: 292-93), Seneca provides the explanations and underlying causae. In Ovid, the river is called the Lyncestius (the Lyncestae are a people of Western Macedonia), whose power Pliny upholds (Nat. 2.230), while Vitruvius mentions that its acidity is useful for certain ailments (8.3.17). For Aristotle, it is notable only for its acidity (Mete. 359b16-18) and it appears as the final example of the way that different waters achieve their taste by percolating through different soils (as it is here in Seneca). Aristotle then goes on to discuss wind more generally and Seneca’s next section deals with harmful winds. Seneca may be responding to the larger format of Aristotle’s work, but with a quotation of Ovid, and his own interpretation of its effects. This is a nice illustration of the way that Seneca blends Greek and Latin material in this work as a whole.
*******
*******
