Oberlin Classics

[3.27.1] admonet me locus: admonet is to be preferred to sed monet or sed movet (see Hine 1996: 62 and Ep. 118.10: locus ipse me admonet. For additional “admonishment” in the NQ, see 1.17.4 and 2.44.2 and for Seneca’s theory of admonitio, see Ep. 94.25, 94.39 – in essence it is a way to engage the attention and activate the memory to exhort certain behaviors. The vividness (and repetition) of his account acts to fix details of this destruction in the minds of his readers. At this point the flood may have come to Seneca’s mind as the most macroscopic of such cyclical purifications, as well as the grandest example of the workings of terrestrial waters. This opens Seneca description of the “Great Flood” (see introduction for more on the flood) and has been subject to some of the most insightful and incisive writing on the NQ. It is clear that this flood is meant to be the end of all life on earth, but it is not the cosmic destruction that Seneca writes about elsewhere (Dial. 6.26.5-7, Dial. 11.1.1-3), as life immediately returns to earth (NQ 3.30.7-8). The repetition in form that Seneca employs in which he describes the world ending by precipitation, then tides, then elemental transformation before beginning life once again provides a literary expression of the Stoic idea of eternal recurrence. This is fitting for this book on terrestrial waters (cf. NQ 3.28.7: aqua et ignis terrenis dominanatur). Seneca finds a way to anticipate topics from the remaining books of the NQ in his flood description, from similar flooding of the Nile (4a) to the winds (5) and hail (4b) that impact the destruction. For the Stoic overtones to this destruction and the question of the difference between κατακλυσμός and ἐκπύρωσις, see Mader 1983, Long 2006: 256-82, Gauly 2004: 235-66, Kullmann 2005, Armisen-Marchetti 2006, and Wildberger 2006: 56-58. For the reception of Seneca’s description in the Octavia, see Ferri 2003: ad 391-93. Stoics believed in the destruction of the cosmos at the conclusion of the “great year” (magnus annus – when all heavenly bodies return to their original position ~ 13,000 years according to Cic. Hort. Frag. 35M), and subsequent regeneration of the cosmos (palingenesis), see van der Sluijs 2006 for more on the “Great Year” and the figure of Phaethon and Nagy 2005: 81-83 for Near-Eastern parallels to such Flood narratives. Some have seen this flood as political and there are certainly political touches in its description (cf. Star forthcoming), but Gauly’s idea (2004: 253-67) that the flood is a metaphor for Nero’s collapsing political system is questionable. For Seneca’s literary antecedents, intratextual connections, and the rhetorical heights he strives to achieve in this section, see Degl’Innocenti Pierini 1990: 177-210, Hutchinson 1993: 128-31, Chaumartin 1996: 185-87, Morgan 2003, Mazzoli 2005, Limburg 2007: 159-67, Williams 2012: 124-32, Berno 2012. Scholars such as Caduff 1986 and Withington 2013: 9-32 deal with flood narratives more generally in a cross-cultural context.

ut quaeram, cum fatalis diluvii dies venerit, quemadmodum magna pars terrarum undis obruatur: By insisting again on investigating (quaeram) of this event, Seneca stresses the intellectual work he has been engaged with throughout. That this day is both “fated” and “fatal” is underscored by the use of fatalis, although fatalis dies is commonly used to express one’s last day of life (TLL 5.1.1056.30-32). Tac. Dial. 13.6 may be a recollection of this: quandoque enim fatalis et meus dies veniet (see Mayer 2001: ad loc. for more on this expression). The flood narrative of Deucalion was common in the Greek tradition (e.g. Pind. Ol. 9.41-56, Plato Crit. 112a, Tim. 22a, Laws 677a, 682bc, 702a) and variations on the flood motif appear in Aristotle (Mete. 352a28-b3, more localized) as well as Stoicism (SVF 2.608, 2.1174). Xenophanes explains fossils as remnants of the time when “everything long ago [was] covered with mud, and the impression was dried in the mud. All mankind is destroyed whenever the earth is carried down into the sea and becomes mud; then there is another beginning of genesis, and this foundation happens for all the worlds” (F 184, see Lang 2016: 34-35 for translation and discussion). Chroust 1973 gives a survey of Greek philosophical views, especially Aristotle’s. Latin writers including Lucretius 5.338-44, 5.380-95, Horace C. 1.2.1-12, and Vergil (Ecl. 6.31-42) mention floods or the story of Deucalion, as does Seneca himself at Tr. 1038-41: tenuit querelas / et vir et Pyrrha, mare cum viderent, / et nihil praeter mare cum viderent / unici terris homines relicti. Cicero writes of the periodic floods and fires that destroy the world (eluviones exustionesque terrarum, Rep. 6.23, and see Pease 1958: ad N.D. 2.119). Seneca’s use of diluvium and obruere may go back to Ovid (Met. 1.434, 1.309) and, indeed, this section has been read as a long aemulatio of Ovid’s flood narrative (Met. 1.253-312), see notes passim. For connections between this diluvium and Seneca’s dramatic works, see Rosenmeyer 1989: 151-59. Seneca’s use of magna pars terrarum probably is meant to recall a previous mention of wide-spread destruction at 3.pr.5: conflagratio qua magna pars animantium obruere exaruit (see note supra). obruere is employed often by Seneca in this section (3.27.15, 3.28.1, 3.29.5), and he writes of the monstrous wave in Phaedra (pontus in terras ruit, 1033). Its use here may echo Lucretius’ description of the great flood, umor item quondam coepit superare courts, / ut fama est, hominum multos quando obruit undis, 5.411-12.

utrum oceani viribus fiat, et externum in nos pelagus exsurgat: Seneca questions whether the flood will be caused by the ocean, see 3.22.1 supra for the ocean as a primordial water and Hom. Il. 21.196-97 for Ocean as source of all water (see Salowey 2017: 164-65 for discussion). externum pelagus/mare indicates the ocean as well (OLD 1). For the greater size of the waves and tides in the ocean, cf. Med. 754-56 and for Seneca’s possible knowledge of tsunamis see NQ 6.32.4, Phaed. 1025-34 (Forsyth 1975). He will elaborate on this at 3.28.2-7.

an crebri sine intermissione imbres: Celestial water is signified by these storms and the following cola. imbres is common in the flood section (3.27.4, 3.27.10, 3.28.1, 3.28.2). For sine intermissione in Seneca, cf. NQ 7.10.2, Ep. 95.17, Ben. 4.3.2, 5.9.3, Cl. 1.6.1. Seneca describes the effects of such excessive storms at 3.27.4-15.

elisa aestate hiems pertinax inmensam vim aquarum ruptis nubibus deiciat: The seasons are figured as wrestlers or winter is a snake that can batter or squeeze summer to death (Dial. 1.6.9, Ep. 24.14). The stubbornness of winter is elsewhere figured as part of nature’s plan at Dial. 4.27.2 (although in that reverie Seneca figures natura as “kind and gentle” mitis et placida, 4.27.1). For pertinax of weather conditions, cf. NQ 4b.4.2, Ep. 70.3 and see NQ 1.6.1 for the use of vis aquarum of storm and note on 3.19.1 supra. The rupturing of clouds (ruptis nubibus) usually is indicative of lightning (Lucr. 2.214, Verg. A. 3.199, Sen. Med. 533), although here it seems more applicable to the sheer amount of water produced from violent microbursts in thunderstorms.

an flumina tellus largius fundat aperiatque fontes novos: Seneca will go on to describe how the earth itself will be a source of the water at 3.29.4-7. By using tellus, Seneca personifies the earth by using the cult title of this goddess “who especially personifi[es] the productive power of the earth” (OLD 2, cf. Verg. G. 2.460: fundit humo facilem victum iustissima tellus. Now she is only producing more sources of water which will destroy the world, cf. NQ 6.7.3: neque enim sufficeret tellus ad tot flumina edenda, nisi ex reposito multoque funderet. It may be significant that Tellus is the goddess who ultimately causes Jupiter to put an end to Phaethon’s quasi-ἐκπύρωσις at Met. 2.271-303. For “new fountains” see [Verg.] Cul. 78, Aetna 7, Ovid Met. 5.256, Met. 15.270, Luc. 3.263, Sen. NQ 6.6.2, but the idea of “opening fountains” is often metaphorical for learning or eloquence (cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.6.13: multo studiosius philosophiae fontis aperiemus, e quibus etiam illa manabant, Quint. Inst. 6.1.52: totos eloquentiae aperire fontes licet). Floods of the Tiber river were incredibly common and damaging – during Seneca’s life there were at least three notable floods of the Tiber (12 CE, 15 CE, 36 CE) and some of his details may be drawn from first-hand experience. Aldrete 2007 is a thorough and informative guide to the Tiber floods and the Roman response to them and it is intriguing that Seneca never mentions the Tiber in this book about terrestrial waters – is this part of his strategy to “marginalize Rome” in this work (see Hine 2006: 43-47)?

an non sit una tanto malo causa: This will be the case and is less a nod to Epicurean ideas of multiple causation, as the agglomeration of all possible sources of water attacking at once. See NQ 5.18.1 for a similar denial of a single reason. While forms of tantum malum proliferate in the tragedies (e.g. Phaed. 360, Oed. 57, Thy. 900), Seneca does not employ it often in his prose. Therefore the description of flattery in NQ 4a.pr.6 may be purposeful (futuros multos in persona tua Plancos cogita, et hoc non esse remedium tanti mali, nolle laudari) and acts to equivocate the destructive power of flattery with the flood (and also ties the end of book 3 to the start of book 4a). Elsewhere Seneca argues that Stoics believe the maker (a.k.a natura, deus) to be the sole cause of action (Ep. 65.4: Stoicis placet unam causam esse) and, in a sense, that is correct here (on the macro-level) as well. Cf. Limburg 2007: 162 and Gross 1989: 144.

sed omnis ratio consentiat: Here consentire has the sense of “to act together/in unison” (OLD 8). Seneca has ratio+consentire at Dial. 7.8.5 to indicate that when reason establishes harmony among all its parts it has achieved the highest good. Cf. NQ 3.29.7 infra for an additional use of consentire in relation to the flood.

simul imbres cadant, flumina increscent, maria sedibus suis excita procurrant: All forms of water work together to bring about the flood. Lucretius writes of the way the sea is driven forth by whirlwinds: omne excitat ingenti sontiu mare fevere cogens (6.441-2) and Seneca later in the NQ will write: ego extimescam emotum sedibus suis mare et ne aestus maiore quam solet cursu plus aquarum trahens superveniat, cum quosdam strangulaverit potio male lapsa per fauces? (6.2.5). He employs sedibus suis often in his prose (e.g. NQ 6.1.8, 6.30.2) and poetry (Oed. 955, 959, Ag. 485 – about a storm at sea that also involves rainfall, imbre auget undas, 482). procurrere will likewise reappear as the flood continues (3.28.3) and may recollect Horace Epod. 16.29 (in mare seu celsus procurrerit Appenninus), where Horace’s adynata involve waters rushing back to their sources and mountains being submerged (see Watson 2003: ad loc.). Seneca’s own flood description attempts to distance itself from the flights of fancy present in many adynata flood descriptions (see note on 3.27.14 infra).

omnia uno agmine ad exitium humani generis incumbant: uno agmine is common for a group moving en masse (OLD 4b), but agmen is also commonly used of flowing water (cf. Verg. A. 2.782: ruit agmine magno Inachus), a meaning that Seneca doesn’t use in the NQ. Vergil’s great description of a storm at sea features the winds falling upon the sea as if in armed array velut agmine facto…incubuere mari, A. 1.82-84. Seneca has the phrase uno agmine at Dial. 5.2.3 (saepe in iram uno agmine itum est…) and recollection of it may imply the fury of natura against the human race. The moralizing element comes out more strongly at the close of the flood (and through intertextual references) and this section stresses the “human race” more than any other in the NQ (3.27.12, 3.28.2, 3.29.9) Note how the phrase exitium humani generis is repeated at the close of the flood section (peracto exitio generis humani, 3.30.7), framing what has been under discussion. Seneca’s only other use of exitium…humani generis is of Caligula (quem rerum natura in exitium opprobriumque humani generis edidit, Dial. 11.17.3). A notable connection between this flood and that of the Nile in 4a.2.1 is the way Seneca writes of the beauty of that flood: hunc nobilissimum amnium natura extulit ante humani generis oculos et ita disposiut ut eo tempore inundaret Aegyptum quo maxime usta fervoribus terra undas altius traheret… The flood of the Nile brings life, the deluge causes death; but it will allow for the regeneration of life (3.30.7-8) so the flood of the Nile can be a microcosm for this deluge. For incumbere of water in Seneca, cf. Phaed. 715-16: quis eluet me Tanais aut quae barbaris / Maeotis undis Pontico incumbens mari?, cf. Ag. 474, NQ 4a.2.29.

[3.27.2] ita est: Relatively common in the letters (11 times), but only four times in the Dialogi and Ben., it appears three times in the NQ: 4a.pr.9, 2.59.6.

nihil difficile naturae est, utique ubi in finem sui properat: The opening sententiae is further modified by the utique ubi phrase, which gives it a pessimistic turn. It may be a recollection of Cicero Orat. 33.4: sed nihil difficile amanti puto, but with a very different termination. Seneca will return to this idea at NQ 3.30.1 infra and note his words on the power of Fortune (when writing about the destruction of Lyon by fire): quid illi [Fortunae] arduum quidve difficile est? (Ep. 90.4). For a similar context (death as part of life-cycle) and use of in finem, see Sen. Contr. 2.2.8: Nulli natura in aeternum spiritum dedit, statque nascentibus in finem vitae dies. finis has the sense of both “goal” (OLD 4b) and “end/destruction” (OLD 10) and Seneca seems to be playing with the idea of “end” in final chapters of this book. Seneca has variations on this final cola at Ep. 12.5, Ep. 26.4: Ecquis exitus est melior quam in finem suum natura solvente dilabi? For nature hurrying towards its own destruction, cf. Ep. 110.9: [sagacitas] prospicere et ultra mundum libet, quo feratur, unde surrexerit, in quem exitum tanta rerum velocitas properet. For more on natura in this section, cf. Stahl 1960: 117-18 and Limburg 2007: 174-75.

ad originem rerum parce utitur viribus: While one might expect creation or the beginning of things to be full of labor, Seneca claims that this is not the case (see Serv. ad Ecl. 6.31 for origo rerum for the beginning of the world – namque canebat uti magnum per inane coacta semina variae sunt philosophorum opiniones de rerum origine). Seneca has ad originem at Ep. 44.1: omnes, si ad originem primam revocantur, a dis sunt; cf. Dial. 6.23.1. The man who has fortitudo likewise uses his own strength: utitur enim suis viribus, suis telis (Ep. 113.27) and Seneca often joins parce + uti, see Ep. 74.18, NQ 4a.pr.5, Dial. 9.3.7-8 (with a sentiment approaching that of the preface to this work). The various appearances of vis in relation to various waters (see supra 3.27.1, 3.19.1) shows how these are part of Natura’s arsenal and can be employed in the destruction of the universe.

dispensatque se incrementis fallentibus: A dispensator is a house-hold manager or treasurer, but Natura takes on this role and distributes herself (dispensat se) in a way that is difficult to perceive. For a similar idea about Natura, see Ben. 4.4.3: quod nascentibus ex aequo distribuitur? Ut quae secuntur inaequali dispensata mensura transeamus, parum dedit natura, cum se dedit? Such “gradual growth” (incrementis fallentibus) is not applicable to anger, see Dial. 5.1.5: alia vitia a ratione, hoc a sanitate desciscit; alia accessus lenes habent in incrementa fallentia: in iram deiectus animorum est. This description also draws upon the larger analogy of the world as a living entity whose day-to-day growth can be snuffed out quickly and (seemingly) unpredictably. At Ep. 91.6 Seneca writes of fortune which can quickly destroy anything: Esset aliquod inbecilitatis nostrae solacium rerumque nostrarum, si tam tarde perirent cuncta quam fiunt; nunc incrementa lenta exeunt, festinatur in damnum. Cf. 3.28.2 infra for more on in damnum.

subito ad ruinam toto impetu venit: ad ruinam is uncommon, the only comparanda being Ben. 6.9.2: quam multos militiae morbus eripuit! Quosdam, ne ad ruinam domus suae occurrerent, inimicus vadimonio tenuit…, Seneca employs toto impetu often (Phoen. 133, Ag. 535, Ep. 22.3, 79.13, 94.31). Seneca will go on to redefine how this destruction has been planned from the start (ad quae non subito sed ex denuntiato venit, 3.30.1).

quam longo tempore opus est: Seneca will later equivocate about the difference between a long or short time of life: quae omnia feres constanter, si cogitaveris nihil interesse inter exiguum tempus et longum. Horae sunt quas perdimus, NQ 6.32.9. 3.16.2 supra also involves the time required for childbirth.

ut conceptus ad puerperium perduret infans!: For a similar use of perdurare about growing older cf. Ben. 7.2.1: videbis, quae puero data sunt, ante adulescentiam elapsa, quae in iuvenem conlata sunt, non perdurasse in senectutem, although here the growth is to be envisioned in the womb, as puerperium = “childbirth”. For this language of a child in the womb, cf. Ovid Met. 10.503 of Adonis: male conceptus sub robore creverat infans / quaerebatque viam…

quantis laboribus tener educatur!: educere is used in midwifery to mean “to assist at birth” (OLD 6), whereas it can also be used to mean “to rear, to bring up, to educate” (OLD 10). Seneca’s purposefully ambiguous language at this moment (quantis laboribus = “birthpains” (OLD 6b) or, more generally, “efforts”) could indicate another step in the birth of the child or the young child’s initially rearing and education. By telescoping aspects of time at this moment, Seneca’s perspective is that of a father looking back at the seemingly quick passage of time between a child’s birth, infancy, and adolescence. It is worth noting that the child mortality rate in ancient Rome was probably close to 30%, see Rawson 2003: 103-4, and Seneca lost his only son in his infancy (Dial. 12.2.5).

quam diligenti nutrimento obnoxium novissime [his] corpus adolescit!: Z has his corpus, but his should be omitted as in Ψ. The body is always vulnerable (obnoxium), which Seneca stresses also at Ep. 65.21 and Ben. 3.20.1, 4.18.2. Aspects of this train of thought echo his words of consolation to Marcia, cf. Dial. 6.12.2 (about the joy in raising children), 6.16.7. Seneca’s own experience with illness throughout his life might have reinforced such a belief, as Wilson hypothesizes, “It is likely that Seneca had pulmonary tuberculosis, which would also help explain why he became thinner and weaker as the disease advanced..the experience of living with chronic illness must have done much to inform Seneca’s constant sense that death was always just around the corner (2014: 57).

at quam nullo negotio solvitur: At NQ 3.15.7 supra it was the earth that easily suffered dissolution (solvitur), to be reiterated below at 3.29.4. Seneca has solvere of death at Ep. 66.43, Tr. 601. Cicero uses the expression nullo negotio to write about homicide: cum pater huiusce Sex. Roscius, homo tam splendidus et gratiosus, nullo negotio sit occisus (S. Rosc. 20), Sen. Ben. 5.12.2.

urbes constituit aetas, hora disturbat: The chiasmus adds to the contrast between aetas/hora. It also makes the establishment and destruction of cities more a quality of time than a single individual (cf. Cic. Rep. 2.12.2: [Romulus] urbem constituit, quam e suo nomine Romam iussit nominari). Hine 1980: 195 follows Z’s disturbat instead of dissoluit, recognizing that it is more commonly applied to an object like urbes. For its use in the NQ, cf. 4b.5.4, 6.17.2, 1.2.7. Here one must think of the destruction of Troy (a topic that Seneca stages in Troades) and Carthage (see the story of Scipio Aemelianus weeping at the sack of Carthage and reciting Homer’s verses on the destruction of Troy, Polybius 38.5). In Ep. 91.2, Seneca writes of the quick obliteration of Lyon: in hac una nox interfuit inter urbem maximam et nullam. Denique diutius illam tibi perisse quam perît narro (cf. Viti 1997 for more on this letter).

momento fit cinis, diu silva: Seneca uses momento for the quickness of destruction by storm (Dial. 6.16.7), wave (Ep. 4.7), and flood (NQ 3.30.6). For additional forest fires in Seneca, cf. Ep. 90.12, NQ 2.21.2. Often cinis stands for the funeral pyre in Seneca (Ep. 91.16: omnes aequat cinis; Herc. F. 367).

magna tutela stant ac vigent omnia, cito ac repente dissiliunt: For tutela elsewhere in Seneca about raising children (Dial. 6.24.1), farming (Dial. 12.9.1), the ruler (Cl. 1.1.5 and Braund 2009: ad loc.), and aging in general (Ep. 58.30). The pairing of verbs stant/vigent is paralleled by the pairing of adverbs cito/repente for a verb which wipes out all the action of the first verbs. repente+dissilire is a Lucretian phrase (2.86-87, 6.122-23). Elsewhere in Seneca, dissilire is used of the destruction of empires (Cl. 1.4.2, Ep. 71.9). For a later echo of stant/vigent, see Stat. Silv. 3.5.74: [urbes] stant populisque vigent.

[3.27.3] quidquid ex hoc statu rerum natura flexerit, in exitium mortalium satis est: ex hoc statu rerum = “from this [present] state/arrangement of affairs” and flectere indicates a change or modification, cf. NQ 3.pr.8: in melius adversa, in delerius optata flectuntur. In a book that stresses such changes happening at all time above and below ground, it is worrisome that any infinitesimal change is enough to destroy all human life. The position of rerum blends the normal way to refer to nature (rerum natura) and the common status rerum (cf. NQ 7.2.3, Ep. 102.24, Ep. 111.4) to indicate how the “state of things” is both dependent on and part of nature in some basic sense. If rerum natura is to be seen as divine and, in some sense, immortal, then the shift from natura to moralium stresses the divide between human and god. Ovid’s Jupiter believes perdendum est mortale genus (Met. 1.188) and sends the flood to do so. Seneca likes the phrase in exitium, cf. Phoen. 342, Med. 51, 513, 913, NQ 6.32.4 (about ἐκπύρωσις – ignes suos in exitium omnium). Seneca will repeat the phrase satis est (3.28.5) in the flood passage to emphasize how easily the flood happens and how a small change is enough to kill off all life. The phrase exitium mortalium was picked up later by Apuleius Met. 6.12.11, and Silius Pun. 17.187.

ergo cum affuerit illa necessitas temporis, multas simul fata causas movent: Seneca will mention how the flood is part of the large plan of fate and compare it to the workings of time at 3.29.1-3. Seneca connects necessity and fate at NQ 2.36.1: quid enim intellegis fatum? Existimo necessitate rerum omnium actionumque quam nulla vis rumpat; cf. Ep. 101.7, Dial. 11.1.3 (about the death of one man compared with the destruction of the cosmos), Ep. 77.12. Seneca has necessitas temporis at Ben. 4.29.2 and ties fate with causation at Dial. 1.5.7: fata nos ducunt et quantum cuique temporis restat prima nascentium hora disposuit. causa pendet ex causa, privata ac publica longus ordo rerum trahit. See Setaioli 2014b: 293-99 for more on Seneca’s view of fate as part of physics. This responds to 3.27.1: an non sit una tanto malo causa. Lucan echoes Seneca’s fata...movent at 1.644 in an apposite manner about the coming destruction of the world.

neque enim sine concussione mundi tanta mutatio est: concussio will be used in book 6 about earthquakes, NQ 6.20.2, 6.21.2, 6.25.4 and note NQ 6.1.4: quid enim cuiquam satis tutum videri potest, si mundus ipse concutitur et partes eius solidissimae labant? Seneca has tanta mutatio at Dial. 4.36.1, Dial. 6.13.4, Ben. 7.19.5, Ep. 120.22. The position of mundi indicates how change to the world will occur in part by shaking the world. When god assents in Cat. 64.206, the mundus shakes the gleaming stars (concussitque micantia sidera mundus). For Lucretius’ description of the end of the world (5.91-109), he also posits the occurrence of earthquakes (omnia conquassari in parvo tempore cernes, 5.106). See Star forthcoming for the strategic placement of Seneca’s flood vis-à-vis Lucretius’ description of the end of the world.

[3.27.4] Ut quidam putant, inter quos Fabianus est, primo immodici cadunt imbres: Seneca will go on to describe those that believe excessive rainfall can not cause the flood (3.28.1: sunt qui existiment immodicis imbribus vexari terras posse, non obrui). There is some question whether the ut quidam…est phrase should be applied to the previous sentence. Here, I follow Vottero 1989: 160 and Hine’s Teubner. Papirius Fabianus (c. 35 BCE – 25 CE) was a rhetorician and teacher of Seneca, frequently referred to by both Seneca (Ep. 40.12, Ep. 52.11, Ep. 58.6) and his father (e.g. Contr. 2.pr.1-5, 2.1.10-13, 2.5.6-7). He was a Sextian philosopher and was considered, by Pliny, to be an expert on the natural world (naturae rerum peritissimus, Nat. 36.125). His works included treatises entitled de Animalibus and Causarum Naturalium Libri. Seneca claims he is a great writer and philosopher (Dial. 10.10.1), and that he wrote more books on philosophy than Cicero, even if he falls short of the style of Cicero, Pollio, and Livy (Ep. 100.9). For more on the effect Fabianus had on Seneca’s philosophy, cf. Larson 1992.

sine ullis solibus triste nubilo caelum est: In the plural soles often refers to “sunlight” or “the influence of the sun” (OLD 4a). Seneca writes about the triste caelum in the far north (Dial. 1.4.14: perpetua illos hiemps, triste caelum premit, maligne solum sterile sustentat and he will repeat it at NQ 4b.4.3: dicimus nivalem diem, cum altum frigus et triste caelum est. In Tibullus a witch can work the opposite effect, cum libet, haec tristi depellit nubila caelo, (1.2.49). Ovid’s flood in Metamorphoses 1 likewise begins with rain and continual cloud cover and darkness (Met. 1.262-73).

nebulaqua continua: Later in the NQ Seneca will write about the heat of the sun naturally dissipates such fog and mist (NQ 5.3.3, 5.9.5, 5.14.2). Ovid’s personification of the South Wind featured fronte sedent nebulae (Met. 1.267), whereas Seneca’s reaction to Ovid strips away such ornamentation.

ex umido spissa caligo, numquam exsiccantibus ventis: Seneca writes how such mists are free from winds (NQ 5.3.3) and often pairs forms of spissus with caligo, cf. Herc. F. 710: quem gravibus umbris spissa caligo alligat (of the underworld), Thy. 993-4: spissior densis coit / caligo tenebris noxque se in noctem abdidit (of the cataclysm/eclipse that accompanies Thyestes’ banquet). He will continue to mention the winds as part of his flood description, see NQ 3.28.2 infra and likewise stresses that dry winds are locked up during his flood (Met. 1.262-64). Ovid writes about the onset of the plague at Aegina: principio caelum spissa caligine terras / pressit et ignavos inclusit nubibus aestus (Met. 7.528-29). See note on NQ 3.20.5 supra for forms of exsiccare (and note how NQ 5.18.2 mentions how wind can both bring and remove rain) and it is notable that such oscillations of dryness and wetness are also found in discussion of bodily humours (umidioribus siccioribusque…ignaviora vitia metuenda sunt, Sen. Dial. 4.20.4) – such language may activate the larger world-body analogy.

inde vitium satis est: Here satis comes from sata “crops” (cf. Ep. 124.11) and not satis “enough” as at 3.27.3. vitium for a type of plague/blight may originate in Vergil’s Georgics (1.88 amid a section “of great importance” that deals broadly with heat/moisture and the soil, see Thomas 1988: ad loc.). vitium is used in Seneca of elements elsewhere in Seneca (NQ 3.25.11, 6.27.3, 6.28.2, Oed. 1058), and, of course, its use ties back to the opening of this book, where contemplation of the universe will lead to conquering one’s vices (vitia domuisse, NQ 3.pr.10). Here we can see “vice” coming to the natural world.

segetum sine fruge surgentium marcor: marcor here indicates “wasting, withering, decay” (cf. Pliny Nat. 22.94), but Seneca uses it as a term of moral opprobrium (“apathy, sloth”) at Ep. 104.6 and Dial. 9.2.10: inde maeror marcorque et mille fluctus mentis incertae. For Lucan, blood-stained grain will mark the plains of Pharsalus (quae seges infecta surget non decolor herba?, 7.851) and Seneca will use a similar collocation in Thyestes as an adynaton: Ionio seges / matura pelago surget et lucem dabit / nox atra terris, 478-80). For sine fruge, cf. Ovid Met. 8.789 and Man. 4.428. This view of the flood focuses especially on cultivated fields and the destruction of such labor. This is an aspect that Ovid mentioned as well, cf. Met. 1.272-73: sternuntur segetes et deplorata coloni / vota iacent, longique perit labor inritus anni (quoted infra at NQ 3.28.2).

tunc corruptis quae seruntur manu: Supply segetibus with corruptis. Other writers speak of additional crops sown by hand, from orchards (Cic. Sen. 59, Varro R. 3.5.12) to fodder for cattle (Verg. G. 3.176). Cicero writes how rain destroyed grain at Ver. 3.36: Septicius et imbri frumentum corrumpi in area patiebatur. Cultivated crops, especially grain, are easily destroyed by flood waters as flood of the Tiber made evident (see Aldrete 2007: 101-2) and famine often adds to the suffering of modern floods (Withington 2013: 37-39 describes a 1931 flood of the Yangtze which hit “China’s man rice-growing area” and “up to 3.6 million [died] from hunger and disease in the aftermath”). Seneca is moving from the damage to the fields to tree to larger human suffering.

palustris omnibus campis herba succrescit: The positioning of palustris…herba already encompasses all the lands. For palustris of other plants, e.g. Culex 72: calamo…palustri, Liv. 21.54.1: rivus…circa obsitus palustribus herbis. These wild swamp reeds would seem to indicate a passage of time from the previously cultivated fields. succrescit can mean both “to grow up from below” or “to grow in succession” and the second meaning is more germane here, cf. Ep. 122.4 where Seneca describes those who give into sloth and decadence, et superba umbra iners sagina subscrescit. It is important to mark how Seneca plays with time in this section – there are moments in which we are meant to envision a long period of suffering with continual rain, flooding, and gradual environmental effects, such as this sentence. At other times the flood is quick, lethal, and awe-inspiring. Such variatio is meant to speak to different readers and create different experiences of the flood (so one can imagine that someone who spends time cultivating – even Seneca himself – would see the destruction of crops planted by hand as particularly evocative of pathos and, possibly, something he had experienced previously). Seneca is well-aware of the “wisdom” of farming, cf. Ep. 90.21. Rome and its environs were notoriously swampy, hence the various projects meant to drain areas from the Campus Martius to the Lacus Curtius (see Spencer 2007: esp. 64n.7).

[3.27.5] mox iniuriam et validiora sensere: Throughout this description plant life has been personified (able to be “corrupted”, now susceptible to “injury”) in order to heighten commiseration and empathy, cf. 3.29.6 for water as stronger (validiori) than earth. It also groups botanical life with the other “mortals” (mortalium, 3.27.3) who will be destroyed in the flood. For plants “feeling injury” cf. Pliny Nat. 8.197, 18.161: segetes depastae nullam in spica iniuriam sentient. Seneca writes of the magnanimous individual, at ille ingens animus et verus aestimator sui non vindicat iniuriam, quia non sentit(Dial. 5.5.7). He uses validus of particularly strong or vigorous trees at Dial. 4.15.1: valida arbusta laeta quamvis neglecta tellus creat.

solutis quippe radicibus arbusta procumbunt: The soil is no longer able to support the roots of the trees. arbusta can be trees in general (cf. NQ 2.1.2), or a plantation of trees “on which vines were trained” (OLD 2). The latter may be preferable here with the other references to cultivation. Lucretius writes of the connection between impressive arbusta and their deep roots (1.351-53, 6.140-41). Seneca writes of the power of whirlwinds at NQ 7.5.1: ideoque arbusta radicitus vellet et, quaecumque incubuit, solum nudat, silvas interim et tecta corripiens and earthquakes likewise cause structures to collapse: adeo concutiuntur ut aedificia superposita procumbent (NQ 6.25.1). Vergil’s great storm in the Georgics may lurk behind some of Seneca’s description of the flood (quae gravidam late segetem ab radicibus imis / sublimem expulsam eruerent, 1.319-20). Statius may echo this at Silv. 5.1.151-53: pinus / seu Iovis igne malo seu iam radice solute / deficit.

et vitis atque omne virgultum non tenetur solo, quod molle fluidumque est: For virgulta used to support vines, see OLD 1c. For Seneca’s larger viticultural knowledge, see Ep. 86.20, Ep. 112.2 and the note on NQ 3.7.1 supra. Seneca writes how such soft ground is not good for erecting buildings at Ep. 52.5: alterum fundamenta lassarunt in mollem et fluvidam humam missa. When writing about the human body’s own susceptibility and mortality, Seneca has putre ipsa fluidumque corpus et causis morborum repetita sperasti tam imbecilla materia solida et aeterna gestasse? (Dial. 6.11.1). A later intratextual echo identifies such softness with the beginnings of luxuria: luxuria invictum malum et ex molli fluidoque durum atque patiens (NQ 4b.13.11).

iam nec gramina aut pabula laeta aquas sustinent: Here I adopt Watt’s conjecture of the manuscripts’ aquis sustinet, see Hine 1996: 62-63 and Watt 1994: 192. “And now not even the grasses or fertile pastures hold out against the waters”. pabula laeta is a Lucretian phrase (e.g. 1.15, 1.257, 2.317). In Lucretius and, later, in Vergil (G. 3.385) and Manilius (3.654), this is strongly associated with fecundity, shepherding, and bountiful life (in gramine laeto, G. 2.525 for praise of rustic life), but here it is found wanting in the face of the waters.

fame laboratur, et manus ad antiqua alimenta porrigitur: The impersonal verbs highlight the actions - suffering from hunger and reaching for “old forms of sustenance”. At Dial. 12.10.2 Seneca writes of hunger: corporis exigua desideria sunt: frigus summoveri vult, alimentis famem ac sitim extinguere; quidquid exra concupiscitur, vitiis, non usibus laboratur. In general, Seneca claims it is not difficult to satisfy one’s hunger (Ep. 4.10, 17.4, 60.3). Elsewhere in the NQ, this verb form is used ironically: ad quanta cura laboratur, ne cuius pantomimi nomen intercidat! For manus…porrigitur about hunger, cf. Ep. 119.4: fames me appellat: ad proxima quaeque porrigatur manus. During the flood there is a sense that mankind is regressing to a previous state of living, as if this is a sort of “Golden Age”, but certainly not idyllic.

ilex et quercus excutitur: Both the ilex and quercus are oaks that bear acorns and this is the only place they appear in Seneca’s prose. Acorns are traditionally eaten in the Golden Age, but also among poor regions, such as Arcadia (see Dalby 2003: 2 and for more on acorns in particular see Mason 1995). Often the idea of the Golden Age is one of bliss and abundance, but here it is shown to be wanting and its food a last resort to those struggling to live. See Lucr. 5.937-42 and Ovid Fast. 4.399-400 for acorns as food for primitive man; Verg. G. 1.118-59, Ovid Met. 1.118-59, Sen. Phaed. 483-564 for descriptions of the Golden Age and Brisson 1992 for more on the Golden Age in Latin poetry.

et quaecumque in arduis arbor commissura adstricta lapidum stetit: After mentioning the loosened soil of the fields, Seneca (rather fastidiously) writes of trees able to stand because of their positioning in close-packed stones on high ground (in arduis, cf. Ep. 123.14). commissura is used of a joint or seam and will be employed to describe the colors of the rainbow (NQ 1.3.4) and possibly about unity of various parts of the cosmos at NQ 2.2.2 (see Hine 1981: ad loc.). adstricta modifies the arbor which is “fixed firmly, held in place” by the crack in the rocks. This is a notable aspect of the pine forest and granite mountains of Corsica where Seneca was exiled.

labant ac madent tecta: Seneca has a gruesome parallel of madent tecta when Hercules is killing his family at Herc. F. 1006-7: bis ter rotatum misit; ast illi caput / sonuit, cerebro tecta disperso madent. His use of labant anticipates his quotation of Ovid Met. 1.290 where Ovid writes pressaeque labant sub gurgite turres (NQ 3.27.14). Seneca uses forms of labare to describe cosmic destruction (Thy. 992, Ben. 6.22.1), earthquakes (NQ 6.1.4), civil war (Ep. 95.72), and human fragility more generally (Dial. 6.22.1: labant humana ac fluunt). While tecta is synecdoche for the building as a whole, Seneca pairs it with fundamenta in this sentence to give a sense of the whole structure failing, from roof to foundation.

in imum usque receptis aquis fundamenta desidunt: Lucretius uses the phrase in imum when discussing the creation of the world (5.495-97), but Seneca reverses that here with the waters penetrating far below the surface. The phrase appears elsewhere in Seneca’s works (Dial. 9.12.3, Ep. 92.26, NQ 5.14.1, 7.17.2, 7.22.2). Faulty foundations are found figuratively at Ep. 52.5, Dial. 3.20.2, and Seneca will go on to speak of further damage at NQ 3.27.9 infra. Of course, at the beginning of this work, Seneca wrote of placing the foundation of a great work (see note on 3.pr.1 supra).

tota humus stagnat: In Ovid’s flood, Jupiter sees ut liquidis stagnare paludibus orbem (Met. 1.324), and Seneca stressed earlier how various waters affected the topsoil (3.7.2, 3.23.1 supra). stagnare is used to describe the flooding of rivers (Tac. Ann. 1.76), but here the idea is that all (formerly) dry land is now underwater.

frustra titubantium fultura temptatur: The ‘t’ sounds of this passage (much like labant ac madent tecta above) and similarity between frustra and fultura give this attempt to buttress the structure a feeling of tottering impermanence. At Ben. 6.15.7, Seneca writes of the workman who can firm up a faltering home (labentem domum) at a cheap price (certo tamen et levi pretio fultura conducitur). With titubantium supply tectorum, and see 3.20.6 (quotation of Ovid), 6.1.5 and 6.25.3 for additional uses of the verb. Seneca has frustra+temptare at Dial. 2.4.3 and Dial. 7.16.2.

omne enim firmamentum in lubrica figitur et lutosa humo: Seneca speaks of the props that could strengthen the home and will mention them also at NQ 6.9.3: cum exustae trabes sunt aut corrupta quae superioribus firmamentum dabant, tunc diu agitata fastigia concidunt (cf. Dial. 4.1.2, Ben. 3.29.5, Ep. 31.3). For more on Seneca’s use of lubricus, cf. 3.15.2 supra. lutosus is uncommon in Seneca, cf. Dial. 5.35.5, NQ 4a.2.5 of the Nile (ad id lutosus et turbidus fluit). Some of Seneca’s language here may be indebted to Cicero Amic. 65: firmamentum autem stabilitatis constantiaeque est eius, quam in amicitia quaerimus, fides; nihil est enim stabile, quod infidum est.

nihil stabile est: When discussing the destruction of Lyon by fire (Ep. 91.7), Seneca writes, nihil privatim, nihil publice stabile est; tam hominum quam urbium fata volvuntur. Cf. Dial. 10.17.4: omne enim quod fortuito obvenit instabile est, et quo altius surrexerit opportunius est in occasum. This sententia may owe something to Fabianus’ description of the ocean (and setting limits on prosperity), see Sen. Suas. 1.9: cum descripsisset nihil esse stabile, and the note on 3.pr.7 supra. If so, then it offers nice ring composition to this section that began with mention of Fabianus. This may also be echoing his earlier nihil difficile naturae est (3.27.2 supra).

[3.27.7] postquam magis magisque ingruunt nimbi: For additional uses of ingruere “to descend violently on” (OLD 2) in Seneca, cf. Med. 525, Dial. 6.22.8. It is notable that the only other time Seneca employs magis magisque is to describe the cataclysm of the Thyestes (magis magisque concussi labant / convexa caeli, 992-93). Usually tecta can keep out such rain (NQ 6.1.6: nimborum vim effusam et sine fine cadentes aquas tecta propellunt, for additional appearances in this work see NQ 4b.4.2, 5.18.7).

congestae saeculis tabuerunt nives: The snowpack and glaciers will melt from the torrents of rain. For congestae nives, cf. Ovid. Am. 1.9.11-12: ibit in adversos montes duplicataque nimbo / flumina, congestas exteret ille nives, and Am. 3.6 where the Ovidian lover addresses a river flooding because of snow melt. Note Seneca’s description of the Haemus: ubi in rivos nivibus solutis / sole iam forti medioque vere / tabuit Haemus, Med. 588-90 and an unnamed river in Herc. F. 933-34: nullus hiberna nive / nutritus agros amnis aversos trahat. The addition of saeculis makes this snowpack seem to be the glaciers and permanent snow associated with the Alps or Aetna (Ep. 79.4). The Po was especially known to flood from snowmelt (see Campbell 2012: 100-9 for more on the legal ramifications of flood management and Vergil G. 1.481-83 for the Po’s flooding as a portent).

devolutus torrens alitissimis montibus rapit silvas male haerentis: Lucr. 6.963-94 writes about snowmelt on the “high mountains” (altis montibus) and a flood at 1.288-89, and Vergil A. 12.523-24 about a river flowing from the mountains: ubi decursu rapido de montibus altis /dant sontium spumosi amnes et in aequor currunt. Ep. 4.5, Ep. 23.8, NQ 2.35.2 for more on the speed and power of such torrents in Seneca’s mind. Ovid writes of the flood: maxima pars unda rapitur (Met. 1.311). This torrent takes away the forest trees whose weakened roots (cf. Ovid Met. 3.730) are waterlogged in the supersaturated soil. This passage and what follows owes much to Vergil’s description of a river in flood, cf. A. 2.305: rapidus montano flumine torrens / sternit agros, sternit sata laeta boumque labores / praecipitisque trahit silvas; stupet (cf. NQ 3.27.12) inscius alto / accipiens sonitum saxi de vertice pastor. Seneca employs epic intertexts and language to evoke this sublime and "epic" event.

saxa resolutis remissa compagibus rotat: Cf. Phoen. 71-72: hic rapax torrens cadit / partesque lapsi montis exesas rotat. Seneca has compages to indicate the framework of the earth itself at NQ 7.9.4, Oed. 580, but here it seems more to mean a joint or seam (OLD 2c), cf. Man. 4.828: tellus validis compagibus haerens. Seneca the Elder writes of a poorly-made boat erat navigium, immo fuerat, sed putre, resolutis compagibus, infelix omen navigationis (Contr. 7.1.8). For boulders as part of the flood, cf. Hor. C. 3.29.36-38 and Nisbet and Rudd 2004: ad loc. Vergil has the aftermath of such a flood as the locus for battle at A. 10.362-63: qua saxa rotantia late / intulerat torrens arbustaque diruta ripis. Large boulders are commonly found in the sort of rivers prone to flash flooding such as those in the mountains of Greece and certain areas of southern Italy.

abluit villas et intermixtos dominis greges devehit: The flood’s ability to wash away herds with their shepherds is a topos in Latin flood descriptions, showing the powerlessness of such guardians in the face of the nature’s power (cf. Hor. C. 3.29.27, Ovid Met. 1.286-87: cumque satis arbusta simul pecudesque virosque / tectaque cumque suis rapiunt penetralia sacris, Pliny Ep. 8.17.4: boves aratra rectores…arborum truncus aut villarum trabes, Stat. Theb. 1.366-69). Abluere here to mean “to wash away” as at 4a.2.10: cum ceteri amnes abluant terras et eviscerent, but its extended meaning of “to cleanse” (Ep. 86.12, Herc. F. 1326) may underscore the purification that this flood embodies. Seneca has devehere of rivers at Herc. F. 713 and Thy. 355.

vulsisque minoribus tectis, quae in transitu abduxit: Cf. Thy. 1010-11: non tota ab imo tecta convellens solo / vertis Mycenas? with Tarrant 1985: ad loc. for possible allusion to Verg. A. 2.445-46. Here the farmhouses and country towns are thought of as “smaller dwellings”, which the flood sweeps away almost as an afterthought. For more on in transitu, see note on 3.5.1 supra. Seneca has abducere when Cato muses on the impending destruction of the world: omnes hos fertiles campos repentini maris inundatio abscondet aut in subitam cavernam considentis soli lapsus abducet, Ep. 71.15).

tandem in maiora violentius aberrat: The maiora [tecta] here are the buildings and walls of great cities. The violence of the flood may be increased by the amount of debris being carried in it. aberrare = “to overflow (to)” (OLD 1b). Vergil writes of the Po: Eridanus, quo non alius per pinguia culta / in mare purpureum violentior effluit amnis (G. 4.372-73) and Seneca will write of underground rivers that cause earthquakes: necesse est aliquando illic amnis excrescat et relictis ripis violentus in obstantia incurrat, NQ 6.7.4.

urbes et implicitos trahit moenibus suis populos: The clause itself features direct objects on either side of the verb and is suitably jumbled up for concretely expressing the sentiment. Elsewhere in the NQ, implicare is used of the marshes of the Nile that are choked with weeds (6.8.4) and of wind particles (5.2.1). The men are caught by the walls almost like fish in a net (s.v. implicare OLD 5a).

ruinam an naufragium querantur incertos: The populos is incertos, which is followed by the an clause (A&G 335b remarks that the an clause usually signifies “indignation or surprise”). The surprise mention of naufragium on land shows Seneca’s wit (although one may wonder if such wit is out of place in this description as he mentions vis-à-vis Ovid at 3.27.13-15) and also the strange topsy-turvy nature of this cataclysm. See Berno 2015 for more on "shipwreck" in Seneca. When detailing sufferings or ways to die, Seneca pairs ruina and naufragium at Dial. 22.3 and NQ 2.59.3, cf. Cic. Off. 2.19. The fact that these individuals do not know how to classify or describe this event highlights the importance of language and description in this section as a whole.

adeo simul et quod opprimeret et quod mergeret venit: The flood both crushes and submerges with quod opprimeret standing for the cause of the ruinam and quod mergeret for the cause of the naufragium. For opprimere of destruction, cf. NQ 6.29.1: ubi publice terret, ubi cadunt urbes, populi opprimuntur, terra concutitur, quid mirum est animos inter dolorem et metum destitutos aberrasse? For other uses of mergere in relation to the flood, see 3.30.1 and 3.30.4 infra.

auctus deinde processu aliis quo in se torrentibus raptis: This flood grows as it progresses and absorbs other raging rivers into it (cf. NQ 5.12.3: sicut torrentes modicae magnitudinis sunt, quamdiu separatis suus cursus est; cum vero plures in se aquas converterunt, fluminum iustorum ac perennium magnitudinem excedunt). torrens is still the subject so there is some hyperbole with all these torrentes joining together (in se). aliis quoque for the manuscripts’ aliquo allows these two ideas to be joined (OLD 2 on quoque’s additive force) Cf. Ben. 3.29.4 for use of processu in depicting rivers and, for auctus, cf. NQ 3.27.10: mare auctum fluminum accessu. The use of in se makes this flood an all-consuming force that brings everything into itself, much like his brief mention of ἐκπύρωσις at 3.13.1: dicimus enim ignem esse qui occupet mundum et in se cuncta convertat.

passim plana populatur: For a similar alliteration with populari, cf. Phaed. 1095-6: ora durus pulcra populatur lapis / peritque… Livy repeatedly has forms of populari with passim to indicate military movements (e.g. 23.26, 25.14, 25.15, 26.9, 41.12). The use of military imagery in the account of the flood not only gives it a Roman flavor, but also contextualizes its destructive character as being, in some way, like the conquests of Rome (see Calgacus’ comments about Rome “they make a desert and call it peace” (Tac. Agr. 30.6). Seneca may have been encouraged to use it by the mention of populos above. From the cosmic perspective that this flood encourages one to adopt, plana are no different than mountains, see the note on 3.28.5 infra.

novissime in maria magna gentium clade onustus effunditur: See Shackleton Bailey 1979: 452 for emending in materia magna gentium clarus to in maria magna gentium clade. This is Seneca’s only use of onustus, although it picks up on the military imagery as it is often found in descriptions of victors loaded with booty (e.g. Verg. A. 1.289, Livy 29.27, Sen. Contr. 1.4.1). For forms of magna clades in Seneca, cf. Dial. 5.2.5, Dial. 5.14.6 and note Tr. 229: tanta clades gentium about Achilles’ destruction in the Troad. Seneca writes about distinct causes that make up this flood and novissime closes the section of mountain rivers in spate that began with primo (3.27.4) and was structured with additional time markers (e.g. postquam at the start of 3.27.7), while it also recollects the young bodies (3.27.2) prone to destruction.

[3.27.8] flumina vero suapte natura vasta et sine tempestatibus rapida alveos reliquerunt: This is the only use of suapte natura in Seneca’s NQ, but cf. Ag.. 250, Dial. 6.11.3, 8.5.5, Ben. 4.17.2 for other appearances in Seneca’s works. Seneca had earlier mentioned that vastissima rivers do not exist from rainfall (3.11.6, cf. 3.19.4). Such rivers usually form boundaries of territories, but now they will create new paths, before being swallowed up completely in the flood (see Rimell 2018). While there is a sense that this excursus on three major rivers in Europe is part of the larger description of flooding caused by excessive precipitation, it is also the case that Seneca has already “proven” these rivers have their own sources that are not dependent on rainfall. When Seneca tells the story of Horatius Cocles, he leaps in illo rapido alveo fluminis (Ep. 120.7), but he does not use relinquere alveos elsewhere to indicate flooding. The river leaving its banks when flooding can also be seen at Hor. C. 4.2.6. This phrase will be picked up for flooding in the Digest of Justinian (43.12.1).

quid tu esse Rhodanum, quid putas Rhenum atque Danuvium: The direct address to the reader/Lucilius (quid tu…putas) adds to the dramatic rendering of this section, cf. Limburg 2007: 163-65, Mazzoli 2005: 175. The use of the present tense of esse makes it seem like this flood is happening at this moment or transports the reader to the moment of the flood imaginatively. It also hints at the eternal recurrence of this event. Both the Rhine and Danube will appear again at NQ 1.pr.9 (cf. Dial. 10.4.5, NQ 6.7.1) to describe the state boundaries that human place on various areas (and these boundaries will be destroyed by the flood, cf. 3.29.8: peribit omne discrimen). He mentions the Rhône as prone to flooding at Med. 587-89, Apo. 7.2.11. The Rhine is mentioned as one of the inclutos amnes at Ben. 3.29.4. Lucan mentions the Rhine and Rhône together as large rivers at 4.116-18, his own description of a cataclysmic flood.

quibus torrens etiam in canali suo cursus est: Cf. NQ 3.11.2 supra for canalis as “river bed”. Torrents are not, by nature, supposed to turn back on themselves, NQ 2.35.2: quemadmodum rapidorum aqua torrentium in se non recurrit…, which is exactly what will happen when these reach the sea. The Upper Danube has a rapid current of two to five miles per hour, the Alpine Rhine is particularly steep, and spring/autumn flood volume of the Rhône reaches 460,000 cubic feet per second at the city of Beaucaire. For more on the Roman exploitation of these rivers, see Campbell 2012: 266-79 (Rhône), 279-89 (Rhine), 291-98 (Danube).

cum superfusi novas sibi fecere ripas ac scissa humo simul excessere alveo?: Livy uses superfundere to describe the Tiber in flood (7.3.2), cf. 3.11.3, 6.6.2 for additional uses in NQ. There is a nice sense of creation and destruction in this line with new riverbanks being created, while the land is cut (scissa humo) and the original channel has been overwhelmed. Those new banks (novas…ripas) will be short-lived in the flood. There are Roman laws for moments when rivers change courses and create new banks, see Campbell 2012: 98-115.

[3.27.9] quanta cum praecipitatione volvuntur, ubi per campestria fluens Rhenus ne spatio equidem languit, sed latissimas velut per angustum aquas impulit: The plural volvuntur here for both the Rhine and Danube which will roll forth with greater speed. The Rhine, which Caesar (BG 4.10.17) and Cicero (Pis. 81) mention as fast-moving and deep, is here imagined to be moving even faster, undissipated by its new tributaries cutting through the plains (cf. 4a.2.8 of the Nile being slowed when moving per campestria), as if forced through a narrow space (per angustum). Seneca’s use of latissimas aquas for the Rhine alludes to Caesar’s initial description of it as a border of the Helvetii: una ex parte flumine Rheno latissimo atque altissimo (BG 1.2.3). languere is used of “sluggish” water at e.g. Med. 727, Ep. 23.8, NQ 6.7.3. Seneca remarks on the way sound of a trumpet is amplified when moving per longi canalis angustias (Ep. 108.10), and that is to be imagined here as well with the hydrological force of the waters increased exponentially in the flood (cf. the flooding river at NQ 6.7.4). Scarborough 2017 remarks on possible metapoetic resonance of canales in Calpurnius Siculus, Seneca’s contemporary. For more on Seneca’s use of angustus cf. Rimell 2015: 113-37 passim, Williams 2016: 179-82.

cum Danuvius non iam radices nec media montium stringit, sed iuga ipsa sollicitat: The Danube will rise as high the mountain summits. For the use of stringere of a river “to skirt in its course”, see Vergil’s Tiberinus: ego sum pleno quem flumine cernis stringentem ripas (A. 8.63 and the subsequent description sounds much like the remains of Cacus’ cave, A. 8.190-92), Curt. 8.9.5: Ganges…et magnorum montium iuga recto alveo stringit, cf. Tr. 170. Radix can mean the base of a mountain, e.g. Lucr. 6.695 , Livy 21.41.4, although its close proximity to description of roots of trees (NQ 3.27.5) may make the reader think of mountains as a quasi-living entity. Aristotle strongly associates mountains as the source of rivers (Mete. 350a2-350b35), but here they act as the destructive agent of those mountains. sollicitare in Seneca is often used of cares or troubles, which further personifies these mountain ridges.

ferens secum madefacta montium latera rupesque disiectas et magnarum promunturia regionum: The rising waters bring with it large fragments of the mountain itself. Water-logged sections underground will give way to earthquakes at NQ 6.20.3: aliquando madefacta tellus liquore penitus accepto altius sedit et fundus ipse vitiatur. Earlier in his writing career, Seneca wrote that the leader who rules with clemency will not need fortifications built from latera montium (Cl. 1.19.6). promunturium is a headland or spur (of a mountain), cf. Seneca’s description of the Bay of Naples, Ep. 77.2: cum intravere Capreas et promunturium ex quo alta procelloso speculatur vertice Pallas.

quae fundamentis laborantibus a continenti recesserunt: Further modifying the promunturia which have been dislodged from the mainland (a continenti, OLD 3a, NQ 6.26.1) and have receded (which is usually the perspective of those at sea, cf. Ben. 6.15.6, Ep. 28.1 and 70.2 where he quotes Verg. A. 3.72: terraeque urbesque recedunt – and note that lands and cities are affected below ingentemque terrarum ambitum atque urbium). The headlands themselves have become virtual floating islands (fundamentis laborantibus) that strike against the mountain cliffs.

deinde non inveniens exitum (omnia enim sibi ipse praecluserat) in orbem redit: The Danube extends into a large delta before entering the Black Sea through seven mouths. In Seneca’s flood, it can discover no exit (he will go on to explain that the seas are rising as well, 3.27.10) and recoils back on itself. Seneca likes using invenire+exitum to denote death (Apo. 2.4: Claudius animam agere coepit nec invenire exitum poterat, Dial. 9.2.8, Ep. 22.12). Seneca may take in orbem redit from Verg. G. 2.401-2: redit agricolis labor actus in orbem, / atque in se sua per vestigia volvitur annus, but changes the valence of this “brilliant and vivid image” (Thomas 1988: ad loc.). This intertext would help one see this flooding as recurrent, which Seneca stresses at NQ 3.28.2, 3.29.5. Seneca will return to this idea (but with wind circulating underground) at NQ 6.15.1: tunc ille, exitu simul redituque praecluso, volutatur et…in sublime se intendit et terram prementem diverberat and to illustrate a whirlwind at NQ 5.13.1: ubi incurrerunt in aliquod saxum ad latus ripae prominens, retorqueantur et in orbem aquas sine exitu flectant. Thus, Seneca builds on the physical principle here to help explain later phenomena.

ingentemque terrarum ambitum atque urbium uno vertice involvit: ambitus = “expanse, perimeter” (OLD 2e, cf. Oed. 543). The violent turn of the river seems to rip up circular expanses of land in Seneca’s imagination and then swallow them in a singular, giant whirlpool. The alliteration of vertice and -volvit is as old as Accius, see Cic. Nat. 2.89 for the quotation: [Argo] prae se undas volvit, vertices vi suscitat, cf. Lucr. 3.1001-2, Sen. NQ 5.13.1-2. This is the creation of a new Charybdis (cf. Ep. 79.1 for his interest in the way that famous whirlpool is created), as this flood will destroy the old Charybdis (cf. note on 3.29.7 infra).

[3.27.10] interim permanent imbres, fit caelum gravius, adsidue malum ex malo colligit: See Hine 1996: 64 for the reading of adsidue. For a “heavy” sky elsewhere in Seneca, cf. Ep. 53.1: erat…caelum grave sordidis nubibus, cf. TLL 6.2.2278.20-31. colligere is often used of liquids being collected (see 3.3.1 supra), winds being built up (OLD 5), or of rivers being amassed from tributaries (such as the Nile, NQ 4a.2.3), so here the sky accumulates “evil from evil” as the various forces of celestial waters and storms rage. malum ex malo is proverbial, cf. Liv. 7.4.7: malum malo augere, Sen. Tr. 427: exoritur aliquod maius ex magno malo and Fantham 1982: ad loc. Cf. TLL 3.7.1611.82-1612.13 for additional examples of colligere with such res incorporeas. At 3.pr.1, Seneca writes about the need to collect information for his inquiry, and the sky seems to be personified in its own collection of “evil”.

quod olim fuerat nubilum nox est: If the sky was cloudy previously, it now mimics the darkness of night. The transition from pluperfect to present tense and the chiastic positioning (as well as the rhythmic clausula -u- / --) makes this particularly memorable. This sort of darkness is similar to Pliny’s depiction of Vesuvius’ ash fall: vix consideramus, et nox non qualis inlunis aut nubile, sed qualis in locis clausis lumine exstincto (Ep. 6.20.14) or what a sailor may have to face during squalls at sea, NQ 5.18.7, Ag. 472-74: nec una nox est: densa tenebras obruit / caligo et omni luce subducta fretum / caelumque miscet, Ag. 494-97. For other appearances of nox est in the NQ, cf. 1.1.6, 1.1.10, 1.16.6.

quidem horrida ac terribilis intercursu luminis diri: This unnatural night is frightening in part because of the lightning. Seneca has intercursus elsewhere when describing an eclipse (Ben. 5.6.5) and rainbows (NQ 1.3.3). During the storm that wrecks the Greek fleet, such flashes of “dire lightning” (dirum fulmen) are welcomed by the sailors, Ag. 493-96 with the comments of Tarrant 1976: ad loc. Such reminiscences of his previous poetic works adds to the literary force of this flood, which should even outdo the literary topos of a “storm at sea” - here all terra firma is comparable to the ship in distress, (Verg. A. 1.81-123, Ovid Tr. 1.2, Met. 11.474-572, Luc. 5.597-677, Sen. Contr. 7.1.4 which also pairs forms of horridus and terribilis). Cf. the verdict of Hutchinson 1993: 130 “the paradox that light makes things worse here grimly intensifies the description. In this sentence the actual lavishness and ingenuity are handled with a discretion and strength that permit little distance”.

crebra enim micant fulmina: Tarrant remarks on the presence of lightning in the “storm at sea” becomes a common element after Vergil’s Aeneid and Seneca’s phrase is close to Vergil’s crebris micat ignibus aether (A. 1.90). Seneca’s flood brings together many of the subjects of subsequent books; lightning will be the topic of Book 2.

procellaeque quatiunt mare: Again, Vergil may be the origin for Seneca's use of procellae, cf. A. 1.84-86. For the sea as idiomatically “prone to gales”, cf. Med. 411 (procellosum mare). The Octavia poet also pairs procellae and quatiunt at 897-98: quatiunt altas saepe procellae / aut evertit Fortuna domos. Otherwise this collocation is rare, cf. Ovid Tr. 5.5.17. Note how Seneca revisits this language at 5.18.7 when discussing the dangers of sea navigation.

tunc primum auctum fluminum accessu et sibi angustum: If before the sea never was influenced by the rivers’ output (NQ 3.4.1-3.5.1 supra and the strong ring-composition of mirarmur quod accessionem fluminum maria non sentiant, 3.4.1), now it is increased and becomes “too small for itself” (sibi angustum). Manilius’ description of cataclysm is similar: vomit Oceanus pontum sitiensque resorbet / nec sese ipse capit (4.830-31, a passage Seneca knew well, cf. Ag. 485-89).The paradox of being too small for oneself shows the exceptional nature of the flood.

iam enim promovet litus: mare is still the subject and it advances against the shore like an army taking a new territory and expanding its borders (OLD 2).

nec continetur suis finibus: The boundaries of the sea and such transgressions are also the topic of NQ 5.18.4-16. Seneca will write about the tide’s transgression of its own boundaries at 3.30.2 (fines suos transeat) and the earth remaining “in its own place” (finibus suis, 6.2.7) and not moving during an earthquake. Seneca is interested in such limits throughout the NQ and encourages his reader to understand that man-made boundaries are ephemeral, and natural boundaries are often violated by man, cf. 1.pr.8-10, 1.pr.17, 4a.pr.1.4.

sed prohibent exire torrentes aguntque fluctum retro: The meeting of sea and rivers causes both to turn back and create destruction, since neither is able to discover an exit (3.27.9 supra). fluctus here denotes the waves of the sea (as usual, s.v. OLD 1). If this is the case above ground, it will also occur with the waters underground, cf. NQ 6.15.1.

pars tamen maior ut maligno ostio retenta restagnat: Sea waves and rivers meet naturally at the mouth of a river and so Seneca creates this image as if in “a too-shallow river mouth” (s.v. malignus OLD 2b). The alliteration of re- here stressed the movement retro. Seneca’s only other use of restagnare is part of a locus horridus where necromancy occurs in Oed. 545-48: tristis sub illa, lucis et Phoebi inscius, / restagnat umor frigore aeterno rigens; / limosa pigrum circumit fontem palus. Nero was completing Claudius’ harbor project in Ostia in the years that Seneca is composing NQ (or it was possibly destroyed in a tsunami and rebuilt at this time, see Tuck 2019), and Nero himself was interested in cutting a canal from Lake Avernus to Ostia (to help facilitate the transport of grain from Puteoli to Rome, cf. Sen. Ep. 77.1-2), cf. Meiggs 1960: 55-58.

et agros in formam unius lacus redigit: redigere + in formam = “to convert/to reduce X into the shape/form of” (OLD 3). The plural fields/farmland is reduced to a singular lake of great expanse. Pliny’s description of the Tiber in flood may draw upon Seneca’s account, cf. Ep. 8.17.2.

[3.27.11] Iam omnia qua prospici potest aquis obsidentur: obsidere often has a military connotation (“to besiege, to blockade”), and such a suggestion lurks beneath the idea of “to cover thickly (with)” that OLD 7 suggests. qua = “as far as, wherever” (OLD 4b). For the alliterative prospici potest, cf. Ep. 98.7: Tu vero metuenda declina; quidquid consilio prospici potest prospice.

omnis tumulus in profundo latet: This section will stress the height of the flood waters, although tumulus may evoke the seven hills of Rome (Livy 3.7.2). Seneca writes of the power of earthquakes to raise new islands in the depths of the sea: novas in profundo insulas erigit, NQ 6.4.1. It was idiomatic, although usually attributed to Democritus, that “truth hides in the depths”, cf. Cic. Acad. 1.44: ut Democritus in profundo veritatem esse demersam.

inmensa ubique altitudo est: What is able to be measured and the immensity of the study of nature is stressed in this work, cf. 3.pr.3: ad rem seriam, gravem, immensam…accessimus and note supra, and 1.pr.17: sciam omnia angusta esse mensus deum. Seneca discusses how waters of great depth are considered sacred at Ep. 41.3: coluntur aquarum calentium fontes, et stagna quaedam vel opacitas vel immensa altitudo sacravit. Seneca also uses this phrase to indicate the depths that one may fall during an earthquake (NQ 6.2.8. 6.25.1). Forms of inmensus and profundus this close together evokes the river flood and Pindar’s style of Hor. C. 4.2.7-8: fervet immensusque ruit profundo / Pindarus ore.

tantum in summis montium iugis vada sunt: The only shallows are on the high cliffs of mountains. Seneca writes of the villas dotting the mountains outside of Baiae: sed illas inposuerunt summis iugis montium, Ep. 51.11. For a language about mountains (and also involving shipwrecks), cf. Sen. Contr. 8.6.1: erat in summis montium iugis ardua divitis specula. Such paradoxes and adynata appeal to Seneca in his discussion of the flood (as they did to previous authors as well from Horace’s seals visiting mountain tops in C. 1.2.7-8 to Ovid’s farmers rowing their skiffs above their farmhouses at Met. 1.293-96).

in ea excelsissima cum liberis coniugibusque fugerunt: As at NQ 3.27.5-6 supra we get a sense of the human response to such a flood. The perfect fugerunt makes their flight to the highest peaks something that has already occurred. Mountains such as Cithaeron (Herc. F. 335) and Aetna (Ep. 79.10) are described as excelsus and Seneca will remark how the heights (excelsa) and valleys of the earth are actually relatively level from the cosmic point of view (see note on 3.28.5 infra, cf. 4b.11.2). Seneca writes of children and spouses elsewhere when discussing exile (Dial. 1.3.2) or migration (Dial. 12.7.3), but such familial relations are scarce in the NQ (cf. 1.17.7). While this flood is exaggerated, such details could be grounded in frequent floods of the Tiber. Because of Rome’s topography, Aldrete hypothesizes “These [hills] would have provided convenient points of refuge to which the inhabitants of the city could have fled…Although relatively small, the hills of Rome tend to have fairly steep slopes, so that a person fleeing floodwaters could have quickly climbed to an elevation that was safe” (2007: 233).

actis ante se gregibus: Flood descriptions often feature descriptions of livestock lost or caught up in the water with humans (see Ovid Met. 1.286 – which will be quoted infra, Livy 24.9.6, 35.21.5-6, Pliny Epm. 8.17). This would be a huge economic loss and Aldrete stresses that cattle are “particularly susceptible to drowning” (2007: 102). If flocks are here driven before the survivors, the tsunami which is created by the flood will do something similar (attollit vasto sinu fretum agitque ante se, NQ 3.28.4).

diremptum inter miseros commercium ac transitus: The survivors are now described as miseros (cf. 3.27.12 infra), with any communication or means of passage lost to the waters. This is in stark contrast to the annual flood of the Nile, which still allows for such movement by boat and creates happiness in the spectators (nullum mediterraneis nisi per navigia commercium est, maiorque est laetitia gentibus quo minus terrarum suarum vident, 4a.2.11, contrast the reaction of these flood witnesses at 3.27.12). Seneca also mentions the rupture of commercium in various parts of the world due to catastrophes (maria sorbebit, flumina avertet et commercio gentim rupto societatem generis humani coetumque dissolvet, Dial. 6.26.6), but notes the way that commercium can be usually be helped by river travel (Ben. 4.5.3), and winds that encourage sea travel (NQ 5.18.4). For transitus see note on 3.pr.3 supra.

quoniam quidquid submissius erat, id unda complevit: For additional forms of submissus “low in position or vertical extent” (OLD 2) in the NQ, cf. 1.3.1, 2.32.7. Compared to what is excelsissima, most of the earth would be submissius.

[3.27.12] editissimis quibusque adhaerebat reliquiae generis humani: The superlatives stress the excessive nature of the flood waters as they rise to the very highest elevations. We can follow the water’s rise throughout 3.27, which puts us in the position of these reliquiae generis humani. editus is used of mountains at Ep. 41.1 and NQ 4b.11.3 and if this passage emphasizes the great depth of the flood waters, the cosmic viewpoint encouraged there underscores that the earth is spherical and any peaks and valleys are relatively minor. In this way Seneca connects this book with the later book in order to give different perspectives to the activities of the natural world, whether it be a dreadful flood or the fact that mountain peaks are not warm (because they are “closer” to the sun). reliquiae is used of survivors (Ter. Ad. 444: ubi…huius generis reliquias restare video, Verg. A. 1.30, but can also indicate the remains of a dead person (OLD 2) and, like tumulus above, the funereal resonance is purposeful. The imperfect adhaerebat emphasizes the continual effort of these survivors to maintain their position while the waters rise.

quibus in extrema perductis hoc unum solacio fuit, quod transierat in stuporem metus: For those suffering such acute anguish, Seneca claims that their sole relief is that their fear transformed into numbness. quibus in extrema perductis here = “for those led to such extreme desperation” is the first half of a double-dative construction (with solacio the dative of purpose), see A&G 382. stupor is uncommon in Seneca, but see Tr. 442, Dial. 7.26.8, and Ep. 42.7. Seneca writes of connections between fear, trauma, and stupefaction elsewhere when discussing the reaction to the trauma of an earthquake (6.1.4, 6.2.1, 6.29.1-3) or those who are scared of lightning (2.59.8, 2.59.12). The use of transire is notable for this book and its stress on the various transformations that can occur – i.e. if earth can turn into water, why can’t fear turn into numbness?

non vacabat timere mirantibus: vacare used impersonally = “there is time/leisure to” (OLD 5b). For connections between fearing and wondering, cf. NQ 6.3.4: nihil horum sine timore miramur. Et cum timendi sit causa nescire, non est tanti scire, ne timeas? (about earthquakes), and 7.1.5: ignarus utrum debeat mirari an timere (about comets). Although wonder is at the heart of many of the phenomena discussed in NQ, fear is also a possibility and leads to irrational behavior and views of the gods. In Ovid’s flood, the Nereids “wonder” (mirantur, Met. 1.301) at the destroyed homes and fields, but, in the words of Anderson 1997: ad loc. “What this marveling conceals, of course, is the drowning of human beings and land animals. The Nereids could care less!” Seneca here expands upon the psychological impact of the flood on humans, cf. the essays in Bartsch and Wray 2009 for more on Seneca’s psychological insight more broadly.

ne dolor quidem habebat locum, quippe vim suam perdit in eo qui ultra sensum mali miser est: There is no opportunity for dolor “grief/pain” (cf. Med. 160: tunc est probanda, si locum virtus habet). Pain loses its own power among those who have been struck senseless. Seneca likes the phrase vim suam perdere (Dial. 2.7.4, 6.1.6, NQ 4b.13.11: non intellegis omnia consuetudine vim suam perdere?). ultra sensum mali is unattested elsewhere, but aptly describes the shell-shocked survivors of great trauma, cf. NQ 6.1.3 where survivors of the Pompeii earthquake: motae post hoc mentis aliquos atque inpotentes sui erasse, cf. NQ 2.27.3 and NQ 6.29.1. The exploration of such extreme states of suffering is also on display in Seneca’s tragedies, cf. the final words of Hecuba in Tr. 1165-77.

[3.27.13] ergo insularum modo eminent ‘montes et sparsas Cycladas augent’: Seneca’s view of these mountain peaks draws upon Ovid Met. 2.264 and opens a series of further quotations from Ovid with literary criticism of those passages. It is clear that Seneca has been drawing upon Ovid’s flood description (and will continue to do so in later chapters), but these sections are particularly interesting as evidence for Seneca’s evaluation of Ovid’s poetry. This quotation appears as part of Phaethon’s destructive flight: et mare contrahitur siccaeque est campus harenae, / quod modo pontus erat, quosque altum texerat aequor, / exsistunt montes et sparsas Cycladas augent (Met. 2.263-65). The larger context (death of the world by fire) has led some critics to think of this as an ironic or clever nod to the ἐκπύρωσις that may be expected to destroy the world, according to the Stoics (cf. Degl’Innocenti Pierini 1984: 144, Williams 2012: 129). Phaethon may be an important figure for this work, especially if Vagellius’ epic from which Seneca draws was about his flight, cf. Mazzoli 1970: 48 and Williams 2012: 228-30. Ovid imagines the sea floor now exposed after the evaporation of the water and his own view of underwater topography (with mountains and valleys) resembles the larger point that Seneca makes with his flooded earth, namely, that the extremes in elevation/depth are nominal when looked at from an elevated/enlightened point of view. It is notable that the line before this quoted line resembles the subsequent Ovidian quotation (omnia pontus erat~quod modo pontus erat) – there is the sense that Ovid himself had already connected these two moments (see Anderson 1997: ad 2.265-66) and Seneca picked up on this very connection. As if to respond to it, he connects his own flood with the flood of the Nile in NQ 4a.2.11: latent campi opertaeque sunt valles, oppida insularum modo extant. Clever Seneca!

ut ait ille poetarum ingeniosissimus egregie: For Seneca’s view of Ovid, see Mazzoli 1970: 245-47, Morgan 2003: 69- 73, Gauly 2004: 247-51, Williams 2012: 129-32, Berno 2012: 61-68; for Ovid’s almost proverbial cleverness and licentia, see Sen. Contr. 2.2.9, 9.5.17, Quint. Inst. 10.1.98. This is the only time Seneca utilizes the superlative ingeniosissimus and it primarily concerns his literary creativity (see Graver 2014 on ingenium in Seneca). Seneca often has egregie of quotations by the likes of Vergil (Ep. 104.25), Epicurus (Ep. 28.9), and Vagellius (NQ 6.2.9), and, in the NQ, to introduce ideas of Plato (5.18.16) and Aristotle (7.30.1). Even if his subsequent criticism of Ovid’s playfulness rings true, we should keep in mind the words of Morgan: “Seneca the artist, at any rate, as opposed to Seneca the critic, had a lot of time for the Metamorphoses” (2003: 72).

sicut illud pro magnitudine rei dixit, ‘omnia pontus erat, deerant quoque litora ponto’: This quotation from Met. 1.292 comes from Ovid’s description of the flood and is said, in Seneca’s estimation, is “in a manner worthy of the enormity of the event” (cf. Ben. 2.24.4: loquendum est pro magnitudine rei inpensius et illa adicienda…). For more on magnitudo in NQ, see the note on 3.pr.4 supra. Seneca approves of the propriety of Ovid’s line, and the line which “sets-up the wit” of this Ovidian line (in the words of Anderson 1997: ad loc.), namely iamque mare et tellus nullum discrimen habebant (Met. 1.291) will be recalled by Seneca later in his flood passage: peribit omne discrimen (NQ 3.29.8). Note how the phrase omnia pontus erat is considered particularly Ovidian at Sen. Contr. 7.1.27 (with Winterbottom’s 1974 note). Ovid’s flood was caused to punish mankind for their wickedness and this lurks behind Seneca’s description as well (see notes on 3.28.2, 3.28.7, 3.30.7). Anderson comments on Ovid’s flood “Our discomfort with this objective account (which reflects the gods’ viewpoint, not ours) is a response designed by Ovid” (1997: 176) also holds for much of Seneca’s account, but without the anthropomorphic prejudices of Ovid’s all-too-human Jupiter and Neptune.

ni tantum impetum ingenii et materiae ad pueriles ineptias reduxisset: ‘nat lupus inter oves, fulvos vehit unda leones’: impetum ingenii et materiae is an evocative phrase, especially considering how impetus has been used of the destructive force of the flood at 3.27.2 supra and infra 3.27.14, 3.28.1: magno impetu magna ferienda sunt (cf. NQ 6.7.2, 2.8.1, 6.30.2). impetus is used of an “urge” or “impulse” which fits ingenii, but the zeugma with impetum…materiae is harder to explain. TLL 7.1.610.12-50 writes of it as a sort of ἐνθουσιασμός, citing Ben. 1.10.1 and Ep. 46.2 (quid ingenii iste habuit, quid animi! dicerem, quid impetus, si interquievisset, si intervallo surrexisset). Ep. 46 as a whole discusses a recent book that Lucilius has sent Seneca and Seneca’s positive critique of its style and subject-matter (fecit aliquid et materia; ideo eligenda est fertilis, quae capiat ingenium, quae incitet, Ep. 46.2) and should be read in conjunction with this moment of NQ. In his tragedies, Seneca will write about how such emotional “impulses” need to be controlled by ratio, cf. Fitch 1987: ad 975 on “passion/restraint” scenes and the Stoic resonance (impetus = ὁρμή), but here the problem is that such material is “reduced” (see Degl’Innocenti Pierini 1984: 145). What seems clear is that this is a sublime topic that needs to be handled with sublime poetry (thus there is a sort of identification of the ingenium with the materia), and not pueriles ineptias such as animals swimming (Hor. Ars 29-31 writes of how the quest for novelty including boars swimming can lead to a literary vitium with Brink’s 1971 note ad loc.). The adynata mentioned here of wolves swimming with sheep and lions carried in the waves may make us remember the fish to be found underground at 3.17.1, see Berno 2003: 96-100 for this hyperbolic rhetoric linking the two passages. ingenium is a common term in the literary criticism of the day (cf. Cic. Arch. 1.15, Quint. Inst. 2.19, Hor. Ars 295-98, 323 and Brink 1971: ad loc.). ineptiae in Seneca can be philosophical, literary, or comic in nature, cf. Dial. 9.11.8, Dial. 9.15.2, Ep. 48.7 and Ben. 1.4.6. It is clear that Seneca believes that the sort of childish absurdities that appeal to Ovid are not appropriate for the scale and consequence of the world’s destruction (but Ovid probably wouldn’t care, cf. Sen. Contr. 2.2.12 with the Elder’s judgement ex quo adparet summi ingenii viro non iudicium defuisse ad compescendam licentiam carminum suorum sed animum. aiebat interim decentiorem faciem esse in qua aliquis naevos esset).

[3.27.14] non est res satis sobria lascivire devorato orbe terrarum: For the expression non est res…, see Ep. 77.6: non est res magna vivere, cf. Ep. 53.9. Seneca elsewhere writes of cities “devoured” by earthquakes, Ep. 91.9: quot oppida in Syria, quot in Macedonia devorata sunt! The idea of “sober” judgment may also extend to the idea of the “mad” poet who is drunk on ingenium but has little ars, see Hor. Epist. 1.19.1-20, Sen. Dial. 9.17.9-12 where Seneca admits that such sobriety must be left behind at times for lofty poetry (see Schiesaro 2003: 21-23). For Ovid as a lascivus writer, cf. Quint. Inst. 4.1.77, 10.1.88, and 12.10.73 for this style as popular in Quintilian’s time: verborum licentia exultat aut puerilibus sententiolis lascivit…, and Elliott 1985. Degl’Innocenti Pierini 1984: 143-52 associates lascivire with lyric poetry (cf. Sen. Ep. 49.5) and thus a contaminatio unsuitable to epic poetry. The stylistic registers Seneca draws upon in this section focus primarily on epic in order to draw upon typically “sublime” poetry. Seneca in some sense places Ovid in the very flood and makes him lascivire as the world ends. Is Seneca just “sober enough” (“buzzed”?) to create sublime poetry, but poetry that will not go over the edge? Does Seneca have his cake (i.e. to criticize Ovid) and eat it too (i.e. be clever himself, if not comic)?

dixit ingentia: The proximity of ingenii to ingentia indicates that Seneca is connecting these two terms (he both spoke “great words” as well as “about great events”). For the neuter plural ingentia standing in for the substantive, cf. TLL 7.1.1541.9-23 and, in Seneca, Dial. 2.3.1: ingentia locuti, Dial. 7.19.3. It may recall his earlier words about the cosmos and natural phenomena which often come about from small beginnings: ex minimis seminibus nascantur ingentia, Dial. 1.1.2 and the way he remarks on the mind’s ability to transcend the body: quo minus inpetu suo utatur et ingentia agat et in infinitum comes caelestibus exeat, Ben. 3.20.1.

tantae confusionis imaginem cepit cum dixit: confusio here of the turmoil of the flood, but it can also be indicative of a type of contamination in Seneca (Dial. 6.17.3 of Arethusa, integrum subter tot maria et a confusione peioris undae servatum reddidit) or of the end of the world (Dial. 11.1.2: dies aliquis dissipabit et in confusionem veterem tenebrasque demerget, Ben. 6.22.1, TLL 4.268.17-27) or of a thunderstorm (near the end of this work as a whole, NQ 2.59.12). See Berno 2012: 53-57 for more on confusio and the importance of the confusion of elements. confusio is the mot juste of primordial chaos, the state of the world after the flood, cf. Tarrant 2002: 350-51. Seneca will reinforce this when he writes peribit omne discrimen, confundetur quidquid in suas partes natura digessit, NQ 3.29.8. imaginem cepit indicates the ability of an authors’ words to draw up a mental image for the reader, cf. Sen. Dial. 2.7.1: non fingimus istud humani ingenii vanum decus nec ingentem imaginem falsae rei concipimus… and Quint. Inst. 6.2.33: Quid? Non idem poeta [Vergilius] penitus ultimi fati cepit imaginem, ut diceret: et dulcis moriens reminiscitur Argos. Note how Atreus imagine the revenge he plans for Thyestes: tota iam ante oculos meos / imago caedis errat, ingesta obritas / in ora patris (Thy. 281-83). For more on the phrase imaginem capere/concipere (cf. 3.27.15 infra), see Degli’Innocenti Pierini 1984: 146-52, Mazzoli 2005: 172

exspatiata ruunt…gurgite turres: For the question of how much of the quotation should be printed, see Hine 1996: 64-65. Seneca’s quotation of Met. 1.285-90 is lacking parts of 188-89 (siqua domus mansit potuitque resistere tanto / indeiecta malo, culmen tamen altior huius…), and changes Ovid’s latent (290) to labant. This is probably because of a slip of memory, although it may also indicate his belief that no home could resist the flood and be indeiecta (a hapax that Ovid invented, and, one may think, would have stood out in Seneca’s memory, cf. 3.27.1 supra) and there would be no houses still in tact, if hidden (latent), in the flood, rather they would be tottering (labant), cf. Degli’Innocenti Pierini 1984: 156-57 for more on labant. The other lines are picked up in various ways in Seneca’s larger flood description, showing not only his active aemulatio of Ovid’s flood, but also the way he creatively expands and alters aspects of Ovid’s work (e.g. turres at 3.29.8, templa at 3.29.8). Note that exspatior is an Ovidian creation that is also used to describe Phaethon’s ill-fated ride (Met. 2.202), thus linking these two destruction narratives.

magnifice haec: For additional examples of the adverb magnifice, cf. Ben. 1.7.1, 5.2.1. In the NQ, the adjective is used to emphasize both human virtus (1.pr.6) and cosmology (7.1.6).

si non curaverit quid oves et lupi faciant: Ovid’s inability to know when to stop is what Seneca the Elder stresses at Contr. 9.5.17. Ovid also pairs sheep and wolves at Ars 3.419, Tr. 5.10.26, and Pont. 1.2.18. Although, it must be noted that in the previous section Seneca did care what certain animals were doing: actis ante se gregibus (3.27.13).

natari autem in diluvio et in illa rapina potest?: rapina refers to any forceful taking away, especially the plunder that occurs in wars (Caes. B.G. 1.15.4, Luc. 3.121, Sen. Cl. 1.13.3), but Seneca also applies it to death (Dial. 6.10.4: rapina rerum omnium est; miseri nescitis in fuga vivere!), and time (Ep. 104.12). Here there is hendiadys with diluvio “in that pillaging flood” and the verb rapere has been used of the flood itself (3.27.7) and will be picked up in the following sentence. For the passive form of natari, cf. Ovid Tr. 5.2.25. Here Seneca displays a degree of rationalism, which is especially pertinent after the awe-inspiring cataloguing of precipitation and river flooding. It may not be as applicable in Ovid’s flood of only 60 lines, but Seneca will stress how the swimming of Ovid’s beasts is incorrect, but that the whole world swims (orbem terrarum natare, 3.27.15).

aut non eodem impetu pecus omne quo raptum erat mersum est?: See NQ 3.27.2 for the earlier use of impetus of the flood. The pecus here shows Seneca’s close reading of the Ovid quotation and pecudes there (Met. 1.286), which the rivers snatched (rapiunt, Met. 1.287). These lines appeared well before the line dealing with the wolf and sheep in Ovid’s original (Met. 1.304). Ovid concludes his flood narrative proper with maxima pars unda rapitur: quibus unda pepercit, / illos longa domant inopi ieiunia victu (Met. 1.311-12).

[3.27.15] concepisti imaginem quantam debebas obrutis omnibus terris, caelo ipso in terram ruente: If before Ovid “grasped the image” (imaginem cepit, NQ 3.17.14 supra), now the reader is commended “you have conceived the image in its appropriate magnitude” with his description of the destruction of the earth and the sky falling. The switch to the second person is a strong here and appeals to the reader explicitly (whether Lucilius or the general reader). quantam debebas indicates a degree of readerly control on the situation, see Seneca’s description of temperance: [temperantia] scit optimum esse modum cupitorum non quantum velis, sed quantum debeas sumere, Ep. 88.30, cf. Ep. 70.4 for the ideal, itaque sapiens vivet quantum debet, non quantum potest. There is a degree of restraint involved in debere, which Ovid did not display. obruere is common in the flood section (see note on 3.27.1) caelo…ruente appealed to the author of Herc. O. 1243-44: has ego opposui manus / caelo ruenti?, but it is relatively common, cf. Ter. Heaut. 719: quid si nunc caelum ruat? (a proverbial phrase “for a dreadful possibility, but one so remote that it is not worth bothering about” Brothers 1988: ad loc., but now it has come true), Lucr. 1.1105-7, Ovid Met. 11.517, Sen. Dial. 4.35.6, Thy. 874 (see Volk 2006: 191-92) and see the great storm of Vergil’s Georgics (1.311-50), which often has forms of ruit, (1.313, 1.324) and Seneca knows well (he quotes 1.313 at NQ 4b.4.2).

perfer: If it wasn’t enough to think of the land flooded and the sky falling, Seneca goes on to mention what befits such a catastrophe. Seneca only utilizes this strong call to “Continue!” in his tragedies (Tr. 802, Herc. F. 1239, 1315), but it was common in Ovid (is he using Ovid’s own terminology “against him” in some way?), e.g. Ars 2.178, 2.524, Rem. 218, Tr. 5.11.7, Am. 1.11.8. There is an element of Seneca desiring to better his own description (as well as Ovid) at this moment as he works towards his final sententia.

scies quid deceat: This alludes to literary “decorum”, see Hor. Ars 308 and the comments of Brink 1963: 230 “But it is certain that…a similar word, decet, is used to express the ideals a poet should aim at” with further references and Cic. Orat. 70.7, Hor. Epist. 1.6.62. Oliensis 1991: 107 makes the nice observation “The concept of decorum is never innocent” and it should be seen here as an implicit criticism of Ovid’s poetics. See the remarks of Williams 2012: 131-32 “If [Ovid’s] lascivia is…interpreted as a degenerate stylistic figure, a decadent abandonment of classical restraint, Seneca’s rebuke takes on another suggestive dimension: even as evocations of the flood in Metamorphoses 1 lend significant dramatic and moralizing color to the Senecan cataclysm, could it be that Seneca here shows a playfulness of his own in loosely combining literary and moral criticism? Could it be that Ovid here symbolizes a form of literary corruption that runs parallel to the moral corruption (cf. vitia, 3.30.8) cleansed in the cataclysm? On this approach, part can again profitably be viewed in relation to whole: as Seneca rounds on Ovidian license, so the deluge punishes human licentia more generally”.

si cogitaveris orbem terrarum natare: One should imagine not individual animals or parts of earth swimming, but rather that the world itself is swimming. He is capping Ovid’s words (as well as his own devorato orbe terrarum, 3.27.14), and the various descriptions indebted to Ovid, see Degl’Innocenti Pierini 1984: 150-52. It is possible Seneca was influenced here by Manilius 4.829: natat orbis in ipso, or Lucr. 6.267: facerent camposque natare (these intertexts would indicate that Stoic or Epicurean views will not matter - all will perish in the end). Hutchinson 1993: 129 “Seneca closes with his own ostentatious wit. He is using criticism of Ovid to bring out his own seriousness, and the greatness of his subject and his conception of it; this ending boldly sets the lightness of Ovid’s wit against the weightiness and, in his prose, the purposefulness of Seneca’s. Naturally Seneca is distorting, or affecting to distort, the intentions of Ovid, along familiar lines”.
******
******