{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_76392/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_76392","id":"gutenberg_76392","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76392","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Classics of Literature","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Comets","Earthquakes","Meteorology -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"PHYSICAL SCIENCE IN THE\n TIME OF NERO\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited\n LONDON \u00b7 BOMBAY \u00b7 CALCUTTA\n MELBOURNE\n\n THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n NEW YORK \u00b7 BOSTON \u00b7 CHICAGO\n ATLANTA \u00b7 SAN FRANCISCO\n\n THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.\n TORONTO\n\n\n\n\n PHYSICAL SCIENCE\n\n IN THE TIME OF NERO\n\n\n BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE\n _QUAESTIONES NATURALES_ OF SENECA\n\n\n BY\n JOHN CLARKE, M.A.\n LECTURER ON EDUCATION IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN\n\n\n WITH NOTES ON THE TREATISE BY\n SIR ARCHIBALD GEIKIE\n K.C.B., D.C.L., Sc.D., LL.D.\n PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY\n\n\n MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n ST. MARTIN\u2019S STREET, LONDON\n 1910\n\n\n\n\n _Plurimum ad inveniendum contulit qui speravit posse reperiri._\n SENECA, _Q.N._ VI. V. 2.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThis book is intended primarily for English readers, to most of whom it\nwill probably be at least new. Thomas Lodge, the well-known dramatist,\npublished in 1614 a translation of the whole of Seneca\u2019s prose works\n(except the _Apocolocyntosis_), but no English editor or commentator\nseems to have turned his attention to the _Quaestiones Naturales_,\neither before or since. Lodge\u2019s translation, a folio volume of nearly a\nthousand pages, was probably very good for its day, but is now out of\ndate.\n\nThe Introduction is designed to give a setting to the translation, and\nto answer a few of the questions that would naturally occur to the\nmind of an intelligent reader who was not a classical scholar. In the\nIndex also some details are included that may be helpful to those who\nhave neither time nor opportunity for hunting up historical and other\nallusions in books of reference. The object has been to make the volume\nself-interpreting, though it may be that the course has not always been\njudiciously steered between too little and too much.\n\nThe _Quaestiones Naturales_ must be regarded as occupying historically\nan important position. It was the latest deliverance of the classical\nworld upon the subject of physical speculation. Its currency during\nthe Middle Ages rendered it for many centuries the chief authority in\nscience in Western Europe. Its cosmology represented not only popular\nbut also educated opinion, and became the source of many of the\naccepted ideas concerning the universe that passed into early modern\nliterature in our own and other countries.\n\nIndebtedness to editors of Seneca and to others, which has been very\ngreat, is acknowledged as fully as possible in the Introduction and\nelsewhere where help has been availed of. The interest taken in the\nbook by various friends is also gratefully acknowledged. Professor Sir\nJoseph Larmor and Professor J. Arthur Thomson have made several useful\nsuggestions. Professor Herbert J.\u00a0C. Grierson has very kindly read the\nproofs and given valuable assistance in other respects. But my chief\nacknowledgments are due to Sir Archibald Geikie. To him the translation\nowed its inception: his constant aid and encouragement have enabled\nme to complete a task from which I should probably have otherwise\nshrunk. I am indebted to him also for the Commentary appended to the\ntranslation, in which the questions treated by Seneca are considered\nfrom the point of view of modern Science. It has been to him a labour\nof love: may our readers enjoy something of the same satisfaction!\n\n J.\u00a0C.\n\n Old Aberdeen,\n _September 27, 1909_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PREFACE v\n\n INTRODUCTION xxi\n\n\n BOOK I\n\n [METEORS, HALO, RAINBOW, MOCK SUN, ETC.]\n\n PREFACE\n\n PAGE\n\n Contrast between human (moral) philosophy and divine (natural,\n physical). The sublime character of the latter which lifts\n us above the contemplation of the littlenesses of the earth\n and earthly life to the knowledge of God and His nature.\n Compared with astronomical conceptions and dimensions the\n world of man is but as a threshing-floor, the haunt of ants.\n The mind of man attains its true height in contemplation and\n investigation of these sublime facts. Some of the problems\n thus raised 3\n\n CHAP.\n\n I. Meteoric fires--_she-goat_, _kid_, etc. Occasions of their\n appearance; connection of portent with event. Explanation\n of the phenomena. They may be due to pressure of the\n atmosphere. Aristotle attributes them to the effect of\n terrestrial evaporation: difference of density causes\n various outbursts of this kind. They are analogous to\n lightning, but less violent 8\n\n II. _Halos._ Produced by the light of a heavenly body striking\n the surrounding air and forming a circle as a stone does\n when thrown into a pond. Formed far away from the heavenly\n body and comparatively near the earth in the region of the\n wind. Require a particular state of the atmosphere neither\n too dense nor too thin. More frequent at night than day for\n this reason: by day the sun rarefies the air too much by\n its heat. Method of dissipation gives indication of wind or\n rain. Calmness a condition of formation, as in the analogous\n case of water 12\n\n III. _Rainbows._ Generally by day, produced by inequalities\n of surface and density in clouds. Another species seen in\n a burst pipe or a fuller at work. Various explanations.\n Light and shade will not explain the varied colours. Some\n explain the rainbow as a confused reflection of the sun\n from individual drops of rain: every bounded surface, large\n or small, thus reflects--fish-pond and dew-drop equally.\n Aristotle attributes the confusion of colours to weakness of\n human sight; parallels may be found in persons whose sight\n is abnormally weak. As the innumerable drops, apparently\n without intervals, fall, human vision fails to distinguish\n severally the reflections of the sun, which thus become\n blended and confused. Vision is similarly deceived in the\n case of an oar in water, apples in a glass globe, etc., even\n in the size and movements of the sun himself. At any rate\n the rainbow requires both sun and cloud, and these opposite\n to each other. These two in operation produce the varieties\n of colour 16\n\n IV. That the rainbow is an image is shown by the relation of\n sun to cloud in position, by the rapidity of formation and\n dispersion. Artemidorus\u2019 explanation of the shape of the\n cloud (concave), and the consequent position of the red in\n the rainbow 22\n\n V. Arguments to show that the cloud is coloured by the sun,\n like a dove\u2019s neck or a peacock\u2019s tail, and that the rainbow\n is not a _reflection_ of the sun. The position (opposite)\n would be equally necessary in this case. Answer to this\n contention by Posidonius. The colour effects. Author agrees\n with Posidonius\u2019 position but not his arguments. The only\n _proof_ is the geometrical one 23\n\n VI. Arguments from the size--never more than a semicircle--and\n shape of the bow. As the colour, whether real or reflected,\n is derived from the sun, so must also the shape be. The size\n is accounted for by the magnifying power of water, glass,\n etc. The sun as he appears in the rainbow is seen through\n moisture 28\n\n VII. The arguments from the dispersion of the sun\u2019s rays through\n glass (prism). Contention that they confirm author\u2019s view 30\n\n VIII. The form once more; why it is never larger than a\n semicircle. A wrong explanation refuted. Explanation of\n Aristotle\u2019s remark as to the seasons of rainbows, in summer\n only in the morning or evening, in autumn at any time 31\n\n IX. _Streaks_ or _weather-galls_. Merely abortive or imperfect\n rainbows 33\n\n X. Relations and differences of _halos_, _bows_, and\n _weather-galls_ 34\n\n XI. _Mock suns._ Their appearance and position in relation to\n the sun. They are a reflection of the sun in a suitable\n medium 34\n\n XII. The formation of a mock sun may be compared to the image\n of the sun in eclipse as seen reflected in a dish of oil or\n pitch: the medium must be adapted to give the impression.\n The mock sun requires a certain consistency of cloud,\n failing which, a different effect is produced--obscuration,\n dissipation, etc. 35\n\n XIII. There may be two mock suns simultaneously. Some think\n the one is a reflection of the other, the clouds acting as\n mirrors set opposite to one another. Mock suns, especially\n in the South, are a sign of rain 36\n\n XIV. Other celestial fires. \u201c_Cave meteors_,\u201d \u201c_Barrel\n meteors_,\u201d \u201c_Chasms_,\u201d with a brief description of each. The\n rapidity of their flight, just as of lightning, deceives the\n sight. Their origin and cause. They indicate wind 37\n\n XV. _Gleams_ (_flashes_, \u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1). Their production and motions,\n varieties of them. Some do damage. Some are analogous to\n comets. \u201c_Bearded_,\u201d \u201c_torches_,\u201d \u201c_cypress_\u201d are different\n kinds. \u201c_Beams_\u201d and \u201c_barrels_\u201d may be of the same class.\n A curious case where such an appearance raised an alarm of\n fire. They are real fires. On the contrary, rainbows and\n halos are mere reflections. Mirrors have this wonderful\n power of false presentation 39\n\n XVI. The \u201cmirrored den\u201d of Hostius Quadra 41\n\n XVII. The philosophy of the looking-glass. The evolution of\n mirrors. Mirrors of full length are now used. They cost a\n fortune greater than the Senate gave Scipio\u2019s daughters.\n A harmless necessary device has become an instrument of\n luxury, the adornment of women, the burden of men, nay, part\n of the kit of the soldier 44\n\n\n BOOK II\n\n [THE NATURE OF AIR. THUNDER AND LIGHTNING]\n\n [I.-XI. Prefatory to treatment of thunder and lightning,\n descriptive of the nature of the air, in which these\n phenomena occur.]\n\n I. Divisions of physical science--astronomy, meteorology,\n geography. Cross divisions, _e.g._ earthquakes, belong to\n meteorology, being produced by air; so the earth, as a\n planet, belongs to Astronomy but its properties belong to\n Geography 51\n\n II. Unity and composition in bodies. The analogy of the seen\n applies to the unseen. The atmosphere is possessed of unity\n (_unitas_) 52\n\n III. Parts and material of bodies distinguished. In the human\n body blood is both 54\n\n IV. The atmosphere is an integral part of the universe: has\n unity 54\n\n V. The earth is both part and material of the universe. From it\n nourishment is supplied to the latter 55\n\n VI. The atmosphere has unity--is not compact of atoms, otherwise\n it could not exert tension, which is one of its main\n features, with endless manifestations 55\n\n VII. There is no vacuum in the air, as the analogy of water\n shows 57\n\n VIII. The exertion of tension presupposes tensibility, just as\n motion does mobility. Its existence in air proved by the\n effects of air, which tosses about mountains, houses, walls,\n etc. The propagation of sight and sound proves the same 58\n\n IX. Its tension is seen in raising water, as in the jet in the\n amphitheatre. Proofs from a ship upborne of water, a quoit\n flung from a height, sound heard through a wall 59\n\n X. Varieties of density and temperature in the atmosphere: the\n central layer is coldest 60\n\n XI. The lower parts are most subject to change. The cause of\n this is in part the earth, in part the sun, moon, and other\n stars. So much by way of preface to explain the nature of\n that atmosphere in which thunder and lightning occur 61\n\n XII. _Lightning_, _thunder-bolt_, _thunder_. All agree that they\n occur in the clouds, but different explanations are given of\n their cause and relations. Anaxagoras connects them with the\n ether; Aristotle says they are due to exhalations of various\n kinds, from the earth, coming in contact with the clouds 62\n\n XIII. The fire cannot be inherent in the clouds and fall from\n them. When it so comes it is forced 64\n\n XIV. There is nothing inconsistent with this in the explanation\n given (I. xv.) of meteors. There may be an analogy with what\n is observed in cases of fire when isolated groups of houses\n take fire through gradual accumulation of heat 65\n\n XV. Some (Stoics) think that spontaneous combustion takes place\n in the air 66\n\n XVI. Difference between a flash of lightning and a bolt 66\n\n XVII. Some explain the noise of thunder as due to hot meeting\n cold, as in the case of hot iron plunged into water 67\n\n XVIII. Anaximander attributes the effects to air and explains\n all the phenomena by reference to it 67\n\n XIX. Anaxagoras says it is the ether that acts on the lower\n atmosphere to produce them: it sends out fire 68\n\n XX. Diogenes of Apollonia thinks that fire and air interact,\n producing one another, as may be observed in the various\n phenomena 68\n\n XXI. Authorities discarded: independent explanation. A flash and\n a bolt are fire in some form: they differ only in degree 69\n\n XXII. Analogy of fire on earth: it must apply above. Lightning\n due either to impact or friction. Hurricanes are a\n sufficient cause of the former 70\n\n XXIII. Clouds and air may through friction also be a cause. The\n fires so produced are insubstantial and evanescent 71\n\n XXIV. Fire by reason of its lightness levitates, just as water\n gravitates. But in the case of a bolt it is forced down,\n contrary to its nature, like a \u201cweeping\u201d tree 71\n\n XXV. But it is said that wet clouds produce fire. How? 72\n\n XXVI. There is no inconsistency in the combination in the same\n cloud of potential fire and water. A log burns at one end,\n exudes moisture at the other. An island on each of two\n occasions was thrown up by fire in the Aegean Sea, fire\n overcoming water. And clouds are, as a matter of fact,\n required for lightning: exceptions to this are only apparent 72\n\n XXVII. Different kinds of thunder. The growling and the\n crashing, with their causes 75\n\n XXVIII. In order to the sound of thunder, clouds of a particular\n shape must meet in a particular way. A bladder does not\n burst with a report if cut. A broad simultaneous blow over\n the whole cloud is necessary to an explosion 76\n\n XXIX. The proper shape and the rupture of the cloud are\n necessary. Compare drums, etc. 77\n\n XXX. According to some, clouds are not necessary to thunder:\n witness eruptions of Etna and the overthrow of Cambyses\u2019\n army, where particles of sand were the medium of the thunder\n and lightning. But in this case, too, a cloud was formed, it\n may be, a denser, and more solid than one composed of mere\n air, before the sound was emitted 77\n\n XXXI. Strange effects of lightning 78\n\n XXXII. Portents and events, their undoubted and widespread\n connection 79\n\n XXXIII. Thunderbolts. Threefold division of the art of dealing\n with them 81\n\n XXXIV. Mistaken views as to the relation of lightning to other\n presages. The former are of equal, not superior, value 82\n\n XXXV. Fate cannot be changed by expiation and entreaty 83\n\n XXXVI. \u201cGod is not a man\u201d that he should change fate. What is\n the use, then, of rites? 84\n\n XXXVII. Answer--Fate fixes some things only conditionally: the\n alternative issues are determined by the conduct, active or\n passive, of the worshipper 84\n\n XXXVIII. This action of his is likewise a part of fate. The\n soothsayer, like the physician, is the minister of fate.\n Discussion of free will deferred 85\n\n XXXIX. Three classes or kinds of thunderbolts, as judged by\n their indications, according to Caecina 86\n\n XL. These are kinds of prognostications rather than of bolts.\n The different species of the latter are distinguished by\n their effects--boring, splitting, burning. Fine distinctions\n of Latin terms 87\n\n XLI. A kind that stains or discolours. The Etruscan view of the\n three kinds of bolt according to _their_ division 88\n\n XLII. The Etruscans knew what they were about in attributing\n certain motives and actions to Jupiter. Their theory was for\n the benefit of the ignorant mass of humanity 89\n\n XLIII. \u201cWhich things are an allegory.\u201d An example is set to\n earthly rulers to be merciful and consider well their\n judgments 90\n\n XLIV. Jove does not change his missiles; but there are\n gradations in the offence to be punished. That is the lesson 91\n\n XLV. By Jove the Etruscans meant, as we do, all that is greatest\n and best--Fate, Providence, Nature, the Universe 91\n\n XLVI. He is the source of the thunder\u2019s power, though he does\n not superintend each stroke. Why he spares the guilty is\n another affair, which will be discussed in another place 92\n\n XLVII. An erroneous classification of thunderbolts according to\n time 92\n\n XLVIII. It must be wrong, because the time is always limited. A\n better basis of treatment is that of Attalus. Place, time,\n person, etc., must all be looked into 93\n\n XLIX. Caecina\u2019s division, his names and their meanings 94\n\n L. That of Attalus is much better, being based on the true\n signification 95\n\n LI. The signification of some does not affect, of some does not\n reach, us 95\n\n LII. The force of lightning as seen in different materials, and\n at different times in the same material (cf. xxxi.) 96\n\n LIII. Poisonous effects: may be followed up afterwards.\n Panegyric on philosophy 97\n\n LIV. Returns to Posidonius\u2019 (Aristotle\u2019s) opinion as to the\n cause of thunder, an explosion of air 98\n\n LV. The collision of clouds may produce it. Air is the cause\n in this instance also. Shooting stars are associated with\n thunder, but this is the exception, not the rule 98\n\n LVI. Heraclitus and Caecina think sheet lightning an\n intermittent incipient fire. Change in the pronunciation of\n the Latin word 100\n\n LVII. Lightning is probably due to the air turning into fire\n through rarefaction of the clouds. It is naturally most\n frequent in summer. Sheet and forked lightning differ in\n degree, not in kind 100\n\n LVIII. Reasons for rapidity of lightning and its obliquity 101\n\n LIX. Every story should have a moral. Death cannot be prevented;\n why fear it? It is cowardly and silly. Death by lightning is\n rather an honour than otherwise. Besides, fear is futile 102\n\n\n BOOK III\n\n ON FORMS OF WATER\n\n PREFACE\n\n Having begun a mighty task in my old age I must make up for\n lost time by hurrying on. The magnitude of it is actually\n an incentive to effort. Such studies are far superior to\n the historian\u2019s task of recording the deeds of the robbers\n and butchers of mankind. The former raise us above the\n vicissitudes of fortune. \u201cThe principal thing\u201d is to have a\n pure heart and clean hands, to escape slavery to self. The\n study of the universe exalts us to this 109\n\n I. The cause of rivers and their varieties. Waters vary in\n amount at different seasons, in temperature, in medicinal\n qualities 114\n\n II. Varieties of taste, weight, colour, utility to health,\n consistency 115\n\n III. Gravitation or the force of air determines the flow of\n water. Surface and spring water: they may be combined as in\n Lake Fucinus 115\n\n IV. Why is the sea not filled nor the earth drained dry by\n rivers? 116\n\n V. Some hold that what flows into the sea returns by secret\n passages cleansed of its salinity 116\n\n VI. Some think rain supplies the rivers, and in proof cite the\n interior of Africa as contrasted with Gaul and Germany 117\n\n VII. Objections to this argument. Rain does not penetrate more\n than 10 feet. If the earth is dry, it absorbs the rain; if\n it is saturated, the rain runs off. Again, rivers rise in\n rocks and mountains, where what rain ever fell must have run\n off. Rich wells of \u201cliving\u201d water are found in the driest\n ground at depth. Fountains well out at mountain tops 117\n\n VIII. The interior of the earth is, according to some, a huge\n receptacle of fresh water 118\n\n IX. Others think the air which is contained within the earth\n being prevented from circulating turns into water 119\n\n X. But indeed the four elements are all interchangeable 120\n\n XI. Though the supply of water is perennial, rivers and springs\n are intermittent 121\n\n XII. The abundance of water is no difficulty, since it is a\n fourth part of the universe 123\n\n XIII. The relation of water to the other elements. Thales\u2019 silly\n notion that the earth sails in water like a ship at sea 124\n\n XIV. The Egyptians divide each of the elements into male and\n female 125\n\n XV. The veins of the earth resemble those of the human body.\n There are likewise the analogies of marrow, mucus, etc., of\n injuries and of bleeding, of parturition, perspiration, etc. 125\n\n XVI. Intermittent fountains are an illustration of seasonal\n activity. The great vacant spaces of the earth and their\n tenants. Underground fish 128\n\n XVII. The incredible wonders of nature are paralleled and even\n outdone by the excesses of luxury 129\n\n XVIII. The extravagances of luxury, which make a wise man mad 130\n\n XIX. To return--a sudden eruption of water casts up fish,\n generally poisonous. This points to the unfailing supply of\n subterranean water 132\n\n XX. Various tastes of water due to four causes; qualities of\n water--petrifying, soporific, intoxicating, fatal 133\n\n XXI. The same pestilential influence as taints rivers is\n perceived in caves: the noxious rivers flow from or through\n them 134\n\n XXII. The Ocean and seas are coeval with the universe. So\n probably are abnormal rivers like the Danube and the Nile 135\n\n XXIII. Rain and surface water must be added to subterranean 135\n\n XXIV. The causes of hot springs 136\n\n XXV. Poisonous rivers. Colouring power of others. Great specific\n gravity of certain waters, its effects and cause 137\n\n XXVI. Intermittent rivers and springs. Means possessed by river,\n fount, and sea of purifying themselves 141\n\n XXVII. Digression on the universal deluge which will destroy\n the world. Nature is niggardly in creation, lavish in\n destruction. Ovid is unequal in his treatment of this\n catastrophe 143\n\n XXVIII. Further imaginative pictures of what water can do by\n way of destruction. Alternative methods of destroying the\n earth--water and fire 148\n\n XXIX. Further possibilities of the same character. Distinctions\n of seas, gulfs, etc., will all be obliterated; nature and\n the works of man will alike be overthrown 150\n\n XXX. Nature shows by the chafing of the sea that she designs to\n inundate the world. A deluge is part of the fore-ordained\n plan. But there will be a new earth and a new race of men\n who will not sin--for a time 154\n\n\n BOOK IV\n\n CONTAINING A DISCUSSION OF SNOW, HAIL, AND RAIN. [THE NILE]\n\n PREFACE\n\n The dangers of flattery and its insidiousness. If you must\n have praise, praise yourself. Lucilius has good cause: he\n must not, however, think too much of himself because he is\n governor of that historic province Sicily, which has ere now\n decided the fate of generals and of empire 159\n\n I. Leaving Sicily and its marvels let us deal with the omitted\n part of the last book, the Nile. There is no real analogy\n between it and the Danube 166\n\n II. The course of the Nile; its cataracts. The inundation of\n the river. Its meaning to Egypt. Its denizens; crocodiles\n and dolphins in conflict. Causes of the overflow: melting\n of snow; Etesian Winds; drying up of the springs through\n internal heat of the earth in winter; the attraction of\n the sun in Africa draws water from the sea to fill up the\n gap caused by evaporation [none of the accounts apparently\n accepted] 167\n\n III. Origin of hail; why it differs from snow 177\n\n IV. Causes of snow in winter, hail in spring 179\n\n V. It is said that the cooler air of the North (Scythia, etc.)\n is stirred by the melting of the snow in spring and floats\n South, causing hail instead of rain 180\n\n VI. Hail, it is again alleged, is averted by sacrifice. If there\n is not a victim handy you have merely to prick your finger! 181\n\n VII. This belief in the power of blood was an ancient\n superstition 182\n\n VIII. Three causes why the air near the earth is warmest, and\n therefore produces snow rather than hail 182\n\n IX. Democritus\u2019 view--dense bodies are heated most quickly, and\n retain their heat longest 183\n\n X. The air nearest the earth is denser than elsewhere 184\n\n XI. The tops of mountains, it is urged, should be warmer because\n nearer the sun. The difference is wholly inappreciable if we\n adopt the scale of the universe, the true one 184\n\n XII. The comparatively mild air near the earth causes snow, but\n not hail 186\n\n XIII. The despicable luxury of the effeminate Romans, who bought\n snow, bathed in it, and must resort even to ice to cool the\n unnatural feverish thirst born of their indulgence 186\n\n\n BOOK V\n\n TREATING OF WINDS AND MOVEMENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE\n\n I. Definition of _wind_--air flowing in one direction. The\n air, like the sea, is always moving, even when it is\n thought to be still; hence the necessity of the additional\n qualification--in one direction 193\n\n II. Democritus says wind arises from a multitude of atoms in a\n small space striving to get free, just like a crowd jostling\n each other 194\n\n III. But wind does not thus depend on density; cloudy or misty\n weather does not necessarily produce wind, while wind is\n produced when the morning sun dissipates the air. Democritus\n is, therefore, wrong 195\n\n IV. Wind arises in two ways--from the interior of the earth by\n emission--like wind on the stomach!--and from evaporation 196\n\n V. The air has inherent power of movement, which is the chief\n cause of wind, evaporation being a less powerful one. Water\n has the power of moving and of imparting life to animals and\n plants 197\n\n VI. Fire even, the destroyer, sometimes generates life. Air in\n like manner has a peculiar power of its own 197\n\n VII. _Breezes before dawn_ arise from rivers, etc. Do not last\n long 198\n\n VIII. _The \u201cgulf\u201d wind_ (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2): its origin and duration 198\n\n IX. Connection of winds with seasons of the year and with the\n heat and light of the sun. The sun does not directly cause\n the winds 200\n\n X. Some cite the Etesian Winds as proof that he does. They blow\n in summer when the snows melt and the moisture is carried\n South 201\n\n XI. But as to the effect of the sun, there is no analogy between\n the Etesian Winds, which do not spring up till late in the\n day, and the winds which rise at dawn and fall as the day\n advances 202\n\n XII. _Cloud squalls_ (\u1f10\u03ba\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). Their formation and\n combinations 203\n\n XIII. The breaking up of clouds produces wind. Air, in an effort\n to get free, or heat, may produce this. Interruption of free\n passage may produce a whirlwind, just as an obstacle in a\n river a whirlpool. _Violent whirlwinds_ take fire (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1).\n Some winds produce different ones. An analogy holds between\n air and drops of moisture. A union of forces in air or in\n dew is necessary to give impulse and produce a current. Air\n and wind are merely a matter of degree 204\n\n XIV. Mode in which the subterranean winds are generated and make\n their escape 205\n\n XV. Ancient miners of Philip\u2019s saw rivers and vast underground\n reservoirs. It is some consolation to read such a story,\n which shows greed is no new vice: the older generations were\n as reckless as we are in their quest for treasure better hid 207\n\n XVI. The four _cardinal winds_. The full list includes twelve.\n Their names and directions 208\n\n XVII. The great circles of the earth which give twelve\n divisions, and therefore prescribe the possible number of\n the winds 210\n\n XVIII. The uses of wind and the illustration afforded of the\n wisdom of Providence. The crops are dependent on it. So\n is commerce. But we make the sea a highway to war and\n not to peace. We go to seek for death, as if it were not\n always near. Xerxes, Alexander, Crassus are warnings of the\n mischievous use of power to cross the sea. Better, perhaps,\n the winds had never been given at all. But the value of a\n natural gift must not be estimated by the depraved use of\n it. Every gift, even sight and speech, man has perverted in\n the same way 212\n\n\n BOOK VI\n\n TREATING OF EARTHQUAKES\n\n CHAP. PAGE\n\n I. Earthquake at Pompeii and the alarm it caused, many giving\n up Campania as a residence altogether. If the solid earth\n fail, what can be done? Refuge from tempest and fire and\n thunderstorm and war is possible, but not from earthquake.\n But (1) the whole earth is subject to such movement: we\n cannot escape by changing our ground--Tyre, Asia Minor,\n Achaia have all suffered. (2) Death is the same in whatever\n form it come, the circumstances matter not, a stone is all\n one with a mountain 221\n\n II. We cannot escape death. The hopeless find refuge in despair.\n The knowledge of our frailty and mortality is our true\n solace. Death must come, a death with circumstance is rather\n to be preferred than otherwise. In an earthquake the earth\n shows itself mortal as men are 225\n\n III. Our fears are due to ignorance. Through lack of a\n philosophic view of the universe we consider phenomena\n strange which are merely rare, _e.g._ eclipses. Fear may be\n removed by knowledge 228\n\n IV. The study of such problems is the very worthiest; it reveals\n the secrets of nature, and is disinterested. But it is\n highly profitable at the same time 229\n\n V. Various explanations of _earthquakes_ have been suggested.\n The earlier ones are crude, but not therefore to be\n despised. Every subject develops as time goes on. Gratitude\n is due to the investigators who first dared to question\n nature 230\n\n VI. The cause of earthquakes is by some said to be water. Thales\n of Miletus explains how this takes place, but he must be\n wrong: the analogy of a ship sailing the ocean will not\n apply to the earth (cp. III. xiii.) 231\n\n VII. Water may be the cause, but may operate in quite different\n ways from those supposed by Thales. Storms, etc., in\n subterranean seas may cause earthquakes 233\n\n VIII. There must be such subterranean water. The Tigris and\n Arethusa prove it. Nero, the virtuous and the veracious,\n sent two officers to investigate the sources of the Nile;\n their account confirms the assumption 235\n\n IX. Fire is another alleged cause. It either bursts out through\n opposing obstacles, as in the clouds (Anaxagoras), or burns\n away the foundation and causes a subsidence at the spot 236\n\n X. Pieces of the earth falling in merely through the decay of\n age may produce the effect without fire or any external\n influence. This is Anaximenes\u2019 opinion 237\n\n XI. Fire is supposed by some to cause earthquakes by expanding\n the vapour which it first causes to be given off from the\n subterranean waters 238\n\n XII. Archelaus sets down the cause as air pressing up the\n earth\u2019s internal wind which is already condensed to bursting\n point 239\n\n XIII. Aristotle and Theophrastus take evaporation to be the\n cause. Strato, much in the same way, thinks that differences\n of internal temperature are the cause 240\n\n XIV. By some it is thought that air is the cause, but that its\n operation, along with water, is like that of blood and air\n in the vessels of the body. The earth, it is assumed in this\n case, admits air, which must find an exit. When it does so\n violently, the result is an earthquake 242\n\n XV. The earth is porous, perforated at many points, and it is\n thus that the air enters 243\n\n XVI. The earth is full of air, nourishing plants rooted in it,\n and exhaling enough to feed the sun and the other heavenly\n bodies. Air is the most movable of elements; therefore\n the earth, if it is full of air, must also have frequent\n movements 244\n\n XVII. Obstruction of air, just as of water, causes greater\n impetuosity when it escapes. Wind is frequently associated\n with earthquakes, as at Chalcis 245\n\n XVIII. Additional considerations to prove that the great cause\n of earthquakes is air, _i.e._ wind 247\n\n XIX. Metrodorus of Chios compares the rumbling of an earthquake\n to the resonance of the voice in a tub; the underground\n caves impart the sound 248\n\n XX. Various combinations of water and air supposed by Democritus\n and Epicurus to co-operate to the production of earthquakes 249\n\n XXI. Air must be the cause. Different kinds of earthquakes 251\n\n XXII. First species--shaking of the earth: its causes 252\n\n XXIII. Next comes the form of concussion caused by air. The\n great Callisthenes, who braved the fury of Alexander and\n lost his life for it, supports this view. Submarine effects\n of it are particularly noticeable 253\n\n XXIV. Different explanations may be given of the exact method in\n which air acts 255\n\n XXV. The striving of the air in subterranean caverns produces\n a concussion or collapse in the earth above. The area of\n disturbance is limited, never over 200 miles, as numerous\n instances prove. The Pene\u00fcs and Ladon were thus produced 256\n\n XXVI. The nature of the soil composed of muddy accretions\n without interstices is said to account for the exemption of\n Egypt from earthquakes. So Delos in the sea has porous rocks\n which emit the air easily. But the facts are wrong. There\n is abundant proof that proximity to the sea is no safeguard\n against shock 258\n\n XXVII. A peculiarity of the Campanian earthquake, that it killed\n 600 sheep, is explained by the emission of pestilential\n vapour, by which sheep, with their heads close to the\n ground, naturally were most readily affected 259\n\n XXVIII. Noxious vapours are not, however, peculiar to\n earthquakes. They are found in several parts of Italy\n habitually. Such, too, is the origin of new diseases 261\n\n XXIX. Excessive fear drives people mad. Earthquakes split\n statues and divide kingdoms, _e.g._ Sicily from Italy, Spain\n from Africa 262\n\n XXX. The action of the air accounts for all the detailed\n phenomena, splitting of walls, houses, towers, statues; also\n for the prolongation of shocks for several days 263\n\n XXXI. A further proof that air is the agent is to be found in\n the gradually diminishing violence of the successive shocks.\n Phenomena in the pavement witnessed by a philosopher who was\n in his bath 264\n\n XXXII. The moral. Life hangs on a thread; why should one dread\n the loss of it? The greatness of the cause of death is no\n source of terror. The hereafter is better and safer than\n earth. There there is no fear of earthquake or thunderstorm,\n fire or flood. Fear of death magnifies all human risks. Do\n not dread death, long for it, and, if necessary, meet it\n half way 265\n\n\n BOOK VII\n\n TREATING OF COMETS\n\n I. Phenomena, however wonderful, are not noted and admired\n unless they are uncommon. The sun and moon and starry\n heavens have no observers, but a Comet at once sets the\n whole world agog. The nature of the stars is a sublime and\n likewise a profitable study 271\n\n II. The nature of _Comets_ has not been hitherto fully\n investigated. They are so rare that one wants a record of\n the movements of all ever observed 273\n\n III. Democritus, Eudoxus, Conon, Epigenes, and Apollonius of\n Myndus all fail to give any satisfactory account of the\n matter. Nor had the Egyptians or Chaldaeans investigated\n them 274\n\n IV. Epigenes explains the Comet as due to a conjunction of\n Saturn with Mars or the Sun: it is akin to whirlwind and\n \u201cbeam\u201d meteors 275\n\n V. But there are essential differences between whirlwind, which\n is terrestrial, and beams and torches, which are above the\n clouds. There is a difference of duration also. Beams and\n Comets, it is true, have been mistaken for one another. It\n was a Comet, according to Aristotle, that appeared before\n the destruction of Buris and Helice. The character of the\n flame differs in the two forms 276\n\n VI. There are two kinds of Comets, according to Epigenes. They\n are produced by air driven up and setting on fire suitable\n material above, which takes place every day at the same hour 277\n\n VII. But Comets are not concomitants of winds; there is no\n parallelism in the phenomena. The higher ones, which have an\n orbit, he attributes to the north wind, but the facts do not\n square here either 278\n\n VIII. The course and altitude of Comets render the whirlwind\n explanation impossible 279\n\n IX. The force and duration of whirlwinds are similarly\n inadequate 280\n\n X. The slowness and steadiness of the Comet could not be\n accounted for on this assumption, nor its general behaviour\n and shape 281\n\n XI. We must look for some other explanation. Now Comets, it must\n be premised, appear in all quarters of the sky. Whatever the\n divisions of them made by the Greeks, they are all of one\n origin. Some of the ancients thought they were due to the\n union of two planets 283\n\n XII. Again the facts do not square. Comets and planets appear\n simultaneously. A conjunction is momentary, a Comet lasts\n six months sometimes. The planets do not pass much beyond\n the ecliptic, but Comets appear in every quarter of the sky.\n And there are other objections 284\n\n XIII. Artemidorus thinks the firmament is solid and has\n openings for stars. Comets are casual planets, or formed by\n conjunctions of them. His account is a tissue of barefaced\n falsehoods 286\n\n XIV. How would a solid firmament be supported? No feasible\n explanation can be offered. Besides, the number of stars is\n so great--and they may all be \u201cwanderers\u201d if an indefinite\n number is--that there must be innumerable conjunctions of\n them, _i.e._ Comets. But, as a matter of fact, Comets are\n rare 287\n\n XV. Again the huge Comets of the times of Demetrius and Attalus\n would require scores of planetary conjunctions to form them 288\n\n XVI. Ephorus, a mere chronicler, who takes this view, has\n nothing to support him. He tries, like others of his set, to\n embellish his work by narrating marvels. Why did he not tell\n us what the two stars were into which the Comet resolved\n itself, as he alleges it did? 289\n\n XVII. Apollonius of Myndus holds the Comet to be a true star\n (planet) with an erratic course, visible only when it\n approaches the lower part of its orbit. Different colours of\n Comets 290\n\n XVIII. But Comets do not wax and wane as they approach and\n recede like planets. Nor do their orbits lie within the\n ecliptic. Besides, we can see through a Comet but not\n through a true star (planet) 291\n\n XIX. Zeno the Stoic thinks the light of converging stars gives\n the appearance of a longer star. Others hold modified forms\n of the same opinion or analogous views 291\n\n XX. Most of the Stoics hold Comets to be evanescent, and\n attribute them to friction of the air. Various phenomena are\n analogous 292\n\n XXI. Their methods of accounting for varieties of orbits in\n Comets 293\n\n XXII. I do not agree with any School. Reasons 295\n\n XXIII. Further arguments showing difference between fires and\n Comets 295\n\n XXIV. There may be many stars in the universe whose paths\n have not been traced: Comets are such. No satisfactory\n explanation has been given of the mind, but its existence is\n not doubted 297\n\n XXV. Comets are not yet fully understood. Many things are in the\n same category. A future age will be amazed at our ignorance\n of such matters 298\n\n XXVI. Reasons of apparent movements of Comets. The transparence\n and shape accounted for 299\n\n XXVII. Parallels to the differences between Comets and other\n planets 300\n\n XXVIII. Comets give prognostications, but not of immediate\n events or weather 302\n\n XXIX. Denial of heaviness and slowness of Comets 303\n\n XXX. Humility is as becoming in investigators of the nature of\n the heavens as in worshippers. God has revealed but a little\n of Himself to man 304\n\n XXXI. One cannot be surprised that everything has not yet\n been discovered. We must leave something to succeeding\n generations. We are not yet fully proficient in vice, though\n we have striven so long and hard. We still retain, strange\n to say, some traces of manhood 305\n\n XXXII. We are all given up to low pleasures and vices, and\n devote our strength to them. Philosophy is kept for wet\n days. The old teachers have no successors. In fact, we are\n letting go what they discovered. We at best play with truth,\n which, as of old, lies at the bottom of the well, and needs\n the best efforts of young and old, late and early, to bring\n it to light 307\n\n NOTES BY SIR A. GEIKIE 309\n\n TRANSLATOR\u2019S NOTES ON \u201cAIR,\u201d QUOTATIONS, AND GERCKE\u2019S READINGS 344\n\n INDEX 351\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nSENECA\n\nI. LIFE\n\n\nLucius Annaeus Seneca was the second son of Annaeus Seneca (generally,\nbut apparently without authority, called Marcus Annaeus Seneca) of\nCorduba (Cordova) in Spain: his mother was a Spanish lady named Helvia.\nThe elder Seneca was himself a man of note. He is known as Seneca the\nOrator or Rhetorician, in contradistinction to his more famous son,\nthe Philosopher. His works that have come down to us suggest by their\ntitles, _Controversiae_ and _Suasoriae_, the rhetorical character of\nthe contents.\n\nSeneca had an elder brother, M. Annaeus Novatus, and a younger one,\nL. Annaeus Mela (or Mella), father of Lucan the poet (M. Annaeus\nLucanus).[1] The family was thus a distinguished one. The poet Martial,\nhimself a Spaniard, speaks of \u201cthe house of learned Seneca thrice to be\nnumbered\u201d (iv. 40. 2): the allusion might with equal appropriateness\napply either to the three brothers or to the three generations: Seneca\nthe Elder, Seneca, Lucan--father, son, grandson.\n\n [1] Lucan, owing to the jealousy of Nero, was induced to join Piso\u2019s\n conspiracy in 65 and suffered the penalty. His heroic poem, the\n _Pharsalia_, though in many respects crude, is a wonderful production\n for a man of twenty-six.\n\nThe eldest brother of the Senecan family, Novatus, was adopted by a\nfriend of the family, Junius Gallio, by whose name he is known to\nhistory. Seneca on more than one occasion makes reference to him in\nthe _Q.N._, and always in the most laudatory terms. In iv. Pref. 9\n_et sqq._, he pays a high tribute to his character, and a further\nproof of his admiration and affection is afforded by his addressing to\nhim his treatise on _A Happy Life_. Gallio is of interest in another\nconnection. He was proconsul of Achaia during the period of the Apostle\nPaul\u2019s activity there (Acts xviii.), and his conduct on the occasion of\na sectarian uproar at Corinth has attached to his name a certain stigma\nwhich, perhaps, he does not altogether deserve.\n\nSeneca was born about the beginning of the Christian era, probably in\nthe year 3. By this time the language and the arts of Rome had spread\nwidely over the conquered provinces, in many of which independent\ncentres of culture and literary activity had sprung up. While Rome\nas the capital and heart of things continued to draw to herself all\nthat was best, or, at any rate, all that was most enterprising and\nambitious, her literary and even her political life was largely\nrecruited and maintained by supplies from external sources, such as\nSpain, Gaul, and Africa.[2]\n\n [2] From Spain, besides the Senecas, Lucan and Martial, already\n mentioned, came Columella, Pomponius Mela, Quintilian, etc.; from\n Gaul came many rhetoricians; Africa sent so many of the same class\n that by Juvenal\u2019s time (_circ._ 100) it could with propriety be\n designated \u201cnursery of lawyers\u201d (see Teuffel, _Hist. of Rom. Lit._\n vol.\u00a0ii. 6).\n\nSeneca was brought by his father to Rome at an early age,[3] and there\nhe was educated and spent practically his whole life. His lot was cast\nin perilous times, those of Caligula the madman (37\u201341), Claudius the\nimbecile (41\u201354), Nero the monster (54\u201368). Seneca\u2019s early studies\nwere devoted to rhetoric. With such assiduity did he prosecute them,\nand with such brilliant success were his efforts at the bar crowned,\nthat he speedily awakened the jealousy of Caligula. The hint of danger\nwas taken. By his father\u2019s advice he abandoned law in the meantime and\ndevoted himself with equal ardour and enthusiasm to philosophy. Among\nhis philosophic tutors were Attalus, a Stoic, and Sotion, a pupil of\nthe Sextii, the decline of whose school is lamented in the _Q.N._\n(307). He first embraced the Stoic doctrine, but finding the tenets\nand practices of this sect not sufficiently severe, he adopted those of\nthe Pythagoreans. His father, a man with a good deal of worldly wisdom,\nsaw the dangers of extreme eccentricities of this kind, which implied\na covert condemnation of the whole world. He exhorted his son to live\nmore like other people; he might otherwise be mistaken for a Jew\n(_i.e._ a Christian)! The young barrister\u2019s difficulties were, however,\nended for a time by the death of Caligula (41). Seneca, who was now\nthirty-eight, resumed his practice at the bar, and opened a school for\nyouths of noble birth, which was largely attended. About this time also\nhe obtained the quaestorship, the duties of which introduced a young\nman into public service and enabled him to obtain some insight into the\nfinancial methods of the Empire.\n\n [3] His maternal aunt acted as nurse on the occasion: see _Consol. ad\n Helviam_, xvii.\n\nHis re-entry on public life was, however, destined to be the prelude to\nanother disaster. Indeed, all through his subsequent life his interests\nwere so involved with the affairs of the rulers of the State that he\nmust always stand on slippery ground. The fact is, Seneca\u2019s abilities\nwere too great for his position. He was a man of the most brilliant\nparts, \u201cone of those ardent natures the virgin soil of whose talent\nshows a luxurious richness unknown to the harassed brains of an old\ncivilisation\u201d (Cruttwell, _Hist. of Rom. Liter._ p.\u00a0378). In an age of\nabsolute and suspicious tyranny all eminence is obnoxious to the ruling\npowers. It is a standing reproach to them, hence a source of fear\nand alarm, a menace as they imagine, and an incentive to disloyalty.\nDuring the very first year of Claudius\u2019 reign Seneca was banished to\nCorsica, where the next eight years find him. It was the outcome of a\nCourt intrigue. Messalina, wife of the Emperor, was apparently jealous\nof the influence of Claudius\u2019 nieces, Julia and Agrippina, whom he had\njust recalled from banishment. Julia was again banished, and Seneca, on\nthe ground of an alleged improper intimacy with her, was made to share\nher disgrace. His banishment was really a blessing in disguise. He\nemployed assiduously the period of enforced leisure, devoting himself\nagain to philosophy, and returning to his first love, Stoicism. Here\nhe perfected his study, and probably elaborated most of those doctrines\nwith which his writings abound. In Cruttwell\u2019s words, he \u201cstruck out\nthe mild and catholic form\u201d of the Stoic philosophy \u201cwhich has made\nhis teaching, with all its imperfections, the purest and noblest of\nantiquity\u201d (_op. cit._ 379). To this period, too, belong some of what\nmay be called his earlier works, already showing remarkable power.\n\nHis exile had been compassed by the notorious Messalina, the third wife\nof Claudius. On her fall Claudius married, as his fourth wife, his\nniece, the still more notorious Agrippina,[4] daughter of Germanicus\nCaesar and sister of Caligula and of Julia. One of Agrippina\u2019s first\nacts was to have Seneca recalled and appointed tutor to the young Nero,\nher son by a former marriage and now heir-apparent to the throne. This\nwas in 48, when Nero was but eleven years of age, and henceforth to the\nend of his life Seneca\u2019s fortunes are closely associated with those of\nNero, \u201ca name to all succeeding ages curst.\u201d To be tutor to a prince\nmeans much if the pupil is docile. If he prove headstrong and at the\nsame time vicious, as Nero speedily did, the choice of the tutor is an\nunenviable one, either to follow his pupil and palliate his conduct,\nor else to resist at the risk of position and influence and, it may be\neventually, of life. With Seneca at first all went well. The prince\nwas amenable, the tuition seemed to bear good fruit. The teacher was\nfaithful to his charge, and loyal to the prince\u2019s mother, Agrippina,\nto whom he owed his office and influence. Mother and son were still in\naccord. To the philosopher there was no conflict of duty, no necessity\nfor the choice of one of two evils.\n\n [4] This lady must not be confounded with her mother, who bore the\n same name.\n\nIn 54 the vacillating Claudius was poisoned by Agrippina, and Nero\nsucceeded to the throne. For a time the government was virtually in\nthe hands of Seneca and of Burrus, also an excellent man, commander of\nthe praetorian guards. In these earlier years the young Emperor gained\na reputation for justice and moderation which has thrown a halo round\nthat golden quinquennium. His tutor must in fairness receive a portion\nof the credit. He seems to have been throughout imbued with an honest\ndesire to promote virtue and good government and to check such vicious\npropensities as a youth with Nero\u2019s antecedents was not unlikely to\ndevelop; but whether the means adopted were always unimpeachable\nseems more open to question. Seneca\u2019s own interests were apparently\nnot neglected. In 50 he had been made praetor; shortly after he was\nraised to the consulship. Within the short space of four years from his\nappointment as Nero\u2019s master he had attained a position of commanding\ninfluence in the State, and had amassed a colossal fortune (nearly\n\u00a33,000,000 it is said). The latter he attributed to the unsolicited\ngenerosity of his master, but his enemies and detractors had quite a\ndifferent version of the matter.\n\nFor more than a decade after Nero\u2019s succession Seneca\u2019s life is part\nof the history of the Roman Empire. The philosopher had become, as\nit appeared, _de facto_ king and a new era seemed to have arisen\non mankind. Philosophers, it is true, have neither in ancient nor\nin modern times shone in the sphere of action. The troubled sea\nof practical politics is strewn with the wrecks of philosophic\nreputations. Still, even before the age of the Antonines, Seneca, if\nany man, might have been the exception to prove the rule. He was a\nman of versatile genius, he had had a practical training, he was a\nman of affairs. The facts show that he had a true conception of the\nnecessities as well as of the duties of government. But he was placed\nin an impossible situation. Agrippina wished to rule her son, and her\nchosen means was through his tutor. Nero, on the other hand, once he\nhad tasted the sweets of power, determined not to be ruled by his\nmother, but to make her instrument his tool. The condition of unstable\nequilibrium could not long continue.\n\nThe conflict came to a head through a disgraceful intrigue of Nero\u2019s\nabout the year 59. Seneca had to make his choice, and never was choice\nmore difficult. To Agrippina he owed everything--life, position,\nfortune, his past belonged to her. But he saw that Nero was to be the\nwinner in the struggle; his safety, his hopes, his future lay with\nthe ruling power. He may have felt that expostulation was vain and\nresistance fruitless. He does not appear to have attempted either.\nHe decided to cast in his lot with the Emperor. When Nero finally\ndecided to get rid of his mother, Seneca not only adhered to the plan\nbut consented to vilify her memory by composing the letter to the\nSenate, in which the matricide sought to justify his act. It was the\ngreat treason of his life. In a critical situation he had chosen a\nwrong course, and it cannot have been without a pang, a sense of moral\ncowardice and tergiversation. He had sacrificed self-respect, he had\nlost philosophic caste.\n\nAfter the murder of his mother, Nero abandoned himself to the wildest\nexcesses and extravagances. The philosopher had perforce to follow in\nhis wake, and humiliating enough he must have felt the part he was\nobliged to play. Still, he and Burrus continued to act as a sort of\ndrag, conspiring with what of conscience was left to Nero in checking\nhis headlong course. The beginning of the end, so far as Seneca was\nconcerned, came with the death in 63 of Burrus, his constant friend\nand ally. Various indications now showed that the tyrant was anxious\nto be freed from the last remaining restraint. The philosopher felt\nhis position was insecure. The man who had murdered his mother, not to\nmention his (step-)brother and his wife--two of his other victims--was\nnot likely to have great compunction in ridding himself of his\ntutor. Seneca sought to anticipate the storm by abandoning politics,\nretiring from Court, and surrendering his estates. Nero refused the\noffer, and expressed profusely his continued regard for his tutor;\nshortly afterwards he displayed the sincerity of his professions by an\ninsidious attempt to poison him! The philosopher then renounced all\nhis state, adopted a voluntary poverty, and by putting into practice\nhis professed tenets of the simple life endeavoured to avoid a\nrepetition of the risk at least of poison. His diet was herbs, his\ndrink, water from the fountain. But it was only a matter of time now.\nThe occasion for which the Emperor was on the watch came in 65. In\nthat year Piso\u2019s conspiracy was formed against the Emperor\u2019s life, and\nSeneca was accused, falsely so far as we can judge, of complicity. He\nwas ordered to prepare for death, which, according to the custom of\nthe day, allowed the victim the choice of means, and was usually a\nvoluntary opening of the veins in order to bleed to death. Tacitus has\nwith characteristic power and pathos depicted the scene (_Annals_, xv.\n61\u20134). No act of his life, it would seem, became Seneca better than\nthe leaving of it. His death was worthy of a philosopher and a Stoic.\nWith the utmost calmness, amid a throng of mourning, sympathising\nfriends, he faced his fate, and yet with the studied pose of a man who\nhad conned the part. The age was one of posturing. Men were always\nunder the eye of the informer and the spy, and learnt to act their part\naccordingly. The \u201cmeditation of death\u201d must often have occupied the\nphilosopher\u2019s latter days. He was a second Socrates consigned to an\nunjust end; the last scene was enacted with all the dignity, composure,\nand even cheerfulness of his great prototype. The cock due to\nAesculapius has a parallel more worthy of the occasion in the libation\nto Jupiter the Liberator. The supreme act atoned for many weaknesses\nand failures.\n\nThough Seneca was not without many detractors,[5] his worth as a man is\nattested by many proofs. His young wife Paulina desired to share his\nfate, and opened her veins along with her husband. By Nero\u2019s orders\nshe was saved, but she continued to the end of her life to bear in\nher unnatural pallor the marks of her devotion. Tacitus, writing at a\ndistance of thirty or forty years, describes the character of Seneca in\nterms of commendation and esteem. No doubt the historian had himself\nborne the yoke of the savage Domitian, and knew what life under a\ntyrant meant. But withal he was too acute an observer and too impartial\na critic to be blinded by any mere sentimental sympathy. He understood\nand appreciated Seneca, to whose genuine worth his testimony is the\nmost enduring tribute.\n\n [5] Dio Cassius is often very caustic in his criticisms, but even he\n recognises Seneca\u2019s sterling merit and services to the state.\n\nThe age of Seneca, whose \u201clife almost coincides with the Julio-Claudian\ntyranny,\u201d has been made to re-live for us in Professor Dill\u2019s _Roman\nSociety from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, which ought to be studied\nby those who desire to understand more of Seneca as statesman,\nphilosopher, and man.[6] In addition to a short account and criticism\nof the _Quaestiones Naturales_ (pp.\u00a0300 _et sqq._), the chapter (Book\nIII. ch. i. pp.\u00a0289\u2013333) on \u201cThe Philosophic Director\u201d is particularly\nilluminating. The following tribute from it may fittingly close our\nbrief sketch:--\n\n [6] Mr. Henderson\u2019s _The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero_\n should also be studied.\n\n\u201cThe man who approaches Seneca thinking only of scandals gleaned from\nTacitus and Dio Cassius, and frozen by a criticism which cannot feel\nthe power of genius, spiritual imagination, and a profound moral\nexperience, behind a rhetoric sometimes forced and extravagant, had\nbetter leave him alone. The Christianity of the twentieth century\nmight well hail with delight the advent of such a preacher, and\nwould certainly forget all the accusations of prurient gossip in the\naccession of an immense and fascinating spiritual force. The man with\nany historical imagination must be struck with amazement that such\nspiritual detachment, such lofty moral ideals, so pure an enthusiasm\nfor the salvation of souls, should emerge from a palace reeking with\nall the crimes of the haunted races of Greek legend\u201d (_op. cit._\np.\u00a0295).\n\n\n\n\nII. WRITINGS\n\n\nSeneca was a voluminous writer. Most of his works partake more or less\nof a philosophical character. In a class by themselves may be placed\nthe ten tragedies, together with some verses, attributed to him. The\ntitles, _Medea_, _Hercules Furens_, _Hippolytus_, _Agamemnon_, etc.,\nsuggest the Greek subjects as well as the plays of the same names by\nEuripides and Aeschylus. The treatment of the themes is all Seneca\u2019s\nown. Moral maxims abound; the plays are homiletic and were never\ndesigned to be acted.\n\nOne of the plays is of special interest as dealing with current\ntopics. This is the _Octavia_, whose chief character is Nero\u2019s wife\nof that name, exiled by him in order to make room for the licentious\nPoppaea Sabina. Seneca himself is introduced as one of the characters,\ndeploring the vices of the age and the unhappiness of those set in high\nposition. If the play is genuine, which has been doubted on the ground\nof references in it that seem to apply to Nero\u2019s death, it goes to\nprove that Seneca used very plain language toward his master and pupil.\nIn any case, it shows what the relation of Seneca to Nero was generally\nsupposed to be. Tacitus (xv. 61) represents Seneca as telling Nero\nby messenger that the latter has had more frequent experience of his\nindependence than of his servility, and the _Octavia_ is fair comment\nupon his statement.\n\nHere is a specimen of the dialogue:--\n\n _Nero._ Fortune has put everything in my power.\n\n _Seneca._ Distrust her favours: she is a fickle goddess.\n\n _N._ To fail to see all that one may do, betrays the coward.\n\n _S._ The credit lies in doing not what one may, but what one ought.\n\n _N._ The crowd tramples on a feeble prince.\n\n _S._ They will crush a hated one:\n\nand so forth. Seneca\u2019s last remark may be a prophecy--some would say\nafter the event. The play contains other allusions which suggest some\nof the actual details of Nero\u2019s end.\n\nThe prose works include:\n\n(_a_) Philosophical Essays such as _Anger_, _Clemency_, _Benefits_,\n_Calmness of Mind_, _A Happy Life_, _The Shortness of Life_,\n_Providence_, or _Why Providence allows troubles to afflict the Just_,\n_The Constancy of the Sage_, _The Leisure of the Sage_.\n\n(_b_) Letters, or rather Treatises, of Condolence, the so-called\n_Consolations_, addressed respectively _to his Mother Helvia_;\n_to Marcia_, the daughter of Cordus, on the death of her son; _to\nPolybius_, the powerful freedman of Claudius, on the loss of his\nbrother.\n\n(_c_) _Letters to Lucilius_, a hundred and twenty-four in number.\n\n(_d_) _Apocolocyntosis_--a lampoon on the deceased Emperor Claudius. On\nsuch occasions deification (apotheosis) was accorded to the late ruler,\nand he was received into the number of the gods. This skit describes\nthe reception of Claudius in heaven and his expulsion thence to the\nlower regions, with his trial and sentence there. _Pumpkinification_ is\nthe nearest English translation of the title.[7]\n\n [7] One would have expected that Claudius\u2019 fate would be to be\n enrolled among--the Pumpkins. But the piece as we have it contains no\n allusion to this.\n\n(_e_) _Quaestiones Naturales._\n\n(_f_) Works no longer extant, the only one of them that concerns us\nbeing that on _Earthquakes_, referred to as a work of his youth in\n_Q.N._ 230.\n\n(_g_) A spurious work, as is now on all hands conceded, is the\ncorrespondence between Seneca and St. Paul. In his opposition to\npopular beliefs and superstitions, and in the purity of his moral\ntenets, Seneca approached some of the Christian doctrines, and it\nwas no improbable supposition that at the Court of Nero he might\nhave became acquainted with the Apostle of the Gentiles.[8] But the\nassumption of a correspondence of this kind is another affair. Its\ngenuineness was believed from the time of Jerome (400) till the\nsixteenth century.\n\n [8] See Mr. Henderson\u2019s _Life and Principate of Nero_, 286\u20137, and Mr.\n Glover\u2019s _The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire_, 149.\n\nSeneca is generally considered to appear at his best in the\n_Consolation to his Mother Helvia_ and in the _Epistles to Lucilius_,\nwhich are therefore usually ranked as amongst his finest works. The\nlatter work, which from the outset was designed for publication, is\nnot an ordinary correspondence on the current affairs and interests\nof everyday life like Cicero\u2019s Letters, but is philosophic in\ncharacter; it covers a wide range of moral discussion and reflection,\nand is full of admirable maxims. Many of its sentiments have become\ncommonplaces; their almost hackneyed character detracts perhaps\nsomewhat from our appreciation of their intrinsic merit. On the other\nhand, the spitefulness of the _Apocolocyntosis_, the servility of the\n_Consolation to Polybius_, and the flattery of the _Clemency_, which\nwas addressed to Nero, show the reverse of Seneca\u2019s character. Of the\ncharacteristics of his style, however, and of his position in Roman\nliterature--one of commanding importance--this is not the place to\nspeak. His works reflect truly enough both the iron and the miry clay\nwhich entered into his mental and moral composition.\n\n\n\n\nIII. \u201cQUAESTIONES NATURALES\u201d\n\n\nThis work stands in a category by itself. It raises a number of\ndifficult problems, in which every reader of it, whether classical\nscholar or not, is interested.\n\nThe historical title, _Natural Questions_, is convenient, though,\nwithout explanation, a little misleading. The nearest rendering of\nthe Latin form _Quaestiones Naturales_ is Physical Inquiries, or\nInvestigations in the Domain of Physics, or, as in the title, what we\nshould now call Physical Science. The terms Physics and Science had a\nvery different connotation in that age and in ours. Plutarch, almost\na younger contemporary of Seneca, gravely discusses in a work with a\nsimilar title such questions as Why shepherds give their sheep salt,\nWhy horses\u2019 hair is superior to mares\u2019 for casting-lines, and even, Why\na dog runs after a stone rather than after the person who threw it!\nThe extent of such a title is determined pretty much by the range of\ntopics an author decides to include. In Seneca\u2019s case, as it happens,\nthe branches chiefly dealt with are Astronomy and Meteorology, together\nwith certain portions of what may be designated as Physical Geography\nincluding Seismology.\n\nScience was in that day synonymous with Philosophy, or at any rate\nPhilosophy embraced all that could claim to be Science. Learning\nwas homogeneous; its subdivisions had not yet been separated or\ndifferentiated.\n\nThe treatise was addressed in a quasi-epistolary form to Lucilius\nJunior, procurator[9] of Sicily. Most of our knowledge of him is\nderived from Seneca, who, besides the _Q.N._, addressed to him his\n_Epistles_ and his tract on _Providence_. Lucilius seems to have been\na _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_ of Seneca, and rising from the ranks under his fostering\ncare and guidance, not only to have attained a position of influence,\nbut also to have achieved literary distinction. His philosophical\npredilections were toward Epicureanism, but he was a man of high\nprinciple and character, though not exempt from dangerous temptations\nat various points in his career. His public labours had associated\nhim with Sicily, and the themes of his writings, chiefly poems as it\nwould appear, had been drawn from the same quarter. He is, not without\nprobability, supposed to have been the author of the anonymous didactic\npoem _Aetna_, for long attributed to Virgil, a work which presents\nmany interesting parallelisms to the _Q.N._ both in its science and\nits philosophy. Seneca\u2019s Epistle lxxix. contains a special charge to\nLucilius, who was at the time making a circuit of his province, to\nreport the facts concerning Charybdis--Seneca knew all there was to\nknow about Scylla--and to investigate in detail the present condition\nof Aetna. The letter goes on to banter Lucilius upon the inclusion of\nAetna in the poem on which he was engaged--no doubt the work referred\nto in _Q.N._ 114, 142; cf. 167. The whole question is discussed\nwith full knowledge by Professor Robinson Ellis in the Introduction\n(xxxvi-xlviii) to his edition of the _Aetna_, to which reference\nshould be made. For other allusions to Lucilius in Seneca see, besides\nthe _Q.N._, Epistles xix. xxvi. xxxiv. etc.\n\n [9] The procurator was in this case practically governor. In some\n instances he was the representative of a chief governor (_praeses_)\n to whom he was subject, _e.g._ Pontius Pilate was procurator of\n Judaea under the Governor of Syria.\n\nThe _Q.N._ was composed probably about the year 63 or 64. We\nmight content ourselves with the statement of the fact, did not\nthe circumstances of composition throw light upon difficulties of\narrangement and sequence which can scarcely be passed unnoticed. The\nevidence on which we have to rely is chiefly internal. The exact\ndate of Lucilius\u2019 procuratorship in Sicily (159) is unknown, but the\nconsulship of Regulus and Virginius, which witnessed the Campanian\nearthquake (221), fell in 63, that is, some two years before Seneca\u2019s\ndeath. The allusions in the Preface to Book III. (109) are still more\ndirect and convincing. The writer was drawing near his end, pressed\nhard on the rear by old age, with every necessity and incentive to\nhurry on the completion of his task.\n\nOn the other hand, the mission despatched by Nero to the sources of\nthe Nile (235\u20136) would naturally point to an earlier date during the\nmore promising years of his reign--unless indeed, as is by no means\nimprobable, the complimentary reference to the emperor\u2019s virtues be a\npiece of adulation. A similar reference recurs in connection with the\ncomet in Nero\u2019s reign (290), the date of which must (after Tacitus) be\nassigned to the year 61.\n\nThe Elder Pliny, writing in 77, about a dozen years after Seneca\u2019s\ndeath, adds to each Book of his _Natural History_ an exhaustive list of\nthe authorities, native and foreign, that he had used. Book II. deals\nwith many of the subjects of the _Q.N._, of which it is in some places\nan expansion, but in most little more than an epitome.[10] And yet no\nmention of Seneca occurs in the list of authorities attached, which\nseems strange if the work had then been given to the world.[11]\n\n [10] See particularly Pliny\u2019s treatment of Comets (ii. xxii.), Winds\n (xliv.-l.), Lightning (liii.), Floating Islands (xcvi.). But most\n striking of all is the reproduction (lxiii.) of Seneca\u2019s remark (208\n end of c. xv.), \u201cIf any nether gods existed, they would have been dug\n up long ere this in the mines sunk by our avarice and luxury.\u201d The\n two authors had hit upon the same thought, and Seneca had happened to\n use it first. Or it may have been a current witticism in an age of\n unbelief.\n\n [11] Seneca\u2019s name does occur in the lists attached to Books VI. IX.\n and XXXVI.; the first is geographical, dealing with Asia and Africa,\n the second has for subject fishes and aquatic life in general, while\n the third deals with the natural history of stones.\n\nWe read in the Sixth Book of the _Q.N._ (230) that the author had\npreviously, when a young man, composed a work upon Earthquakes. This,\ntaken in connection with what precedes, and with what we know of\nthe author\u2019s character and interests, affords some ground for the\nconjecture that he may have worked intermittently at the subject at\nvarious periods of life. But no doubt the arrangement of the materials\nand the completion of the work belong to his latter years. He had by\nthis time lost his hold upon Nero, and had practically retired from\npolitical activity. His trust in princes had been found misplaced. He\nwas disappointed if not embittered. The discussion of public affairs\nwas precluded. It was dangerous even to let one\u2019s thoughts rest upon\nthem. But there were consolations for political disappointment and\ninactivity. Recourse might be made to the contemplation of those great\nworks and workings of Nature which are exempt from the caprices of\nhuman passion. The study of Nature was equally fitted to humble and to\nconsole; to it Seneca betook himself for refuge.[12]\n\n [12] \u201cThe Stoics affected to despise physical studies, or at any\n rate to postpone them to morals. Seneca shared this edifying but\n far from scientific persuasion. But after his final withdrawal from\n court, as the wonders of nature forced themselves on his notice,\n he reconsidered his old prejudice, and entered with ardour on the\n contemplation of physical phenomena\u201d (Cruttwell, _op. cit._ 381).\n\nThe _Q.N._ may, thus, have been composed at different dates, materials\nfor it being gathered at various times as opportunity offered. But the\nfinal arrangement and systematisation belong to the last years of the\nauthor\u2019s life, about the years 63 or 64. The publication may not have\ntaken place until some time subsequently, and may have been carried out\nby Lucilius, who was Seneca\u2019s literary executor. So much is certain,\nthat the work as we have it is not the work as it left the author\u2019s\nhand.\n\nMuch time and ingenuity have been bestowed on attempts to restore\nthe _Q.N._ to what may be supposed to have been its original form.\nThe most casual reading of it as it stands, shows that it is full\nof inequalities. If the clue could only be recovered, much of its\ndifficulty and obscurity would disappear. As it is, it abounds in\nabrupt transitions, interruptions of the logical sequence, repetitions,\nexcrescences, and even irrelevancies and inconsistencies, which it can\nhardly be supposed that an author would have allowed to remain in a\ntreatise prepared for publication.\n\nOne or two considerations derived from the present arrangement will\nserve to throw light upon this point. In the first place, Book IV., as\nwe have it, is evidently composite. Between Chaps. II. and III. there\nis a deep hiatus. In the former chapter the discussion of the Nile is\ncut short, and the author\u2019s own view is not even indicated, much less\nestablished; while the latter opens so abruptly as at least to suggest\nthat it may have originally been preceded by something with which it\nstood in organic sequence.\n\nAgain, the several Books do not conform to the author\u2019s division of the\nsubject as set forth in the opening of Book II. (51), but follow--or\nprecede--one another anyhow.\n\nThen, three of the Books (I. III. IV.) have a formal Preface, while the\nothers have not, though in them, too, with the exception of the Sixth,\nthe opening chapter is introductory in character.\n\nAny attempt to restore a more intelligible order must depend for its\nsuccess on the extent to which we may assume Seneca to have been a\nmethodiser. In Book II. i, he certainly states very distinctly the\ndivisions of his subject--(_a_) things in the heavens, (_b_) things\nbetween heaven and earth, (_c_) things on the earth. But it by no\nmeans follows that he himself maintained this order of treatment, or\nthat he always exhausted one subject before passing on to the next.\nThe division evidently enumerates the subjects in order of dignity or\nworth, and may have little, if any, relation to the order of their\ndiscussion; in fact, in Book II. he goes on immediately to deal with\nmeteorology, his second and not his first topic.\n\nBernhardt (_Die Anschauung des Seneca vom Universum_, p. 7) frankly\naccepts the traditional order of the Books, and finds its explanation\nin the distinction between phenomena and elements. The first three\nBooks deal with the phenomena of heaven, air, earth, respectively; the\nlast four respectively with the elements--water, air, earth, fire. This\nis ingenious, if not altogether convincing.\n\nThe most recent editor, Professor Gercke, divides Book IV. into\nits two constituents, IV. (_a_) = IV. Pref.-ii., IV. (_b_) = IV.\niii.-xiii., and arranges the Books in ascending scale thus: Earth III.\nIV. (_a_); Air IV. (_b_), II. V. VI; Heaven VII. I. There seems great\nprobability, almost amounting to certainty, that there were originally\neight Books, as he supposes. But a consistent and fairly natural order\nmight perhaps be restored with less violence to the accepted form\nthan his scheme involves. Books III. and IV. (_a_) seem to have been\nmisplaced or transposed, being placed after Book II. instead of after\nBook VI., where they originally stood; Book IV. (_a_) had somehow got\nmutilated, which the more easily led to the confusion. Book IV. (_b_)\nalso suffered somewhat in the process. Thus the original order may have\nbeen I. II. IV. (_b_), V. VI.; III. IV. (_a_); VII.; the first five\nBooks deal with Meteorology, including Seismology (air), the next two\nwith Physical Geography (earth), the last Book with Astronomy (heaven).\nA single change of the order is thus all that is required; but, of\ncourse, the regrettable gap after IV. (_a_) remains.\n\nEven with this rearrangement the sequence leaves something to be\ndesired. But it must be borne in mind that the author makes a claim to\nphilosophic liberty (178), and that in no case can the rules of modern\nrequirement be applied to him.\n\nOf course, if the assumption of methodical arrangement be unfounded,\nand the author composed just as the humour took him, the existing order\nmay be all right: it is as good as any other fortuitous collocation.\nSome have supposed that the work was left unfinished at the author\u2019s\ndeath, but of this we have no proof.\n\nThe language of the Preface to Book III. has been taken by some to\nimply that this was the opening of the whole work. Whether this is\nso must remain to some extent matter of opinion. It may, however, be\npointed out (_a_) that the claim of the Preface to Book I. seems at\nleast equally strong, (_b_) that the language of \u00a7 4 of the Preface to\nBook III. (110), \u201chow much is unaccomplished of my plan, though not of\nmy life,\u201d seems inapplicable to a work that was not begun or merely\nbeginning. There was a remnant of the work and a remnant of life, but\nthey were disproportionate, the one large, the other small. This was a\nreminder to hurry on to completion a work with which, _ex hypothesi_,\nsome progress had already been made.\n\nWhen all has been said, we must, for practical purposes, accept the\nbook as it has been handed down to us and make what we can of it.\nThe difficulties are not exhausted even when the pristine order is\nrestored. What is true of the work as a whole is true of it also in\ndetail. The text is full of uncertainties and corruptions. The work\nwas popular and was frequently copied, and this naturally gave rise\nto variations, which, being improved upon by succeeding generations\nof copyists, in course of time rendered the text in many places very\nobscure if not unmeaning. The nature of the subject matter, frequently\nlittle understood, no doubt facilitated and hastened the process of\ncorruption. Hence the translator has at every turn to decide first\n_what_, and then _how_, he shall translate.[13]\n\n [13] Gercke says (Preface, xlvi) that the traditional text of the\n _Q.N._ is utterly corrupt and still requires the united efforts of\n many earnest scholars for its restoration. He writes as recently\n as two years ago (1907), and has himself probably made the most\n considerable contribution of all the editors to the correction of the\n text; but he modestly calls himself only a pioneer.\n\nAn added difficulty is the form of address to Lucilius. The adoption of\nthe epistolary style, whatever its other advantages, has not, it must\nbe admitted, conduced to the lucidity of the argument. Science does\nnot readily lend itself to exposition by dialogue, and the trouble\nis aggravated when, in addition to the correspondent, an imaginary\nopponent is from time to time introduced and indifferently addressed\nin the second person, or referred to in the third. To make matters\nstill worse, the author frequently conceals himself behind the mask of\none or other of the disputants, irrespective of pronouns. Finally, he\nemploys \u201cwe\u201d sometimes of himself and his correspondent, sometimes of\nhis philosophic sect, the Stoics, sometimes of his nation, the Romans,\nsometimes of his kind, man in general!\n\n\n\n\nIV. SENECA\u2019S METHOD OF TREATMENT OF SUBJECT\n\n\nIn order to appreciate Seneca\u2019s treatment of his subject we must\nunderstand something of his philosophical tenets. He was in the main\na Stoic, but with such a strong tendency toward independence that\nhe may be considered an Eclectic. The Stoics, whether or not they\noriginated, at any rate recognised and adopted the threefold division\nof philosophy--Physics, Ethics, Logic[14]--which was originated among\nthe Greeks and handed down by them to the Romans, who were in this\ndepartment their pupils. Seneca is typical of the Stoics in regarding\nEthics as of supreme importance. On Logic he did not apparently set\nany great store, though he must have been a diligent student of the\ncognate branch, Rhetoric. Physics, as we have seen, did not claim much\nattention from him in early life; only as he approached the mature age\nof threescore did his study of it become more detailed and systematic.\nNo clear line of demarcation existed in his mind, or for the matter\nof that in his age, between philosophy and science. Yet there is\nconsiderable internal evidence in the _Q.N._ that his pursuit of such\nstudies was in part an outcome of the true scientific spirit, and that\nhe possessed in no ordinary degree the scientific imagination. Still,\nwhen all due allowance is made for this, it remains true that Seneca\nwas moralist first and physicist or scientist afterwards. Physics led\nto theology,[15] and had thus a direct bearing on man\u2019s destiny and\nfate. Had there been no Ethics, whose interests were involved in a\nknowledge of the universe, its parts, its function, and its author,\nthe impelling motive for the study of Physics would have been removed.\nPossibly when his political career was closed by the death of Burrus\nin 63, Seneca might in any case have devoted some of his leisure to a\nsubject which offered such opportunities of exalted contemplation. But\nit was his ethical aims that added the chief zest to the pursuit.[16]\nAs the various departments of knowledge had not assumed definite\ndivergent forms, there was nothing incongruous to his mind in the\nmixture, or as he might have regarded it, the union, of what to us\nseem so different from one another as Physics and Ethics. The facts\nof nature had, in his view, to be brought into connection with the\nlessons that may be derived from them. In so many words he tells us\n(102) that every study must have a moral attached to it, or to put\nit otherwise, that physical phenomena must be made the occasion for\ndriving home some general truth, establishing some ethical position,\nclinching an argument, reprobating a vice. The conclusion of each Book\nof the _Q.N._ contains the practical application of the lessons to be\nderived from its subject: there are not infrequent digressions, too,\nfor the same or a cognate purpose. The author\u2019s moral zeal sometimes\nran off with him, and he felt constrained to break off for the time his\ndiscussion of scientific truths and to assume the r\u00f4le of the moralist\nand reformer.[17]\n\n [14] See Professor Davidson\u2019s _The Stoic Creed_, p.\u00a042, where it is\n pointed out that each of these may be subdivided so as to bring the\n number up to six--Physics and Theology, Ethics and Politics, Logic\n and Rhetoric. See also Seneca, Epist. lxxxix., where the division is\n discussed. For further information on the subject, the article on the\n Stoics in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ and any of the histories of\n philosophy, _e.g._ Erdmann or Zeller, may be consulted.\n\n [15] Cf. Professor Burnet\u2019s _Early Greek Philosophy_ for illustration\n of this in earlier times.\n\n [16] Cf. footnote 2 to p. xxxiv.\n\n [17] The method was not obsolete for many centuries, even if it is\n yet wholly dead. On more than one occasion the study of Natural\n History has been advocated on account of the abundance of figures of\n speech that may be drawn from it! Erasmus esteemed it because of the\n light it threw on the classics; his insensibility to the wonders of\n natural forces and processes provoked Luther\u2019s remark that \u201cErasmus\n looks upon external objects as cows look upon a new gate.\u201d\n\nThe reader of the _Q.N._ need not, therefore, regard as matter of\nsurprise this curious medley of science and morality, which is of the\nvery essence of the author\u2019s principles and purpose. Seneca performs\nthis part of his task with evident relish. He is always ready to\nimprove the occasion, and will even go out of his way to find it.\nHis censure of vice, his denunciation of luxury and self-indulgence,\nhis castigation of immorality, seem to afford him a kind of morbid\nsatisfaction. Even a note of insincerity may sometimes be suspected.\nHe is rather too ready to display his own acquaintance with all the\nrefinements of the vices of \u201cgood society\u201d: perhaps it was the fault of\nhis age to gloat over unsavoury details that a moralist would now be\nmore anxious to conceal than to reveal.[18]\n\n [18] \u201cThere are pictures of voluptuous ease and jaded satiety which\n may be the work of a keen sympathetic observation, but which may also\n be the expression of repentant memory\u201d (Dill, _op. cit._ p.\u00a0298).\n\nWith Seneca as moralist, however, we are not here directly concerned.\nBut what attitude are we to assume toward his Science? It need\nscarcely be said that of Science in the twentieth century sense, the\nfirst century of our era knew very little. Its greatest weakness was\nthat it possessed practically no means of interrogating nature save\nthose afforded by the human senses. The sundial was known, but the\nthermometer, the barometer, the telescope, and even the microscope,\nhad still to be invented. Experiment except in the most rudimentary\nform was impossible. Observation was the only method available, and\nit lost much of its value from the necessary looseness and inaccuracy\nattaching to it. Seneca was fully alive to the necessity of procuring\ncorrect data. He records his own observation when digging among his\nvines (117); he had visited the Sabine country to see a floating island\n(139); he had evidently watched closely rainbow, lightning, meteors,\ncomets, etc, etc. He laid friends like Lucilius under contribution,\nand he insists on the necessity for keeping records of observation,\nespecially when the phenomenon is comparatively rare, as a Comet\n(274). Besides, he draws not only upon the history of his country,\nbut also upon the learning of other nations--Greeks, Babylonians, and\nEgyptians--records which for the most part are no longer extant. The\n_Q.N._ thus embodies many out-of-the-way facts which otherwise would be\nunknown to us. Accuracy is nearly always a relative term: approximate\naccuracy is the most we can look for in that age. Seneca\u2019s contribution\nof data is curious, interesting, and valuable.\n\nAgain, in arguing from facts, or supposed facts, Seneca is entitled to\ncredit for his method if not always for his results. A great merit is\nthat he endeavours to account for the phenomena observed, he habitually\nraises the causal issue, and he is not satisfied until he has passed in\nreview all the considerations involved in the observation or problem.\nHe is scrupulous in always giving the other side a hearing, and in\ndiscussing views with which he disagrees, even though only to reject\nthem. On the negative side he is generally fairly convincing, and\nsucceeds in showing the fallacies involved in a proposition. But on\nthe constructive side he is many times ingeniously perverse, curiously\nblind to the inadequacy of the theories which he himself advances,\nand which he would readily have confuted in an opponent. Sometimes\nhe adopts an error already current, as old as Aristotle or older;\nsometimes he advances a fresh one of his own. But even his errors are\ninstructive, and represent a phase of progress. The line of progress is\nzigzag. Only after errors have been exhausted does the truth emerge and\nadvance become possible.\n\nThe amenities of ancient science seem to have been somewhat scanty.\nA mistake, a false inference, an erroneous view, is met with the lie\ndirect. The moral stigma of falsehood is, at any rate in certain\ninstances, attached to such a deviation from fact. Nor is this all.\nThe whole character must be bad if a man has \u201clied.\u201d The authors,\nwhom Seneca calls chroniclers, and particularly Epigenes, are in one\npassage quite fiercely attacked (289). In justice to Seneca it must\nbe said that he is hardly more polite toward himself. The words on\np.\u00a0154, \u00a7 2, rendered, \u201cI can give my own word, etc.,\u201d read literally,\n\u201cI\u2019m a liar if water does not meet us, etc.\u201d Perhaps, therefore, it is\nonly a manner of speaking. In the early days of public education in\nBritain a Government report recorded as a proof of moral progress the\nsubstitution in some parts of the country of \u201cI beg your pardon\u201d for\n\u201cYou\u2019re a liar!\u201d The child seems to have here re-lived the history of\nthe race.\n\nSeneca had a wide outlook, too, and a splendid scientific faith.\nWith prophetic eye he sees the day when an astronomer will arise to\ndemonstrate the nature and orbit of Comets[19] (299); he is content\nto let posterity have a share of the credit! Nor is his humility less\nthan his confidence. His lessons may still usefully be taken home;\nwe imagine we have pierced to nature\u2019s inmost sanctum, yet we are\nstill loitering round her outer court (306); let us not despise the\nday of small things, the investigation of nature\u2019s marvels requires\ngenerations of workers and ages of work; there will come a day when\nall will be revealed, when posterity will smile at our feeble and\nclumsy efforts and wonder how we missed such obvious truths (298). The\nancients must be treated leniently; it was a large contribution to\ndiscovery to have conceived the hope of its possibility (231). Seneca\nmaintained and promoted this belief in ultimate success. He displays\nthroughout the same alert, buoyant, enthusiastic confidence, together\nwith patient, reverent search for truth in nature and truth about God.\n\n [19] The fulfilment, or at least the beginning of the fulfilment, of\n this prediction may be dated from Newton in 1680.\n\nSeneca nowhere gives us a reasoned connected exposition of the views\nentertained by him regarding the Universe as a whole or the relation\nof its parts. Only \u201cby parcels\u201d and inference can we glean them from\nscattered remarks and comments that he makes in the course of his\nwork. In Physics even more than in Ethics he was an Eclectic; he\ncriticises freely, and occasionally rejects entirely, the opinions of\nhis own school, the Stoics, at one point going so far as to call them\nsilly (181, cf. 295). He claims authority, too, for his own research,\nand asserts the right to hypothesise for himself: he is hopeful, if\nnot certain, of discovery (304). He frequently quotes rival opinions\nwithout indicating his own. He is familiar with conflicting theories\nwhich he does not attempt, or fails in his attempt, to harmonise.\nAnd in the end one is tempted to ask whether he himself had reached\nany consistent comprehensive cosmical scheme. There is much that is\nquaint and interesting and ingenious, but it seems doubtful whether\nan attempt to construct from the _Q.N._ a complete cosmology would in\nthe end repay the labour. The scheme might prove self-contradictory;\nit would in any case be full of error, and there would in no case be\nthe assurance that it was all Seneca\u2019s own. This seems sufficient\nreason for declining the task. If one care to pursue it further,\nhelpful information may be obtained from Bernhardt\u2019s _brochure_ (_Die\nAnschauung, etc._) already referred to, while a discussion of the whole\nsubject will be found in Crousl\u00e9\u2019s Thesis, written in Latin, _De L._\n_Annaei Senecae Nat. Quaest_., which for fulness and fairness leaves\nnothing to be desired.[20] In the Commentary and Notes at the end of\nthe volume Seneca\u2019s scientific opinions and methods are discussed by\nSir Archibald Geikie.\n\n [20] Ideler\u2019s _Meteorologia veterum Graecorum et Romanorum_, which\n forms the Prolegomena to his edition of Aristotle\u2019s _Meteorology_,\n but is printed as a separate volume, also contains much curious\n information on this recondite subject.\n\n\n\n\nV. SOME OF SENECA\u2019S PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES\n\n\nThe history of ancient Science is a very tangled and abstruse subject,\na portion of the history of ancient Philosophy, which lies as much\noutside the scope of the present work as beyond the powers of the\nwriter. Still, Seneca cannot be altogether detached from what preceded\nhim. In order to throw light upon his work, it may be permissible to\npass in rapid review a few of the chief sources from which he drew. Our\nstarting-point may be Aristotle.\n\nAristotle is with good reason named \u201cthe master of those who know\u201d\n(Dante, _H._ iv.). He may be said to have summed up the knowledge of\nthe ancient world, at least as far as Greece is concerned, on all\nsubjects. If not the founder of Science any more than of Philosophy,\nhe recapitulated so fully all that went before that he became the\nfountain-head and source from which all succeeding workers mainly drew.\nHe systematised the existing materials, adding his own criticisms\nand observations, and illuminating the whole with the strong light\nof his unrivalled powers. He drew upon many authorities whose works\nare now lost, the leading names among them being familiar from the\n_Q.N._--Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, and the rest. The extent and\nvariety of the material may, perhaps, best be understood from a work\nlike Professor Burnet\u2019s _Early Greek Philosophy_, to which reference\nshould be made. A reasoned consecutive account will there be found of\nthe individual contributions made to philosophy (including science)\nby the early Greek thinkers. Long before Aristotle\u2019s time numerous\nphysical theories had been propounded, and had been supported by their\nauthors with great acuteness of argument; hardly any question had\nbeen left unasked that related to matter, motion, or mind. \u201cWe may\nsmile, if we please, at the strange medley of childish fancy and true\nscientific insight.... But we shall do well to remember at the same\ntime that even now it is just such hardy anticipations of experience\nthat make scientific progress possible, and that nearly every one of\nthe early inquirers ... made some permanent addition to the store of\npositive knowledge, besides opening up new views of the world in every\ndirection\u201d (_op. cit._ 29).\n\nSeneca probably possessed fuller details of the investigations and\nspeculations of these early workers than we now do. The existing\nmaterials are contained in Professor Diels\u2019 _Die Fragmente der\nVorsokratiker_, with which his other great work, the _Doxographi\nGraeci_, should be compared.[21]\n\n [21] These are, of course, only for the classical scholar.\n\nThe chief work of Aristotle upon which Seneca drew was the\n_Meteorologica_. The extent to which its subject coincided with that\nof the _Q.N._ may be inferred from a glance at its contents. The\n_Meteorologica_ is divided into four Books, arranged thus:--\n\nI. Scope and relations of Meteorology. The four elementary\nbodies--earth, water, fire, air--and their relations. Celestial fires.\nShooting stars. Comets. The Milky Way. Clouds. Fog. Dew. Hoar-frost.\nRain. Snow. Hail. Wind. Formation of rivers. Change in land through\naction of rivers: effects on movements of races.\n\nII. The sea and its salinity. Theory of the winds, their varieties,\npositions, etc. Earthquakes and their explanation. Lightning and\nthunder.\n\nIII. Lightning, thunder, and similar phenomena. Halo and rainbow. Mock\nsun and cognate appearances. Exhalation and its influence.\n\nIV. Theory of the elements (= ingredients or first principles); two\nactive--hot and cold, two passive--dry and moist. Their effect on\nbodies. Cohesion, Liquefaction, Solidification, Coagulation, Fusion,\nSolubility, and other properties. Homogeneous and non-homogeneous\nbodies. Effects of temperature. Place of this work in author\u2019s scheme.\n\nAnother work that goes under Aristotle\u2019s name, but is now generally\nconsidered spurious, is the _De Mundo_ (_the Universe_), which in\npart repeats the subjects of the latter part of the _Meteorology_.\nSeneca may also have drawn on the _De Coelo_ (_the Heavens_), whose\nsubject covers portions of the _Q.N._ He refers more than a dozen of\ntimes to Aristotle by name, but it was not customary to refer to\nindividual works. There are numerous instances in which Aristotle is\nhis authority, though no specific mention of him occurs.\n\nTheophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, and, his successor as head\nof the Academy, is also frequently referred to in the _Q.N._ His\nmaster bequeathed to him his library and original manuscripts, and\nTheophrastus was himself also a voluminous writer.\n\nAmong his extant works on Science, we have treatises or tracts dealing\nwith Fire; Winds; Stones; Signs of Rain, Wind, Storm, and Fine Weather;\nnot to mention Colours, Odours, etc., and an extensive work on Plants\nand their History. His work on Perception and Percepts is said to be a\nchapter of a larger work on the history of philosophy. At any rate, it\nrecords and discusses the opinions of earlier writers on the subjects\nto which the title refers. For his further views on Physics, and the\nlost treatise on the subject, see Diels, _Dox. Graec._ 119 _et sqq._,\nand 473 _et sqq._\n\nAratus, who flourished about 280\u2013270 B.C., wrote two poems (in\nGreek) entitled respectively _Phaenomena_,[22] an introduction to\nthe knowledge of the constellations; and _Prognostics_, a method of\nforecasting the weather from astronomical phenomena. Aratus scarcely\nranks as a scientific writer, but Seneca refers to his opinions on one\noccasion in the _Q.N._ He was apparently held in high esteem by the\nRomans, for he found a translator (in part) in Cicero, and an imitator\nin Virgil (_Georgics_).\n\n [22] It is from this poem (l. 5) that Paul quotes (Acts xvii. 28),\n \u201cFor we are also his offspring.\u201d Aratus was a native of Soli in\n Cilicia, and therefore a compatriot of Paul.\n\nPlutarch stands in a somewhat different relation to Seneca. He was a\nlittle subsequent in date, but there is a sort of parallelism between\nthe two, both in their scientific and their more general interests.\nBesides the _Physical Causes_, already referred to, Plutarch made a\ncompilation in five Books--at least it goes under his name--of the\nTenets of the Philosophers (_Placita Philosophorum_) regarding a\nvast number of physical, especially astronomical and physiological,\nsubjects. Diels (_op. cit._ 65) scouts the idea of the genuineness of\nthe \u201cwretched epitome,\u201d and assigns it to the middle of the second\ncentury. Whether this be so or not does not much affect its value for\nus. The existence of the work shows the nature of the material which\nwas available in Seneca\u2019s age. The work is a kind of distant echo of\nTheophrastus\u2019 lost treatise and preserves many opinions of the older\nphilosophers, of which, to say the least of it, we should otherwise\nhave been less fully informed. The parallelism of the _Placita_ to the\n_Q.N._ will appear from a few of the titles. Books II. and III. of\nthe former reproduce a long array of opinions of Thales, Empedocles,\nAnaxagoras, Diogenes, Anaximenes, Democritus, Xenophanes, Xenocrates,\nnot to mention Plato, Aristotle, the Pythagoreans, the Stoics, etc.,\netc., regarding such subjects as Eclipses, the Milky Way, Comets,\nEarthquakes, Clouds, Winds, Thunder and Lightning, etc., etc.\n\nPlutarch also has questions regarding Aratus _Prognostics_, and a\nMiscellanea of discussions on allied subjects.\n\nOf Latin writers two have special bearing on Seneca. Lucretius (95\u201351\nB.C.), in his great poem on Nature (_De Rerum Natura_), has expounded\nthe Epicurean view of the universe. In so far as science is capable\nof metrical and poetical exposition, he ranks high among scientific\nwriters; while the recent resuscitation of the atomic theory lends\nspecial interest to his views. The Romans were always a practical\nand not a speculative nation, and any deviation from the type, such\nas Lucretius or Seneca, becomes especially noteworthy and valuable.\nNumerous parallelisms between them have been brought out in the\nCommentary and Notes appended to this Translation.\n\nPliny the Elder stands in respect of date in much the same relation\nto Seneca as Plutarch does. His great work on Natural History, which\nwas addressed to the reigning Emperor, Vespasian, was published in\nthe year 77, that is, about a dozen years after Seneca\u2019s death. We\nhave already glanced at the bearing of this date upon that of the\npublication of the _Q.N._ We are now concerned rather with the relation\nof the contents of the two works. Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_, chap.\nxiii.) speaks of \u201cthat immense register where Pliny has deposited\nthe discoveries, the arts, and the errors of mankind.\u201d Nor is the\ndescription unjust. The work is of portentous length, extending to\nthirty-seven Books; it treats of an enormous variety of subjects,\nphysical, geological, geographical, ethnographical, botanical, medical,\netc., many of which are now quite dissociated from the title, _Natural\nHistory_. Pliny seems to have read everything that existed in writing\non the various subjects included, and his array of authorities attached\nto the contents of each Book is very imposing.[23] But unfortunately\nhis judgment does not appear to have been equal to his industry.\nEverything is recorded, credible and incredible, whether derived from\ntrustworthy literature or based on mere report: a more uncritical\ncongeries of truth and error it would be difficult to imagine.\n\n [23] He claims to have read about 2000 volumes of 100 choice authors,\n but his lists seem to include a much larger number of names--146\n Roman and 327 foreign writers. See Teuffel, _Rom. Lit._ vol.\u00a0ii.,\n under Pliny the Elder. Cf. Dill, _op. cit._ p.\u00a0146 and _note_.\n\nBook II. deals with the constitution of the universe, including\nastronomical and meteorological phenomena, such as Meteors, Halos,\nEclipses, Winds, Earthquakes, Rain, etc., etc. Many of these cover\nthe same ground as the _Q.N._ Among the domestic authors cited for\nthis Book are M. Varro, Livy, Cornelius Nepos, Caecina, \u201cwho wrote on\nthe Etruscan cult\u201d; among the foreign authors are Plato, Anaximander,\nDemocritus, Archimedes, Aristotle, etc., etc. The omission of Seneca\nfrom the Latin list is balanced by that of Theophrastus from the\nGreek list. It is, of course, unsafe to build any theory on a merely\nnegative basis. Obviously Pliny had read at any rate portions of these\nauthors, to whom he elsewhere refers, and may, through mere oversight\nor negligence, have omitted specific mention of them here: he usually\nrefers to authors and not to their individual works. If, at the time of\nthe composition of Book II., which may have been considerably earlier\nthan the date of publication of the whole work, he did not know of\nSeneca\u2019s _Q.N._, then the inference seems inevitable that there were\ncurrent a collection or collections of the opinions (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9) of the\nolder philosophers which were common property to any one interested in\nsuch matters. The _Placita_ attributed to Plutarch, though its present\nform may be much later than Pliny\u2019s time, may have been derived from\nsources of this kind. We shall not be far wrong in supposing that,\nin addition to the works still extant, there was a mass of material\navailable to Seneca and Pliny alike which represented the traditional\nviews on physical and allied subjects handed down from the old Greek\nphilosophy. Most of the Latin authors, seventeen in number in all,\ncited by Pliny on Book II. are now known to us only by name; of those\nwhose works remain, Varro is the only one whom we should consider\nlikely to furnish much material for the topic in hand.\n\nOf Pliny\u2019s lists in general it may be said that they indicate that a\ngood many writers even among the Romans had been attracted by subjects\nof a scientific or quasi-scientific character, if we may not venture to\nsay that their works can rank as science even in the modified sense in\nwhich the term is applicable to Seneca or Pliny. It is in keeping with\nthe character of the people that practical sciences like agriculture\n(Varro, Columella) and architecture (Vitruvius), not to mention\ncookery, should have received special attention. These authors, with\nothers like Manilius (_Astronomica_) and Pomponius Mela (geography),\nhowever interesting in themselves, have only an indirect and sometimes\nonly a remote bearing on the Physical Science of their day.\n\n\n\n\nVI. THE \u201cQUAESTIONES NATURALES\u201d IN THE MIDDLE AGES\n\n\nThe _Q.N._ is a landmark in the progress of Physical Science. From\nAristotle and Theophrastus there is a great gap until we reach Seneca:\nthe gap is still greater between Seneca and the Renascence, from which\nthe era of true science is to be dated. The _Q.N._ is the last word\nspoken on the subject by the classical world, and practically the only\nwork of its kind that survives to us in Latin. Various commentators\non Aristotle and Seneca have, probably unconsciously, appeared as\nchampions of either author\u2019s claim to be considered as _the_ authority\nin Science during the Middle Ages. All the materials for forming an\nunbiassed judgment are to be found in Dr. Sandys\u2019 _History of Classical\nScholarship_ (vol.\u00a0i.).\n\nSeneca possessed one or two initial advantages. In the first place,\nLatin, in which he wrote, was understood and spoken throughout the\nworld, whereas for many centuries Greek was over large tracts of it,\nparticularly in the West, an unknown tongue. Again, Seneca was for\nlong supposed to be a Christian, claimed by the early fathers as \u201cone\nof us,\u201d and ranked by Jerome among the _Ecclesiastical Writers_. There\nwas not therefore the same prejudice against his works as is known to\nhave existed in the early Christian centuries against pagan authors,\nespecially against the poets.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the knowledge of Aristotle\u2019s works, at any rate\nin the West, seems to have been derived in the first instance from\nArabic translations made in the ninth century and brought to Spain\nabout the twelfth century, while from 1204 onwards he was known in\nLatin translations made direct from the Greek MSS., which were now\naccessible. \u201cIn Roger Bacon\u2019s day, not-withstanding his eagerness for\npromoting the study of Aristotle in the original Greek, it was the\n_Latin_ Aristotle alone that was studied in the schools\u201d (Sandys,\n_op. cit._ 575). That was about the year 1267. Seneca seems to have\nbeen well known, chiefly as a moralist, through the Middle Ages. He\n\u201cwas famous as the author of the _Naturales Quaestiones_\u201d (_ib._\n627[24]) also. Saint-Hilaire\u2019s claim, therefore (Arist. _Meteor._\nPref. ii. iii.), \u201cthat Aristotle laid down the law on Meteorology,\nas in everything else, from the age of Alexander right up to the\nRenascence,\u201d must be accepted with some qualification. There seems\nroom for Ruhkopf\u2019s explanation (_Q.N._ Pref.) that Seneca\u2019s work was,\nand continued to be, the sole fountain whence Natural Philosophy\nderived its source and drew its supplies during many centuries, \u201cuntil\nAristotle\u2019s books were transmitted for public use into Western Europe.\u201d\n\n [24] See, besides, pp.\u00a0387, 541, 547, 560, 569, etc.\n\nBy the thirteenth century Aristotle had come fully into vogue, and the\nreferences to his teaching in Dante (1265\u20131321), said to number upwards\nof 300, show what a hold he had obtained upon the greatest man of the\nage. The \u201cmoral Seneca\u201d is also known to Dante, and placed by him in\nthe same region of the unseen world (_H._ iv.), but the references\nto his teaching are insignificant by comparison (less than ten). Dr.\nSandys states (_op. cit._ 591 _n._) that the references to Aristotle\nare mainly to the _Ethics_, _Physics_, _Metaphysics_, and _De Anima_.\n\nBut we are now on the eve of the Renascence, whose \u201cmorning-star\n... arose in the person of Petrarch\u201d (_op. cit._ 650), early in the\nfourteenth century (1304\u20131374). Greek scholarship was reviving in\nthe West, and Petrarch studied the language in his later days. But\nhis inspiration was derived in the first instance from Latin, \u201cthe\nphilosophical works of Cicero and the moral letters of Seneca\u201d (_op.\ncit._ ii. 4). The latter he cites as many as sixty times (_ib._ 7), and\nhe was also familiar with the Senecan tragedies (_ib._ 6).\n\nFrom this and from the general course of history we seem justified\nin believing that during the Middle Ages, in default of any general\nknowledge of Aristotle, Seneca was the chief authority on Physical\nScience. The views transmitted by him, for they were comparatively\nseldom altogether his own, having obtained currency, found their way\ninto literature, and probably went far to colour the conceptions\nentertained on the subject in all the earlier literature of Modern\nEurope. Later, when Aristotle\u2019s works became more widely known, his\nauthority became supreme alike in philosophy and in science. Nor does\nthe temporary ascendancy of Seneca, though historically very important,\ncarry with it any presumption of rivalry, not to say superiority, to\nAristotle. Seneca may best be regarded as pupil and interpreter of\nAristotle, in so far as the two come into competition. His date, the\nlanguage employed as his medium, his position, his reputation as a\nChristian, and his activity in other fields, all conspired to give him\na position in the Middle Ages which is not necessarily the measure of\nhis intrinsic merit as compared with Aristotle.\n\n\n\n\nVII. THE PRESENT TRANSLATION\n\n\nFrom what has preceded, it will appear that the path of the translator\nof the _Quaestiones Naturales_ is beset with snares. At best he has a\nchoice of difficulties, It may perhaps, therefore, be well to say a\nword or two upon the method in which these have been dealt with on the\npresent occasion.\n\nA translator\u2019s prime duty is to follow his author, for which purpose\nhe must first understand him, a requirement not very easily here\nfulfilled. The texts of the _Q.N._ vary greatly, as already indicated,\nand it is no easy matter to select any one that might be consistently\nfollowed. The most recent and best text, the Teubner, edited by Gercke,\nhas strong claims, and had it been my good fortune to have it by me\nwhen the translation was made, I should have been tempted to adopt\nit _simpliciter_, even though in many details it departs somewhat\nviolently from the accepted arrangement. As it was, it did not come to\nhand until the translation was finished and paged for publication, so\nthat full use could not be made of it. In a few cases its corrections\nhad been anticipated; in some its readings have been adopted; some that\ncould not be incorporated are referred to in a note on the subject.\n\nThe text being settled, the translator must, if possible, put himself\nin the author\u2019s position and obtain his point of view.\n\nIn science, particularly, the _milieu_ of the author must be caught\nif his thoughts are to be accurately reproduced. The danger of\nattributing to Seneca ideas that were unknown to him and that are due\nto modern analysis and discovery has to be constantly present to one\u2019s\nmind. For example, \u201chomogeneity,\u201d \u201celasticity,\u201d \u201celectricity,\u201d \u201cgas,\u201d\n\u201cexplosion,\u201d etc., are a few of the terms that his language suggests,\nbut that would probably convey a wrong impression of his conception\nof the phenomena to which they relate. They have been thus ruled out.\nNor is Seneca consistent in the use of the terms he employs; he has\nno scientific vocabulary. In a separate note attention is called to\nhis words for \u201cair\u201d and \u201catmosphere\u201d; but there are many other terms\nthat belong to the same category. These are, for instance, three\nwords for \u201cthick\u201d or \u201cdense,\u201d _crassus_, _densus_, _spissus_, which\nhe seems to use almost indifferently, at any rate without any precise\ndiscrimination. So with terms like \u201c_impetus_\u201d (impulse, onset)\n\u201c_impulsus_\u201d (shove, impulse), \u201c_ictus_\u201d (stroke, blow), \u201c_vis_\u201d\n(force, quantity, amount), \u201c_curro_\u201d (to run (river), to revolve\n(heavenly body)), and its compounds, _eo_ (to go), and its compounds,\netc., etc.\n\nApart from any peculiarity of Seneca, Latin allows the use of\nadjectives and pronouns, whose distinctive gender points their\nreference, where English requires substantives or their equivalent.\nLatin, too, often conveys by mere suggestion where English requires\nexplicit expression. This is particularly so with connectives, where\na separate clause may be required to develop the _nuance_ of a subtle\ncollocation. In general, assuming--and it is no great stretch--that\nthe author meant to express _something_, whether right or wrong, I\nhave endeavoured to ascertain what that something was and to convey\nit to the English reader. In doing so I have had no scruple in using\nmore words than Latin, or in making explicit what I conceived to be\nimplicit, or in varying the rendering of the same term to suit the\ncontext and idiom. Ambiguity has, as far as possible, been avoided and\neven removed. At the same time the author has been followed as closely\nand faithfully as may be. Where he repeats a term purposely, as he\nfrequently does, the repetition is retained, though a variant might\nhave sounded more euphonious. Probably, in some cases--it may be in a\ngood many--the meaning has been misconceived; certainly, there will be\ndifference of opinion in regard to readings adopted for translation,\nwhere one had to be taken and two or more almost equally good had to\nbe left out. Ruhkopf was the text chiefly used; in addition Koeler\nand the Variorum Edition of Bouillet were constantly at hand, and I\nhave been much indebted to all three in questions of interpretation.\nNisard\u2019s French Translation has also been of some service, indirectly\nby suggestion perhaps rather than directly; in a few passages the\ntranslation is from a different text from that printed on the same\npage. The old Tauchnitz text has been habitually consulted, while\nGercke\u2019s text has been carefully collated throughout. The latter does\nnot mention Ruhkopf at all in his Bibliography--surely an involuntary\nomission. There is a useful Bibliography also in Bouillet, but the date\nof his Edition is as far back as 1830. To my regret I have not been\nable to procure Lagrange\u2019s famous French Translation, and the same\nremark applies to several German works of repute. Lodge\u2019s Translation\n(1614) was not of any service for my purpose.\n\n\n\n\nTHE NATURAL QUESTIONS OF L. ANNAEUS SENECA ADDRESSED TO LUCILIUS\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I\n\n[METEORS, HALO, RAINBOW, MOCK SUN, ETC.]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nLucilius, my much esteemed friend--While a great gulf separates 1\nphilosophy from the other learned arts, there is to my mind an equally\nwide gulf in philosophy itself between the portion which relates to\nhuman conduct and that which deals with the nature and power of heaven.\nThe latter is more exalted and more speculative, it allows itself wide\nliberty. It is not satisfied with mere observation, it surmises that\nthere is a greater and fairer realm placed by nature beyond human\nsight. Between these two divisions of philosophy, in short, there is as\nwide a gulf as between their subjects, God and man.\n\nThe one teaches us what should be done on earth;[25] the other, what 2\nis done in heaven. The one dispels our errors and flashes a light by\nwhich to thread the mazes of life; the other far transcends this gloom\nin which we grope, rescues us from the darkness, and leads us to the\nvery source of light itself. For myself, I am grateful to nature, not\nso much when I see her on the side that is open to the world, as when\nI am permitted to enter her shrine. Then one may seek to know of what\nstuff the universe is made, who is its author or guardian, what is the\nnature of God. Is He wholly absorbed in Himself, or does He sometimes\nregard us? does He do something daily, or has He done once for all? is\nHe a portion of the world, or the whole world? may He issue new decrees\neven to-day and thus modify the laws of fate, or is it an infringement\nof His majesty and an acknowledgment of error to alter what has once\nbeen made? for surely the same must always please Him who can be 3\npleased only with what is best. Nor yet withal is His freedom or power\ndiminished, for He is a law unto Himself.\n\n [25] In other words, the principles of human conduct.\n\nLife would have been a useless gift, were I not admitted to the study\nof such themes. What cause for joy would it be to be set merely in\nthe number of those who live? In order to digest food and drink?\nTo repair a diseased, enfeebled body, that would perish unless it\nwere continually refilled, and thus lead the life of a sick man\u2019s\nattendant? To fear death, to which our very birth destines us? Away\nwith the priceless boon! Life is not worth the heat and the sweat. How 4\ndespicable a creature is man, unless he rise above the earth! What\ngreat thing can we do as long as we have to wrestle with our passions?\nEven if we prevail, we but conquer monsters. What cause have we to\nesteem ourselves because we are not quite so bad as the very worst? I\ncan see no great reason for self-satisfaction because one\u2019s strength is\nrather above the average of those in the same hospital. You are still\nfar from good health and vigour. Or, again, you have escaped vices of\nsoul, the hypocrite\u2019s brow, the flatterer\u2019s speech fashioned to serve\nanother\u2019s will, the dissembler\u2019s heart, the miser\u2019s spirit, which\nrobs all, but yet mortifies itself. You are a prey neither to luxury,\nwhich loses basely and repairs its losses still more basely; nor to\nambition, which leads to place of worth only by unworthy means. But 5\nyet you have accomplished nothing. You have escaped many perils, but\nnot yet [that of] self! The virtue we aim at raises to a splendid\neminence; not so much because escape from vice is in itself a blessed\nthing, but rather because the soul is emancipated, prepared for the\nknowledge of heavenly things, and rendered worthy of entering into\ncommunion with God.\n\nThe full consummation of human felicity is attained when, all vice\ntrampled under foot, the soul seeks the heights and reaches the inner\nrecesses of nature. What joy then to roam through the very stars, to\nlook down with derision on the gilded saloons of the rich and the whole\nearth with its store of gold! Gold, did I say? Yes, all the gold the\nearth ever produced and sent into currency, and all that she keeps\nhidden in secret to glut the avarice of posterity. Only when one has\nsurveyed the whole universe can one truly despise grand colonnades, 6\nceilings glittering with ivory, trim groves and cooling streams\ntransported into wealthy mansions. From above, one can now look down\nupon this narrow world, covered for the most part by sea, and, even\nwhere it rises above the sea, an ugly waste either parched or frozen.\nThe philosopher says to himself: Is this the plot that so many tribes\nportion out by fire and sword? How ludicrous are their frontiers! The\nDacian must not pass the lower Danube; the Strymon must shut off the 7\nThracians; the Euphrates must be the barrier of the Parthians; the\nDanube must form the boundary between Sarmatian and Roman; the Rhine\nmust set a limit to Germany; the Pyrenees must raise their chain\nbetween Gallic and Spanish provinces; between Egypt and Ethiopia a\ndesert of barren sands must stretch! Why, if ants are ever endowed\nwith human intelligence, will not they in like manner portion out a\nthreshing-floor into many provinces?\n\nBut when you rise to what is truly great, then, as often as you 8\nsee armies marching forth with floating banners, and the cavalry now\nscouting in front, now massed on the flanks, as if some great design\nwere toward, you will pleasantly remark:\n\n The black swarm is hurrying through the plains.\n\nThat host is a throng of ants, its evolutions are in a back garden.\nIn what do we excel the ants, save in the measure of the puny little\nbody? That is a mere point in which you sail, and war, and dispose\nyour kingdoms. Your kingdoms are lilliputian even when they stretch\nfrom Ocean to Ocean. Only on high are the domains spacious; to their 9\npossession the mind is admitted, provided always that it bring with\nit no taint of the body, but wipe off all stain and pass forth like an\narmed man, lightly equipped, nimble, modest in his wants. When the soul\nreaches those regions, it receives nourishment and growth; as if freed\nfrom the shackles of earth, it returns to the true source of its being.\nA proof of its divine origin is furnished by the pleasure it derives 10\nfrom what is divine; here it feels itself at home, not in a strange\nland. Without alarm it views the setting of the stars and their rising,\nand the mazy orbits of the heavenly bodies that yet move all in unison.\nIt notes when each star first shows its light on earth, when it attains\nits meridian height, observes its orbit and the limits of its descent.\nAn interested spectator, it examines and investigates every detail.\nAnd why should it not? It feels that they are akin to itself. Then\ncontempt for the narrow limits of its former dwelling succeeds. For 11\nwhat after all is the space that lies from India to the farthest shores\nof Spain? A few days\u2019 journey if a prosperous wind waft the vessel. But\nthat heavenly region affords a route during full thirty years to the\nswiftest of the planets, rushing with untiring velocity, never once hal\nting.\n\nHere at last the soul comes to learn what it has long sought, it begins\nto know God. But what is God? The universal intelligence. What is 12\nGod, did I say? All that you see and all that you cannot see. His\ngreatness exceeds the bounds of thought. Render Him His true greatness\nand He is all in all, He is at once within and without His works. What,\nthen, is the difference between the divine nature and the human? In us\nthe better part is spirit, in Him there is nothing except spirit. He 13\nis wholly reason: though mortal eyes are so sealed by error that men\nbelieve this frame of things to be but a fortuitous concourse of atoms,\nthe sport of chance. And yet than this universe could aught be fairer,\nmore carefully adjusted, more consistent in plan? But men will have it\nthat it is tossed about at random in the confusion of thunder, cloud,\nand storm, and the other forces by which the earth and its purlieus are\nhaunted.\n\nNor is this merely the madness of vulgar error; even the philosophers\nare tainted by it. Men there are who think that they themselves have 14\na mind, one, too, that foresees and orders events in detail whether\nrelating to themselves or to others. But this frame of things, in which\nwe men along with the rest of creation are set, they deem void of\ncounsel, hurried hither and thither at random; or at best, nature, they\nsuppose, does not know what her own aim is. How profitable then, think\nyou, will it be to ascertain the truth on such questions and exactly\nto define each position! For example, what is the extent of the power\nof God? Does He create matter or does He employ matter already given?\nDoes the pre-existing archetype give shape to matter, or does the\nmatter determine the shape? Can God perform anything He wishes, or does\nmaterial fail Him in many cases, just as a great artist often produces\ninferior work, not through any defect in his art, but because the 15\nmaterial on which it is exercised is refractory? To search into such\nthings, to learn them, to meditate upon them--why, is it not in effect\nto transcend the limits of mortality and to be enrolled a citizen of a\nhigher state? What good will it do you, you ask. Well, if nothing else,\nI shall, at any rate, know that measured by divine standard all earthly\nthings are mean. But of this more anon.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nTo come now to my purpose--listen to the explanation offered by 1\nNatural Philosophy concerning _the Fires_ which the atmosphere drives\nathwart. Their oblique course and amazing velocity furnish proof that\nthey are thrust out with great violence. Evidently they do not come\nforth of themselves, they are shot out. There are many different forms\nof them. A certain kind of them Aristotle calls a She-Goat. If you\nask me why, I must retort by asking you first to explain why they are\nalso called Kids. It will, perhaps, be more to the purpose not to 2\ncross-examine one another with questions such as: What does such\nand such an author say? Answer me. Better examine the cause of the\nphenomenon itself than form surmises as to why Aristotle has applied\nthe name She-Goat to a ball of fire. This was the shape of the one\nas big as the moon that appeared when Paulus was engaged in the war\nagainst Perseus. In our own days we have more than once seen a huge\nball-shaped flame which broke up in the very middle of its course. We 3\nsaw a similar portent about the time of the death of the late Emperor\nAugustus. We again saw one when Sejanus was executed. A warning of the\nsame kind preceded the death of Germanicus.\n\nYou may, perhaps, exclaim: Are you then so benighted as to suppose that\nthe gods send out previous intimation of the death of great men? Do you\nimagine that anything on earth is so great that the Universe should\nperceive its loss? That question must be reserved for another season.\nWe shall then see whether a fixed succession is observed in all events,\nand whether one event is so bound up with another that what precedes is\neither cause or at least token of what follows. We shall then see, 4\ntoo, whether the gods trouble themselves about human concerns, and\nwhether the mere series of events reveals by unmistakable signs what\nits effects must be. Meantime, I venture the opinion that fires of the\nclass referred to are produced by violent friction of the atmosphere.\nThe pressure inclines toward one or other side, and as there is no\nyielding there, an internal struggle ensues. From violent action\nof this kind arise the different varieties of fires--beams, balls,\ntorches, and gleams. When the shock is less severe, and the atmosphere\nis merely grazed, as it were, smaller lights are emitted,\n\n And the flying stars drag their hairy tail.\n\nThen their thin fires mark a slender path, which they prolong across 5\nthe sky. For that reason no night is without sights of the kind; no\ngreat movement of the atmosphere is required to produce them. In fact,\nto put it shortly, they are due to the very same cause as thunderbolts,\nonly they require less force.\n\nClouds that encounter each other with little force cause flashes of\nlightning; if impelled by greater violence, thunderbolts. Aristotle\noffers the following explanation: The earth gives forth many 6\ndifferent exhalations, some moist, some dry, some cold, some containing\nthe seeds of fire. And little wonder if the earth\u2019s evaporation is of\nall varied kinds. Why, even in the heavens the colour of objects does\nnot show uniform; the red of the Dog-star is brighter, that of Mars\nduller; Jupiter has no red, his sheen is prolonged into pure light. 7\nWell, in the great abundance of minute bodies emitted by the earth and\ndriven up to the higher regions, of necessity some of the elements that\nreach the clouds furnish material for fires. They do not require any\ncollision in order to burn, the breath of the sun\u2019s rays is sufficient\nto kindle them. So with us, shavings sprinkled with sulphur catch fire\nat some distance. Probably, therefore, tinder of this kind gathering 8\nwithin the clouds is easily kindled; greater or less fires are produced\njust as there has been more or less substance in the elements.\n\nOn the other hand, to suppose either that actual stars fall or leap\nacross the sky, or that some portion of them is taken away or pared\noff, is sheer folly. If this had been so, they would ere this have 9\ndisappeared. For there is not a single night on which there is not a\nvery large number of stars that seem to break up as they pass across\nthe sky. Yet they are all found again in their wonted places: each one\nmaintains its size unimpaired. It follows, therefore, that the fires\nreferred to have their origin below the stars, and that, being without\nsolid foundation on fixed abode, they quickly perish. Why, then, you\nask, do they not cross the sky by day as well as by night? The next 10\nthing you will say will be that there are no stars by day because they\nare not visible! The stars are, of course, there, but obscured by the\nsun\u2019s brightness. Similarly, meteor fires like torches cross the sky by\nday too, but they are hidden by the brightness of the daylight. If, as\nsometimes happens, a burst of light shoots out strong enough to assert\nits brilliance even in the face of day, then they do become visible.\nIn fact, our own age has more than once seen torches by day, some 11\nrushing from east to west, others from west to east.\n\nSailors consider it a sign of storm when there are many shooting\nstars. If their appearance really is a sign of wind, they must occur\nin the quarter where wind is found, in other words, in the atmosphere\nwhich lies between the earth and the moon. In violent storms at sea\nthere sometimes appear, as it were, stars settling on the sails. The\nsailors who are in jeopardy then suppose that they are being aided by\nthe power of Castor and Pollux. They have really ground for better 12\nhope in this appearance, because it makes plain that the storm is\nbreaking, and the wind falling. Otherwise the fires would flit about\nwithout settling. When Gylippus was on the voyage to Syracuse, a star\nappeared, resting on the very tip of his lance. In the camp of the\nRomans at times pikes appeared to be on fire, no doubt because fires\nof this kind glided down on to them: these fires are often wont to\nstrike animals and trees, just like thunderbolts. If, however, they 13\nare discharged with less force, they merely glide down and settle, and\ndo not inflict stroke or wound. Again, some are forced out from among\nclouds, others come from a clear sky, if the atmosphere has got into a\ncondition to emit fire. In like manner, it occasionally thunders with a\nclear sky, and from the same cause as with a cloudy one, the atmosphere\nundergoing internal collision. Even when the air is comparatively clear\nand dry, it may become condensed, and form bodies similar to clouds,\nthe clashing of which causes the sound of the thunder. From time to 14\ntime, therefore, arise meteors like beams and like shields, and the\nsemblance of vast fires over the sky, if a force similar in kind but\ngreater in degree encounter suitable material.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nLet us now see how the brightness is produced that sometimes envelops 1\nthe heavenly bodies. History has put on record that, on the day of the\nlate Emperor Augustus\u2019 entrance into Rome on his return from Apollonia,\na parti-coloured circle, such as is wont to be seen in a rainbow,\nappeared round the sun. The Greeks call this a _Halo_; our most\nappropriate name for it is a Crown. Let me explain how it is formed.\nWhen a stone is thrown into a pond, the water is observed to part 2\nin numerous circles, which, very narrow at first, gradually widen out\nmore and more until the impulse disappears, lost in the surface of the\nsmooth water beyond. Let us suppose something of the same kind to occur\nin the atmosphere. When condensed it is capable of receiving an impact:\nthe light of sun, moon, or any heavenly body encountering it forces it\nto recede in the form of circles. Moisture, be it observed, and air,\nand everything else that takes shape from a blow, is driven into the\nsame form as that possessed by the object that strikes it. Now every\nkind of light is round. Therefore, the air when struck by light will 3\nassume this form. Accordingly the Greeks gave the name Threshing-floor\n(_i.e._ Halo) to a brightness of this kind, because spaces set apart\nfor threshing corn were, as a rule, round.\n\nBe the better name threshing-floors, or be it crowns, there is no\nreason to suppose that they are formed in the neighbourhood of the\nheavenly bodies. They are a very long distance from them, though as\nseen from the earth they seem to touch and encircle them. In reality\nsuch an image is formed not very far from the earth, but the wonted 4\nfrailty of human vision is deceptive, and we imagine the ring is formed\nclose round the heavenly body itself. But no such thing could possibly\noccur in the neighbourhood of the sun and stars, as there is nothing\nbut thin ether there. It is only when bodies have become rough and\ndense that shape can be impressed upon them. In subtle bodies there\nis no point on which form can lay hold or to which it can adhere. A\nphenomenon of the same nature as the halo may often be witnessed in\nbaths, because the atmosphere is thick and dark: it is most frequent\nwhen the wind is in the south, when the air is heaviest and most dense.\n\nHalos sometimes are dissolved gradually and fade away, sometimes they 5\nare broken up on one side. In the latter case seafaring men look for\nwind in the direction in which the circle of the crown has been broken.\nIf the parting is on the north, there will be a north wind, if on the\nwest, zephyrs will follow. This is a proof that these crowns are formed\nin the region of the sky in which the winds are usually formed. The\nupper regions of air have no crowns because they have no winds either.\nAn additional proof of the connection of winds and halos is afforded 6\nby the fact that the halo is never formed unless the atmosphere is at\nrest, and the wind, as it were, inactive. Under other circumstances it\nis not usually observed.\n\nThe atmosphere when it is at rest may be fashioned to any pattern by\nbeing driven or drawn in any direction. But when it is in motion, light\ncannot even strike it. It takes no shape and offers no resistance,\nbecause the part first affected is always dissipated by the motion.\nTherefore it is that no heavenly body can ever be surrounded by a 7\nfigure of the kind referred to unless when the atmosphere is dense and\nmotionless, and so preserves the ray of round light that strikes upon\nit. Nor is it without good reason. Recollect the analogy mentioned\na little ago. A pebble thrown into a pond or lake or any other\ncircumscribed piece of water produces innumerable circles; but it has\nnot the same effect if thrown into a river. And why so? Because in the\nlatter case the water as it hurries on prevents the formation of any\ndefinite figure. So in the atmosphere the same thing happens; when 8\nit is stationary, it may receive a pattern; when it rushes in rapid\nmotion, it evades all control, warding off every blow and every form\nas it approaches. When these crowns, of which I have spoken, have\ndisappeared uniformly on all sides, and vanished in their own tracks,\nit is an indication of equilibrium in the atmosphere: there is perfect\nquietness and you may then look out for rain. When they break up 9\nat one side, it means wind in that quarter. If they burst at several\npoints, a storm is brewing. The reason of this may be gathered from\nthe explanations I have now given. If the ring fade all round, it is\nevident that the atmosphere is equable, and therefore calm. But if it\nis broken through on one side, evidently there must be an inclination\nof the air in that direction: hence that quarter will produce wind. But\nwhen the halo is rent and torn on all sides, plainly an attack is being\nmade on it from several quarters at once, and a disquieted atmosphere\nis assailing it on this side and on that. So this disturbance of\nthe heavens, the repeated effort and striving in all directions, 10\nbetokens evidently that a storm is coming up with sudden shiftings of\nthe wind.\n\nThese crowns may be observed generally by night round the moon and\nother stars, but very seldom by day; in fact, so rarely in the latter\ncase, that certain of the Greeks have denied that they appear at all\nby day. But history proves that they do. The cause of the infrequency\nof their appearance by day is that the sun\u2019s light is stronger then,\nand the atmosphere itself when stirred and warmed by it is less dense.\nThe moon\u2019s power, on the other hand, is feebler, and is therefore more\neasily resisted by the surrounding air. The rest of the heavenly 11\nbodies are equally weak, and unable by their own force to burst\nthrough the atmosphere. So their shape is impressed and retained in\nthe more solid and less yielding medium. For, in order to produce the\nphenomenon, the atmosphere must neither be so thick as to exclude or\ndissipate the light that streams in on it, nor yet so thin and rare\nas to furnish no hold to the rays that fall upon it. This particular\nconsistency is obtained at night: the sluggish air is at that time\nstruck with the faint light from moon or stars without violence or\nrudeness, and, being thicker than it is wont to be by day, is tinged\nthereby.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nOn the contrary, _the Rainbow_ does not occur by night, except on 1\nvery rare occasions, inasmuch as the moon has not sufficient strength\nto pierce the clouds and suffuse them with hues such as they receive\nfrom the brilliant light of the sun. The shape and varied colours of\nthe rainbow are due to the peculiarities of different kinds of clouds.\nSome parts of the clouds are swollen, others hollow; some are too dense\nto transmit sunlight, others too rare to exclude it. This difference in 2\nconsistency causes alternations of light and shade, and produces that\nmarvellous variety presented by the rainbow. Another explanation is\noffered in instances like the following: When a pipe bursts anywhere,\nthe water is observed to be forced by pressure through the small\nopening; the drops seen against a slanting sun reproduce the appearance\nof the rainbow. Again, if you will at any time watch a fuller at work,\nyou will observe the same appearance: when he has filled his mouth with\nwater and spirts it lightly on the clothes stretched on pegs, the air\nthus besprinkled exhibits plainly the various colours that shine in the\nbow. One cannot doubt that the reason of this lies in the moisture. 3\nFor a rainbow never occurs except when there are clouds about.\n\nLet us inquire how it is produced. Some authorities say that there are\ncertain drops of water that transmit light, while some are too compact\nto be translucent. Thus the brightness is the effect of the former; the\nshadow, of the latter; by the intermingling of the two is formed the\nrainbow, part of which is bright, to wit, that which admits sunlight,\npart darker, namely, that which has shut out the light and cast a\nshadow from itself over the objects nearest it. Others again deny that 4\nthis is so. Shade and light, they say, might be the cause if the\nrainbow had only two colours, and thus was made up of light and shade.\n\n But now, though there gleam a thousand diverse hues,\n Their changes withal elude the eyes that behold.\n The hues that touch seem actually one, yet the edges are quite different.\n\nIn it sight detects something that is red, something that is orange,\nsomething that is blue; and there are other colours too, laid on in\nfinest lines just like a skilful painting, so that, as the poet remarks\nabove, it is impossible to discover whether the colours differ from one\nanother until the last of them is compared with the first. The junction 5\nof colour with colour deceives the sight: with such marvellous skill\ndoes nature starting from what is like end in what is totally unlike.\nWhat good, then, do the two alleged colours, light and shade, do in\na case of this kind, when the presence of an endless variety must\nbe accounted for? Again, certain authorities are of opinion that the\nfollowing is the method of formation of the rainbow: In the quarter of\nthe sky where rain is falling, they say, the drops of falling rain are\nso many mirrors; from each mirror, therefore, is reflected an image of\nthe sun. By and by, many, in fact, countless, images, descending and\ncrossing abruptly, are all blended together. Therefore the rainbow is\njust a blending of a great number of images of the sun. They appeal to\nthe following argument in proof of this: On a clear day, say they, 6\nset out a thousand basins, and they will all contain images of the sun.\nOr arrange single drops of water on single leaves; they will each have\nan image of the sun. On the other hand, an immense pond will have no\nmore than one image. Why so? Just because every smooth surface that is\nfenced off, and surrounded by its own boundaries, is a mirror. Again,\ndivide a pond of very large size into several small ponds by inserting\npartition walls; it will show as many images of the sun as it has\ndivisions. Leave it as it was, spreading out to its full extent, and it\nwill show but one reflection of him. The small extent of the liquid or 7\npond makes no manner of difference. If the surface is circumscribed,\nit forms a mirror. Well then, those countless drops, which are carried\ndown by a falling shower, are so many mirrors, and contain so many\nreflections of the sun. To an observer right in front of them they\npresent the appearance of being mixed up: the intervals which part\nthem from each other are not distinguished, their mere distance from\nthe observer prevents discrimination of them. By and by instead of\nindividual drops there is seen a single blurred mass that contains them\nall.\n\nAristotle agrees with this opinion. His words are: Beams of light\nare reflected by sight from every smooth surface. Now, nothing is 8\nsmoother than water and air. Therefore, our sight is reflected back on\nus from thick air. Indeed, where the vision is dull and feeble, the\nslightest stroke of air checks it. Some people suffer from an affection\nwhich causes them to think that they are meeting their own image, and\nthey see everywhere the reflection of themselves. And why? Because the\npower of their eyes is so weak that it cannot overcome the resistance\nof even the nearest layer of the atmosphere. What dense air effects in\nordinary cases, any kind of air is sufficient to effect in the cases\nreferred to by Aristotle. For whatever the nature of the air, it is\nstrong enough to defeat weak sight. Now, much more is our vision\nreflected upon us by water because it is denser and cannot be pierced;\nit absolutely stops the rays from our eyes, and turns them back to\nthe source whence they proceeded. Well then, when there are numerous 9\nraindrops, they are just so many mirrors. But on account of their\nsmallness they express the sun\u2019s colour without\n\ndistinct shape. By and by when the same colour is reflected in the\ncountless drops that fall without intermission, it begins to take on\nthe appearance not of numerous images with intervals between, but of a\nsingle, long, uninterrupted image.\n\nBut how, you may object, can you tell me that there are many thousands\nof images there, where I can see none at all? Besides, as there is\nbut one colour in the sun, why are there different colours in the 10\nreflections of him? These objections which you have put forward, as\nwell as others that no less call for refutation, I will endeavour to\nrefute. And let me say, first of all, that nothing is more deceptive\nthan our eyesight, not merely in objects whose careful examination is\nprevented by distance in position,[26] but even in objects seen close\nat hand. An oar, though quite whole, presents the appearance of being\nbroken when seen in clear shallow water. Apples seen through glass\nappear much larger than they really are. In long colonnades, pillars 11\nset at intervals present an apparently unbroken continuity of line. Or\ngo back to the case of the sun himself; his orb, which reason proves to\nbe larger than the whole earth, is so contracted by human sight that\nsome of the philosophers have maintained that it is only a foot in\ndiameter. He is, we know, the swiftest of all luminaries, yet none of\nus can see him move; nor should we believe that he does advance, were\nit not evident from time to time that he has advanced. The world itself\nglides on with headlong speed; within an instant of time it unfolds its\nrisings and its settings, yet none of us is aware of its movement. What\ncause, then, is there for wonder if our eyesight cannot separate 12\nthe drops of the rain showers, and loses the distinction of the images\non account of the vast distance at which they are beheld? At any rate\nno one can doubt this, that the rainbow is a reflection of the sun,\nformed in a hollow cloud full of moisture. This is made plain from the\nsimple fact that the image is never seen except opposite the sun, high\nup or low down, in inverse relation, just as he sinks or elevates his\ncourse. When he descends, it is higher; when he is high in the heavens,\nit is more sunken. A cloud of the required kind is often at the side 13\nof the sun without producing a rainbow, because it does not catch his\nimage straight in front.\n\n [26] The received text gives \u201cdiversity of colours.\u201d\n\nAs to the variegation in colour, it is due simply to its double\nsource, derived partly from the sun, partly from the moist cloud. The\nmoisture produces lines now blue, now green, now purple-like, and\norange or red--the two shades, dull and bright, combining to produce\nthis diversity. So also, a purple garment does not always come out 14\nin exactly the same tint from the same dye. Differences depend upon\nthe length of time it has been steeped, the consistency and the amount\nof moisture in the dye it has imbibed: it may be dipped and boiled\nmore than once, or it may have received only one immersion. In like\nmanner then, when there are the two elements, sun and cloud, in other\nwords, object and mirror, it is little wonder that as many varieties of\ncolour are generated as can be produced from them in higher or lower\ntone in countless different categories. For example, there is one 15\ncolour that proceeds from the light of fire, another from a light that\nis duller and less violent than fire. In other details concerning the\nrainbow the method of inquiry is full of uncertainty; there is nothing\nconcrete to lay hold upon, and conjecture must be ventured in every\ndirection. But in this question of its origin doubt is precluded; for\nit is evident that the causes of the rainbow are two in number, sun and\ncloud. The bow never appears when the sky is clear, and never when it\nis so cloudy as to hide the sun. It must, therefore, unquestionably\narise from these, failing either of which it cannot come into being.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nA further consideration must be mentioned, which is just as manifest 1\nas the preceding, to prove that the reflection is given back after\nthe fashion of a mirror; it is never given back save from straight\nopposite to the sun, that is,[27] unless on one side stands the object\nto be reflected, and on the other the mirror that reveals it. Proofs\nare adduced by the mathematicians that are not merely convincing but\nthat compel belief of this. Nor can doubt be left in any mind that\nthe rainbow is an image of the sun, imperfectly reflected owing to\nthe defective shape of the mirror. But meantime let us recall other\nproofs that may, so to speak, be picked up in the street without any 2\nreference to mathematics. Among the proofs of this origin of the bow\nI place the extreme rapidity of its emergence. In a single moment the\nhuge form with its thousand lines is inwoven in the texture of the\nheavens, and just as rapidly does it fade. Now, nothing is returned so\nquickly as an image from a mirror. The mirror does not create anything,\nit merely reveals it. Artemidorus of Parium tells us further even the\nkind of cloud required to reflect such an image of the sun. If you 3\nmake a concave mirror, he says, that is, one resembling half of a ball\ncut through the middle, and take your stand outside the centre, then\nthose who stand beside you will appear in the reflection inverted and\nnearer to you than to the mirror. The very same thing, according to\nhim, takes place when we look at a round hollow cloud from the side: 4\nthe image of the sun detaches itself from the cloud, and is nearer us\nand more turned in our direction. Therefore the red colour is from the\nsun, the dark blue is from the cloud: the other hues are produced by a\nblending of these two.\n\n [27] In a writer less prone to repetition the words to the end of the\n sentence would seem the insertion of a copyist.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nBut there are arguments on the other side. About mirrors there are 1\ntwo opinions; some people think that only phantoms are seen in them; in\nother words, the shape of our bodies, an emanation separated from our\nbodies. Others, however, affirm that images do not exist in the mirror,\nbut that it is the very bodies that are seen, the eyesight being bent\nback and reflected on itself again. Now, the point is not how do we see\nwhatever it is we see: the question is, how the image should resemble\nthe original in the cloud as in a mirror.[28] Could anything be more 2\nunlike than the sun and a rainbow in which neither the colour nor the\nshape nor the size of the sun is to be seen? A bow is far larger and, in\nthe bright part, far redder than the sun: in the other colours, too, it\nis different from him. Besides, when you insist on comparing a mirror\nto the atmosphere (_i.e._ as embodied in a cloud), you must show me\nin the latter the same smoothness of texture, the same levelness of\nsurface, the same brightness as in the former. But surely no clouds\nresemble mirrors to this extent. We often pass through the middle of\nclouds without seeing ourselves in them. People who climb to the tops\nof mountains look down on cloud, but cannot make out their reflection 3\nin it. True enough, but it is separate drops that are separate mirrors,\nsays my opponent. Admitted. Still, I deny that a cloud consists of\nfully formed drops. It no doubt contains the elements from which\nthe drops are formed, but not as drops. Clouds do not contain even\nwater, but only the material to form water. Granting, for the sake\nof argument, that there _are_ countless drops in the clouds and that\nthey can reflect an object, yet they do not all produce one and the\nsame reflection, but each its own. Further, you may join mirrors to\none another, but they will not unite to form a single reflection: 4\neach portion will enclose a likeness of the object. Some mirrors are\ncomposed of a large number of very small parts. Set before them one man\nand a whole people is reflected, each portion producing an image\n of its own. The portions of the mirror thus united\nand placed side by side none the less keep their images separate, and\nout of one man make a crowd. But they do not blend in one that troop; 5\nthey separate and distinguish the individual faces. Now, a rainbow is\nbounded by a single outline, the whole presents but one representation.\n\n [28] The reading of the MSS. is admittedly corrupt. I have followed\n Ruhkopf\u2019s conjecture, though without conviction. The argument seems\n to require _dissimilis_ = unlike, or _non similis_ (cf. c. v. 13),\n instead of _similis_ = like (\u201cresemble\u201d in the text): in that case\n the meaning would be: how an image unlike the original ought to be\n reflected from the cloud as from a mirror. Cf. \u00a7 13 below.\n\nWell, but, says our opponent, is not the water that is scattered\nfrom a burst pipe, or that is tossed up by the oar, wont to exhibit\nsomething similar to these colours that are seen in the bow? True,\nbut not for the reason which you wish to bring out, to wit, that each\nsingle droplet receives an image of the sun. As a matter of fact, the 6\ndrops fall too quickly to be able to form such an image. The medium\nmust be stationary in order to receive the impression of what is to be\nreproduced.\n\nHow, then, it may be asked, does it come about? The drops, I reply,\nreceive the colour, but not the image of the sun. Besides, as Nero\nCaesar says very elegantly:\n\n The neck of Venus\u2019 dove glitters as the bird tosses its head,\n\nand so the neck of the peacock shines with varied colours as often\nas it is turned hither and thither. Are we, therefore, to say that\nfeathers of this kind, whose every turn passes into new colours, are 7\nmirrors? Well, clouds differ in character from mirrors no less than\nthe birds mentioned, and as chameleons and the other animals whose\ncolour changes. In the latter case the cause is sometimes subjective:\nthe creatures when inflamed with anger or passion vary their hue\nthrough the suffusion of moisture: at other times the position of the\nlight, direct or slanting, gives the colour its particular hue. What\nresemblance, I say, is there between mirrors and clouds? Whereas 8\nthose are not translucent, these transmit light. Those are dense and\ncompact, these are rare. Mirrors are of uniform material throughout,\nclouds are made up of various elements brought together at random, and\ntherefore are full of internal strife, and cannot long hold together.\nConsider further; at sunrise one sees a certain portion of the sky\nruddy; at other times one sees clouds of fiery red. This particular\ncolour is received by the clouds from encountering the sun: what, then,\nis there to prevent the many colours of the bow being derived by them\nin the same way from him, even though they do not possess the power of\nmirrors? A little ago, my opponent retorts, you advanced the argument 9\nthat the rainbow is always produced opposite the sun, because an image\ncould not be reflected from a mirror unless the object were in front\nof it. We agree in this point, he adds. Yes, for just as the object\nwhose image is to be transferred to the mirror must be set opposite\nthe mirror, in like manner, in order that the clouds may be tinged by\nthe sun\u2019s rays, the sun must occupy a suitable position. He does not\nproduce the same effect if his light streams in on all sides; there\nmust be a proper incidence of the rays to produce the effect. Such are\nthe reasons alleged by those who will have it that the rainbow is a\ncoloured cloud.\n\nPosidonius and those who are of opinion that the phenomenon is produced\nby reflection as from a mirror, answer their arguments thus: If there 10\nwere any real colour in a bow, it would persist, and be seen more\ndistinctly, the nearer it is. As it is, the image of the bow is clear\nonly in the distance; it is lost as it begins to approach. I do not\nagree with this argument in refutation, though I approve the main\nsentiment which it supports. And I will tell you why. The cloud _is_\ncoloured, but in such a way that the colour cannot be seen from every\npoint. And no more can the cloud itself: for no one who is in it can\nsee it. What wonder, then, if its colour cannot be seen by one 11\nto whom itself is not visible? And yet, although the cloud is not\nseen, it is there: and so is the colour. It is, therefore, no proof\nof the deceptiveness of the colour that it ceases to be manifest\nwhen one approaches it. For, I repeat, the same happens to the clouds\nthemselves: they are not all a sham merely because under certain\nconditions they cease to be visible. Besides, when you are told that\nthe cloud is dyed by the sun, it does not mean that that colour of\nhis is mingled, as it were, with a hard, firm, durable body, but with\na liquid unstable body that is incapable of more than a very brief\nimpress. Let me add that there are certain artificial colours which 12\ndisplay their virtue at a distance. The better and richer the Tyrian\npurple is, the higher up you must hold it to display its full blaze. It\ndoes not cease to possess its colour simply because it does not reveal\nits best shade in any and every position in which it is exhibited. I\nam of the same opinion as Posidonius in holding that the bow is formed\nin a cloud shaped like a hollow round mirror, whose form is that of a\nsection through a ball. This cannot be proved without the aid of 13\ngeometry: the mathematical proofs leave no doubt that the bow is an\nimage of the sun, but one that does not resemble it. Nor, indeed, are\nall objects faithfully represented in mirrors. There are some mirrors\none is terrified to let one\u2019s eyes rest upon, such is the misshapen and\ndistorted image they reproduce of those who gaze upon them. They deform\nthe likeness they preserve withal. Some, again, there are, a glance at\nwhich causes great self-satisfaction in one\u2019s strength: the arms are 14\nenormously increased, and the appearance of the whole body is enlarged\nto superhuman proportions. There are mirrors that turn faces to the\nright, and mirrors that turn them to the left, others twist and even\ninvert them. What wonder, then, that a mirror of this kind should be\nformed in a cloud by which a defective appearance of the sun should be\npresented?\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nAmong the other arguments it must be mentioned that a rainbow never 1\nis seen greater than a semicircle: the higher the sun is, too, the\nsmaller is the bow. As our countryman Virgil says:\n\n And deep drinks\n The mighty bow,\n\nwhen rain is brewing. But the threat the bow conveys is not the same\nwhatever the quarter it has shown itself in. If it rises toward the 2\nsouth, it will bring a heavy fall. The rain in that quarter, such is\nits force, cannot be mastered by the strongest midday sun. If it\nshine toward the west, there will be only a dew or a light rain. If\nit rise in the east or thereabouts, it prognosticates fine weather.\nIf, however, the bow is the sun\u2019s reflection, why does it appear of\nfar larger size than the sun himself? Just because there is a kind\nof mirror that exhibits objects on a far larger scale than that on\nwhich they are presented to it, increasing their form to a portentous\nmagnitude: and in turn there is another kind that reduces the size. And\ntell me this again, why does an image assume the form of a circle if it\ndoes not answer to a circle? You may, perhaps, tell me why the colour 3\nof the bow is varied: why its shape is what it is, you will not be able\nto tell me except by citing some model after which it is formed. Now,\nother model there is none save that of the sun; when you admit that the\nrainbow receives its colour from him, it follows that it receives its\nshape also from him. In short, you and I are agreed that those colours\nby which its quarter of the heaven is adorned proceed from the sun.\nBut on one point we are not agreed: you say that the colour is real; I\nmaintain that it is only apparent. Whichever it is, real or apparent,\nit comes from the sun. On your assumption its sudden cessation cannot\nbe explained, seeing that all other bright lights in the sky are\ndispelled gradually. Its sudden appearance and, at the same time, its 4\nsudden extinction make for my contention. For it is a peculiarity of a\nmirror that the reflection in it is not built up piecemeal, but all at\nonce comes fully into being. Every image in it is destroyed, too, with\nas great rapidity as it was formed. For to the construction or removal\nof the images nothing is required but the presentation and withdrawal\nof the objects.\n\nIn the rainbow-cloud whose nature is in question, there is no proper\nsubstance or material: there is only a sham and a likeness without\nreality. Will you be convinced that this is so? The proof is, the 5\nrainbow will cease if you conceal the sun. Place another cloud, I\nrepeat, in front of the sun, and all the bright hues of the bow are\ngone. But what is to be said, you may ask, in explanation of the size\nof the bow which is considerably greater than that of the sun? I have\nalready said that there are certain mirrors that multiply every object\nthey reflect. I may now add that every object much exceeds its natural\nsize when seen through water. Letters, however small and dim, are\ncomparatively large and distinct when seen through a glass globe filled\nwith water. Apples floating in a glass vessel seem more beautiful than\nthey are in reality. The stars appear bigger if seen through a cloud, 6\nbecause our vision is blurred in the moisture, and cannot accurately\ngrasp its object. This will become plain to demonstration if you fill\na cup with water and throw a ring into it. While the ring lies right\nat the bottom its appearance is visible on the surface of the water.\nAnything, in fact, that is: seen through moisture appears far larger\nthan. in reality it is. What wonder that the image of the sun, being 7\nseen in a moist cloud, should be reproduced on a scale larger than the\noriginal, and that for the two reasons indicated? The cloud contains\nthe two elements, one like glass, which can transmit light, and one\nalso of the character of water; at any rate, if it does not just yet\ncontain the actual water, it is now forming it, its nature is already\nsuch as can easily be changed into water.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nAs you have mentioned glass, some one interposes, I can draw from 1\nthis same material an argument to confute you. Glass sticks are\nmanufactured, either fluted or bulging,[29] with many corners like a\nclub. If one of these sticks is placed obliquely in the path of the\nsun\u2019s rays, it sends back the colour which is wont to be seen in the\nrainbow. This proves that there is not here an image of the sun, but an\nimitation of his colour from reflection. Now, in this argument there\nare many points that make for my view. First of all, it is plain that 2\nthere must be some smooth surface like a mirror to reflect the sun.\nSecondly, it is plain that no colour is formed in the rod, but only a\nfalse appearance of colour, such as I mentioned above, which the neck\nof a pigeon, as it is bent hither and thither, alternately puts on\nand off. This, I say, is seen likewise in the case of a mirror, which\nassumes no real colour, but only a certain imitation of the colour of a\nforeign body.\n\n [29] Another reading gives \u201ctwisted.\u201d\n\nStill, this one point requires explanation; it is not the sun\u2019s 3\nimage that is beheld in that glass stick, because it is not capable of\nexpressing it accurately. True enough it tries to reproduce the image,\nbecause the material is smooth and suitable for this purpose. But it\nfails because its shape is unsymmetrical. If it had been suitably\nconstructed, it would reflect as many images of the sun as it had\nfaces. But since the sides are not distinctly separated from each\nother, and not bright enough to serve as mirrors, the images are only\nincipient, not fully expressed; they get confused through being crowded\ntogether, and are reduced to the appearance of a single band of colour.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nBut to return--why does the bow not complete the full circle in its 1\nform, but appear as only a semicircle when stretched to the full extent\nof its greatest span? Some are of opinion that the reason is that the\nsun, being much higher than the clouds, strikes them only on the upper\nside. Hence their lower parts are not touched by his light. Receiving\nthe sun only on one side, the clouds reproduce only one portion of him,\nand this is never more than a half. There is very little force in this\ncontention. My reason for saying so? The sun, even though he is on 2\nthe upper side, yet strikes, and therefore colours, the whole cloud.\nHow could it be otherwise? His rays are wont to be transmitted through\nthe clouds and to penetrate any density in them. Further, the proof\nthey advance is flatly in opposition to their main proposition. For if\nthe sun is higher than the clouds, and his beams, therefore, shed only\non their upper side, the bow would never come down as far as the earth.\nYet it does descend to the very ground. Besides, the bow is never 3\nseen except opposite to, not below, the sun. The fact is, the sun\u2019s\nhighness or lowness does not affect the matter: the side of the cloud\nthat faces him is struck by him throughout its whole extent.\n\nFurthermore, sometimes even the setting sun produces a rainbow; surely\nat that time, being near[30] the earth, he strikes the clouds on their\nlower side. And yet then, too, the bow is only a semicircle, though\nthe clouds receive the sunlight on their lower and darker portions.\nThe Stoics, who hold that the light is reflected in the cloud as 4\nin a mirror, make the cloud hollow like the section of a ball. Such\na mirror, being but part of a circle, cannot, they think, reproduce\na whole circle. I give my adherence to the proposition, but I cannot\nagree to the argument in its support. For, if the whole figure of a\ncircle placed opposite a concave mirror is reproduced in it, then there\ncan surely be nothing to prevent the whole of a ball being seen in a\nsemicircular circular mirror. Besides, we have already shown that 5\ncomplete rings resembling a rainbow surround the sun and the moon at\ntimes. Why should the circle be complete in the halo, but never in\nthe rainbow? And then again, why should the clouds that receive the\nsunlight be always hollow ones, and not sometimes flat or bulging?\n\n [30] The common reading makes this adjective refer to clouds--the\n clouds which are near the earth.\n\nAristotle says that rainbows are formed, after the autumnal equinox,\nat any hour of the day, but in summer only either in the early part\nof the day, or when the sun has begun to sink. The cause of this is\nobvious. In the first place, about midday the great heat of the sun 6\ndispels the clouds: he cannot be reflected in the clouds which he\nbreaks up. But in the early morning and as he sinks toward the west,\nhis rays have less power, and can thus be resisted and reflected by the\nclouds. In the second place, the sun is not wont to form a bow except\nwhen he faces the clouds in which it is formed. When the days are 7\nshortening in autumn, his rays are always slanting. Therefore, he has\nsome clouds facing him that he can strike, at any part of the day, even\nat the hour at which he attains his meridian height. But in the summer\nseason he sails right overhead. Therefore, in the great altitude of his\nmidday course, he looks down on the earth too directly to encounter any\nclouds. He has them at that period all beneath him.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nI must now go on to speak of _Streaks_ (watergalls, sun-dogs), which 1\nare as bright and varied as the rainbow, and commonly received by us as\nequally indicative of rain. No great labour need be spent in explaining\nthem, for they are just incomplete rainbows. They have the variegated 2\nappearance of the bow, but none of its curve. They lie in a straight\nline. They are formed near the sun, as a rule, in a moist cloud that\nhas begun to break up. Thus, they have the same colour as is found\nin the rainbow, but there is a difference in the shape, due to the\ncorresponding difference in the clouds over which they stretch.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nThere is a similar variety of colours in _Halos_. But there is this\ndifference in the various phenomena: Halos are formed at any point in\nthe sky, wherever there is a heavenly body; rainbows are not found\nexcept opposite the sun; streaks, only in the neighbourhood of the sun.\nI may express their difference in another way: Bisect a halo and you\nhave a rainbow; make it a straight line and you have a streak. In all\nthree there is the same multiplicity of colours, the scale running from\ndark blue to orange. Streaks, then, are found only close to the sun.\nRainbows are all either solar or lunar. Halos are seen with all the\nheavenly bodies.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nAnother kind of streak is visible when thin rays of bright light 1\nequidistant from one another are shot out through narrow apertures\nin the clouds. These, too, are a prognostication of rain. How am I\nto express myself here? What shall I call them? Images of the sun?\nThe chroniclers call them merely suns, and have put on record that\nthey have been seen in twos and threes. The Greeks call them _Mock 2\nSuns_ (parelia = beside the sun), because they are generally seen in\nproximity to the sun, and somewhat resemble the sun. They do not give a\ncomplete reproduction of the sun, but exhibit only his size and shape.\nThey are dull, however, and languid without any of his heat. What name\nare we to apply to them? Shall I do as Virgil did---hesitating about\nthe name, employ the very name which causes the hesitation?\n\n And by what name[31] shall I call you, Rhaetian wine?\n But yet you must not seek to compete with the Falernian bins.\n\n [31] He has altered Virgil\u2019s word \u201ccarmine\u201d to \u201cnomine\u201d to suit his\n meaning, or, as the editors say, _lapsu memoriae_.\n\nThere is no objection to my calling these, mock suns. They are, in\nfact, images of the sun formed in a thick cloud close to him after 3\nthe fashion of a mirror. Some writers define a mock sun as a cloud,\nround, bright, and resembling the sun. The mock sun follows the sun,\nand is never left farther behind him in his orbit than it was at its\nfirst appearance. None of us, I suppose, is surprised at seeing a\nreflection of the sun in some fountain or quiet lake. Well, his disc\nmay be reflected in the heavens just as readily as on earth, if only\nthe material is suitable to produce the reflection.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nWhenever we wish to observe an eclipse of the sun, we place on the 1\nground basins filled with oil or pitch. The thick liquid is not easily\ndisturbed, and therefore retains the images it receives. Images, I\nmay observe, cannot be seen except in a liquid at rest. Then we are\nin the habit of noting how the moon obstructs the sun, and by the\ninterposition of her body hides his, which is so much larger, sometimes\npartially, if it so fall out that she only encounter a portion of his\norb, sometimes completely. The latter is called a total eclipse: it\nquite shuts out the light and shows us the stars; it occurs when the 2\ncentre of the two bodies lies in the same straight line. Now, just as\nthe image of both sun and moon can be seen on earth, so it is in the\ncase of mock suns in the atmosphere. The still air is so compact and\nyet clear that it can receive the sun\u2019s likeness. Other clouds receive\nit, but let it go if they are either in motion, or thin, or black. The\nmoving clouds disperse it, the rare let it slip, the black and impure\ndo not take the impress of it, just as on earth soiled objects do not\nreflect an image.\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\n\nMock suns are wont to be formed in pairs and on the same principle. 1\nThere is nothing, in fact, to prevent the formation of as many as there\nare clouds suitable for exhibiting an image of the sun. Some writers\nare inclined to hold that when two such phantoms are visible, one\narises directly from the sun, the other from his image. For, to use\nan illustration from common experience, when several mirrors are so\narranged that one is in sight of the other, all reflect the same image;\nbut only one is directly from the original, the rest are reflections\nof images. The nature of the object presented to the mirror makes 2\nno difference in the effect. Whatever it sees it reproduces. So, up\non high there, if some chance has so disposed the clouds that they\nface one another, one of them reflects the image of the sun, the other\nthe image of his image. The clouds that produce this effect must be\ndense, smooth, bright and flat, analogous in character to the sun. All\nphantoms of this kind are white and resemble so many discs of the moon,\nfor the reason that the sun\u2019s light that they receive and reflect back\nis always oblique. If the cloud, on the contrary, is beneath the 3\nsun and too near him, his rays dispel it: or again, if situated too\nfar away, it does not reflect them nor produce any image. In ordinary\nexperience in the same way mirrors withdrawn to a distance from us do\nnot reproduce our features because our sight cannot carry back to us\nfrom them.\n\nThese suns, too--to employ the name given by the chroniclers,--are\nan indication of rain, especially if they have their position in a\nsouthern quarter, from which the most heavily-charged clouds chiefly\ncome up. When such an image surrounds the sun on both sides, then, if\nwe are to believe Aratus, a storm is brewing.\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\n\nIt is now high time that I ran over the other varieties of celestial 1\nfires, whose forms are diverse one from the other. Sometimes there\nis a shooting star, sometimes there are glowing lights, which are\noccasionally stationary, sticking to one spot, and at times able to\nrush through the air. Several species of these may be observed. There\nare, for example, _Bothynae_ (cave-like meteors) when within an outer\ncircle there is a blazing gulf in the sky like a circular grotto\nexcavated in it. Then there are _Pithitae_ (barrel-shaped meteors) when\na vast circular mass of fire like a cask either rushes through the sky,\nor blazes away in one spot. There are _Chasmata_ (chasms), too, when 2\nthere is a subsidence of some portion of the heavens, which sends out\nhissing flame, as it were, from its hidden recesses. There are also a\ngreat number of colours in all these. Some are of brightest red, some\nof light insubstantial flame, some of white light, some glittering,\nsome with a uniform glow of orange without sparks or rays. We see,\ntherefore,\n\n The stars\u2019 long tracks that gleam white behind.\n\nThese stars, for so they appear to be, dart forth and flit across 3\nthe sky, and by reason of their extraordinary rapidity seem to leave\na long trail of fire. Our sight cannot follow their course, and\nwherever their career leads we imagine the heaven is all on fire.\nSuch is the swiftness of their flight that its separate portions are\nnot distinguished and it can be grasped only as a whole. We are aware\nrather of the quarter in which the star appears than of its route. It,\ntherefore, seems to mark its entire course with a line of continuous 4\nfire, because the slowness of our vision fails to keep pace with the\nstages of its career and sees at the same moment the start and the\nfinish; as happens in a flash of lightning, the fire seems a long train\nbecause the meteor traverses its path rapidly and the space through\nwhich it falls presents itself to our eyes as a whole. But, as a matter\nof fact, the fire does not extend itself all through the space crossed\nby the meteor. Nor have such long thin bodies strength enough for the 5\neffort. How, then, it may be asked, do they issue forth? The answer\nis, the fire is kindled by the friction of the atmosphere and is urged\nheadlong by the wind. Still, it does not always arise from wind or\nfriction. Sometimes its origin is due to certain peculiar conditions\nin the atmosphere; for on high there are many elements, dry and hot\nand earthy, among which fire is generated. It then streams down in\npursuit of fuel to sustain it, and therefore is hurried rapidly along.\nThe reason for the differences of colour it presents lies in the 6\nnature of the material set on fire and in the degree of violence of the\nconflagration. A falling body of this kind betokens wind, which may be\nlooked for in the quarter in which the meteor has burst out.\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\n\nHow, some one further inquires, are those bright gleams of light 1\nwhich the Greeks call _Sela_ (luminosities) produced? In many ways,\npeople say. They may arise from the violence of the winds, or from\nthe fervent heat of the upper heavens. Fire is a very widely diffused\nelement there, and sometimes catches the lower regions if they are\ncombustible. The mere motion of the stars in their courses may kindle\nfire, and convey it to all that lies beneath them. Nay, is it not\nquite possible that the atmosphere should drive up even to the ether\nthe germs of fire, from which may arise a glow or burning or darting\nresembling a star? Some of these gleams rush headlong like shooting 2\nstars, some remain fixed in their place, emitting light sufficient to\ndispel darkness and reinstate daylight, until their fuel is used up,\nand they gradually grow dimmer, and by and by, just like a flame which\nis dying out, are by gradual subsidence reduced to nothingness. Some of\nthese appear in the clouds, some above them: in such cases the thick 3\nair nearer the earth feeds them for a long time, but eventually forces\nthem right up to the stars. Certain of these last no considerable time:\nthey straightway dart across the sky, or are extinguished just at their\npoint of origin. These are called gleams because their appearance is\nfitful and short-lived, though their fall is not always unattended by\ninjury: they have often caused as much damage as lightning. One has\nseen houses struck by them, what the Greeks call _astrapoplecta_[32]\n(= star-struck). Those that have a longer career and a stronger fire 4\nwhich follows the motion of the heavens, or those that pursue an\norbit of their own, are regarded by the Stoic philosophers as Comets:\nof which more anon. Different kinds of these are _pogoniae_ (bearded),\n_lampades_ (torches), and _cyparissiae_ (like cypress trees), and all\nthe rest of them: they have a thin tail of fire. It is doubtful whether\nbeams (_trabes_) and the rare barrel-meteors (_pithitae_) should be\nplaced in this category or not. Such meteors require a great mass of 5\nfire, since their immense orb sometimes surpasses in size that of the\nmorning sun.\n\n [32] The term might also mean _struck by lightning_. A commoner\n reading gives the meaning: which, when grazed by this means, the\n Greeks called plecta (= struck).\n\nAmong these should certainly be placed a phenomenon of which we often\nread in the chronicles--the heavens appeared to be on fire. The\nblaze of it is occasionally so high as to mount to the very stars;\noccasionally it is so low as to present the appearance of a distant\nfire. In the reign of Tiberius Caesar the fire brigade hurried off 6\nto the relief of the colony at Ostia, supposing it to be in flames;\nduring the greater part of the night there had been a dull glow in\nthe sky, which appeared to proceed from a thick smoky fire. No one\nhas any doubt that these burnings in the heavens contain flame as\nreally as they display it: they have a certain substance in them. As\nto those formerly discussed, I mean rainbows and halos, it is a 7\nquestion whether they deceive the sight and consist of an illusion;\nor really contain what appears in them. I and those who think with me\ncannot convince ourselves that the rainbow and halo have a basis of\nany definite material in them. For we judge that in a mirror there is\nnothing but a deception: the mirror only pretends to show a foreign\nbody. What is revealed does not exist _in_ the mirror. Otherwise 8\nit would not come out of it, nor would it be forthwith obscured by\nanother image: nor would innumerable forms now fade from it, now be\nreceived by it. What follows, then? That these are mere phantoms\nand the insubstantial imitation of real bodies. Indeed, in certain\ninstances, people have so arranged mirrors that the objects have been\ndistorted and degraded in the reflection. For, as I have already said,\nthere are some mirrors that twist the faces of those who look into\nthem, some that enormously increase them until they exceed all size and\nproportions of these bodies of ours.\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\n\nAt this point I wish to tell you a little story to show you how 1\nunscrupulous lust is in seizing every instrument that will rouse\npassion: so resourceful is it in goading to madness its own morbid\nfury. There was one Hostius Quadra whose obscenity formed a model for\neverything that was lewd on the stage. He was rich and avaricious,\na very slave to his millions. He was eventually murdered by his own\nslaves, but the late Emperor Augustus considered his murder undeserving\nof punishment, and as good as declared that he had been justly slain.\nThis man\u2019s lust knew no distinction of sex. Among other things, he 2\nhad mirrors constructed of the kind just mentioned, that reflected\nimages of abnormal size, causing, for example, a finger to exceed the\nsize of an arm in length and thickness. He so arranged his mirrors\nthat he could see all his accomplices\u2019 movements, and could gloat over\nthe imagined proportions of his own body. He raised a levy of scamps 3\nlike himself in all the public baths, where he chose men of the\nregulation height; this but whetted his appetite to have his scenes\nof riot reproduced in false unnatural proportions. Go to, you that\nsay the mirror was invented for purposes of adornment! I could not\nsoil my pen by recording the foul words and deeds of that monster:\nhe deserved to be torn by his own jaws. To aggravate his guilt,\nmirrors faced him on every side that he might be a witness of his own\ninfamy. Deeds of darkness, which lie heavy on the conscience, the 4\nimputation of which ordinary men will indignantly spurn, weighed so\nlightly with him that he thrust them before his face, and into his\nvery eyes. Crimes, in faith, usually dread the sight of themselves.\nEven in those lost to shame, and exposed to every insult, the eye is\nstill delicately susceptible. But that beast thought his unparalleled\nwickedness but a trifle; he summoned his eyes to witness it. Aye, not\ncontent with seeing his sin, he surrounded himself with mirrors to\nmultiply and group his scenes of vice. Even when he could not see 5\ndirectly, he employed the reflecting power of the mirrors to reveal\nscenes of revolting and abominable iniquity. The filthy blackguard\nleft nothing that could be called a deed of _darkness_. He had no 6\ndread of the daylight, but complacently applauded himself in all his\nbestial vice. Now, don\u2019t you think he would have liked to have his\nportrait painted in that attitude? The ministers of public vice draw\nthe veil of modesty over them in part: in fact, a house of ill-fame is\nin some degree shame-faced But that brute had made an exhibition of 7\nhis obscenity, and presented to his own sight what the darkest night is\nnot deep enough to hide. I will be out and out bad, was the monster\u2019s\nresolve; my eyes must share my lust, they must witness and superintend!\nBy my art I will defeat nature\u2019s shyness: nobody must imagine that I 8\ndo not know what I am about! Nature is niggardly to man, she is more\ngenerous to the cattle. I will find means to thwart her, and to indulge\nmy little weakness. My lust shall go one better than nature. I will\nconstruct a mirrored chamber that will reflect shapes of enormous size.\nI only wish I could make the size real; but I must be content with 9\nthe belief of it. My vice must see more than it can compass, and must\nrest content with wonder at its own restraint.\n\nAway with such a fellow! Perchance he met a speedy death even before he\ncould gloat over the sight. He richly deserved to be offered up as a\nvictim before his own mirror-idol.\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\n\nGo now and laugh at the philosophers for discussing the nature of 1\nthe mirror and inquiring why our face is reflected in it, and is\nturned toward us too. What did nature mean by giving us real bodies\nand then ordaining that phantoms of them also should be visible?\nWhat was her purpose in providing material of the sort capable of\nreceiving and returning images? Not, I trow, that we men might use a 2\nlooking-glass to pluck out the straggling hairs of our beard and polish\nup our face. Nature has never at any point merely provided resources\nfor luxury. First of all, her motive was to show us the sun with his\nglare dulled, since our eyes are too weak to gaze at him direct, and\nwithout something to reflect him we should be wholly ignorant of his\nshape. No doubt one may study him as he rises and as he sets. But we 3\nshould know nothing of his true figure as he shines in fierce noonday\nbrightness, without his softening ruddy glow, unless an image of him\ncould be mirrored in some liquid where he shines less directly and\nis more easy to observe. In the second place, we should be unable to\nsee or investigate the conjunction of two heavenly bodies, by which\nthe daylight is wont to be interrupted, unless we could examine the\nreflections of sun and moon in basins on the ground with comparative\nfreedom. In the third place, mirrors were discovered in order that 4\nman might come to know himself.\n\nMany benefits have ensued; first, the knowledge of self, after that,\ndevices to secure specific results. The comely man was taught to shun\nconduct that would degrade him. The uncomely learned that bodily\ndefects must be compensated by virtue of character. The young man was\nreminded by his vigour that youth was the time for learning and for\nperforming daring deeds of chivalry. The grey-beard was warned to have\nrespect for his hoary hair and turn his thoughts sometimes to death.\nIt was for this that even objects in nature have afforded us the 5\nopportunity of seeing ourselves.[33] A clear fountain or a smooth stone\ngives each back his image. In the poet\u2019s words:\n\n Lately I saw myself on the shore,\n When the sea stood calm without a breath of wind.\n\n [33] The meaning may be, In addition, _i.e._ to artificial mirrors,\n objects in nature, etc.\n\nWhat, think you, was the style of life of the people who dressed at a\nmirror of this kind? The age was unsophisticated, satisfied with what\nsupplies chance presented. It did not as yet degrade a boon into a\nvice, or turn nature\u2019s invention to purposes of lust and luxury. At\nfirst, chance revealed to each his form. In due time the inherent 6\nself-love of mankind endeared the sight of their own figure, and they\ncame to look more frequently into the mirror held up by nature in which\nthey had first beheld their image. Later on, when a worse race of men\nransacked the very bowels of the earth for treasure better hid more\ndeeply, iron first came into use; its production might have caused no\ndamage had the world produced only that one metal. But then in good 7\nearnest were brought to light the other precious banes of earth. Their\nsmooth surface presented the image of their possessors, who had in view\nsome quite different purpose. One saw his reflection in a cup, another\nin a brass vessel procured for some ordinary use. Presently a round\nmirror was constructed specially to render this service: it was not as\nyet of polished silver, but of a common brittle ware. [33] The men of\nancient days lived a homely life; they thought themselves smart enough\nif they washed off in the stream of the river the dirt contracted in\ntheir work. But even then they bestowed pains on dressing their hair\nand combing out their flowing beards. In this part of the toilet each\nattended to himself and at the same time helped his neighbour. The 8\nthick streaming hair of the men, which it was of old the fashion to\nwear, was, of course, combed out by the wives. But sometimes they\nthought themselves handsome enough without any such artistic hand, and\nthey just shook it out for themselves as spirited animals do their\nmane. Afterwards, when luxury had now gained sway, embossed mirrors\nof gold and silver of full-length size were made, and at last they\nwere actually adorned with precious stones. One of these has ere now\ncost a woman more than the amount of a dowry given in the old days\nat the public expense to the penniless daughters of famous generals.\nDo you suppose Scipio\u2019s daughters bought mirrors chased with gold 9\nfrom the iron money that their dowry was paid in? Happy the poverty\nthat gave occasion to earn such a title to glory! The Senate would not\nhave dowered them if they had been able to afford mirrors. Whoever the\nman was to whom the Senate acted the part of father-in-law, he knew\nthat he had got a wife that was above suspicion. Nowadays the whole\nof the dowry that the Roman people gave Scipio would not be enough to\nbuy a single looking-glass for some of the loose, silly daughters of\nour freedmen! Luxury has been gradually developed merely by the 10\npossession of wealth, and has now gone to oppressive lengths; therewith\nvices have received an immense accession of strength. In short,\neverything has got so mixed up through our perverted refinements that\nall that used to be regarded as the decoration of women has become\npart and parcel of the outfit of man; I am understating, it is now an\nessential portion of a soldier\u2019s kit. The mirror was introduced for the\nsake of the toilet; nowadays there is no vice to which it is not an\nindispensable adjunct.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II\n\n[THE NATURE OF AIR. THUNDER AND LIGHTNING]\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nEvery inquiry into the nature and constitution of the universe falls 1\ninto three divisions--astronomy, meteorology, and geography. The first\ninvestigates the nature of the heavenly bodies, the size and shape\nof the fires that ring-in the world. It inquires whether the heavens\nare solid, composed of strong rigid material, or woven of a fine thin\nstuff; whether they receive or impart motion; whether the heavenly\nbodies are beneath them or fixed in their texture; in what manner the\nsun maintains the succession of the seasons; whether he returns upon\nhis track or not, and all the other questions of a similar character.\nThe second division deals with what lies between heaven and earth, to 2\nwit, clouds, rain, snow, and\n\n Thunder that frights the heart of man:\n\nin short, all that the atmosphere does or suffers. This subject is\ncalled meteorology (_sublimia_ = raised on high), because it deals with\nphenomena exalted above the low earth. The third part inquires about\nwaters, lands, trees, crops, or to use a legal phrase, everything that\nis contained in the soil.\n\nHow comes it, you ask me, that you have put the question of 3\nearthquakes in the division under which you are going to treat of\nthunder and lightning? For that is my plan. Well, the earthquake\nis due to air, and air is the atmosphere in violent motion. Now,\nthough the air may enter the earth in order to produce earthquakes,\nthe treatment of earthquakes does not fall under geography, but more\nproperly belongs to meteorology, which deals with the sphere to which\nnature has assigned the atmosphere. I can tell you something that will\nsound stranger still: I must speak of the earth when dealing with\nthe heavenly bodies. Why? you ask. For this reason: we discuss in 4\ntheir own proper place, as part of geography, the properties of the\nearth, for example, whether it is broad, projecting unequally in a\nhuge bulge to one side, or whether it all assumes the shape of a ball,\ngathering up its parts into a globe; whether it binds its waters or\nis itself bound by them; whether it is an animal or a lifeless mass\nwithout feeling, full of air no doubt, but not its own breath. These,\nand all other questions of the kind, as often as they crop up, will 5\nbe relegated to geography, and be placed in the lowest category. But\nwhen the question comes to be the situation of the earth, the part of\nthe universe in which it has settled, its position with respect to the\nheavens and heavenly bodies, then the inquiry will take its place in\nthe higher category,[34] and obtain higher rank so to speak.\n\n [34] Viz. that of the heavenly bodies which constitute the subject\n matter of astronomy.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nHaving described the three divisions into which all the material of 1\nnature falls, I must add a few general remarks on the subject. And this\nmust be premised, that the atmosphere belongs to the class of bodies\nthat possess unity. What exactly this means, and why it must be laid\ndown as an axiom, will appear if I go back a little, and entering more\nfully into the subject, tell you that certain bodies are continuous,\nand certain formed, by a union of different elements.[35] Continuity\nmay be defined as unbroken union of parts one with another. Unity 2\nis continuity without a break; it is the contact of two bodies joined\nto one another. There can be no shadow of doubt that of the bodies\naround us which we see and handle, and which are either perceived or\nperceive, certain are composite. They are so either through nexus or 3\nthrough mere accumulation; take as illustrations a rope, corn, a ship.\nAgain, there are bodies that are not composite, as a tree, a stone.\nYou must, therefore, grant that likewise among the objects that elude\nsense, and are grasped only by thought, some are possessed of unity[36]\n[while some arise from junction of parts]. See how careful I am of your\nsusceptibilities. If I had chosen to employ the jargon of philosophy, 4\nI might have got out of the difficulty by merely saying \u201cunited\nbodies.\u201d You must, in turn, be duly grateful for this concession to\nyour weakness! What am I driving at? This: if at any time I speak of\n\u201cunity\u201d in this connection, bear in mind that it is not used of number,\nbut has reference to the composition of a body that coheres through no\nexternal aid, but by its own unity. To this category the atmosphere\nbelongs.\n\n [35] This difficult passage, according to Gercke\u2019s text, runs:\n You will understand the meaning of this, and the necessity for my\n axiomatic position if I take up the argument a little farther back,\n and say that there is one kind of body possessing unity, another that\n is continuous, and another that is formed by junction. For junction\n is the contact of two bodies joined one to another, continuity is the\n uninterrupted joining of parts one to another, unity is continuity\n without junction (_i.e._ without a break).\n\n [36] That is, are not composite.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nThe universe embraces all the objects that fall, or that can fall, 1\nunder our cognisance. Of these some are its parts, the remaining ones\nmust form its material. Nature, just like every manual art everywhere,\nrequires material. Let me make this a little plainer. In ourselves 2\nthe parts are hand, bones, sinews, eyes; the material is the sap of the\ndigested food, which will be distributed for the nourishment of the\nparts. Again, blood is in a certain sense a part of us, but still it is\nmaterial as well. For it goes to form other parts, and, none the less,\nit is among the parts that go to make up the whole body.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nSo the atmosphere is a part, a most necessary one, of the world. 1\nThis it is that joins heaven and earth, separating highest and lowest\nin such a way as yet to unite them. It separates by coming in between,\nit unites by rendering possible communication between the two. It\ntransmits to the higher regions what it receives from the earth; and\nagain, it transfuses terrestrial objects with the influences of the\nheavenly bodies. I call it a part of the world in the same sense as\nanimals and trees are parts. The whole class of animals and trees forms 2\npart of the universe, since it has to be taken in to make up the\nwhole, and without it the universe is not complete. A single animal or\ntree is a quasi-part: though it is lost, that from which it is lost is\nstill entire. Now the atmosphere, as I have been saying, adheres both\nto sky and earth. In both it is inborn. Whatever is an inborn part of\nanything else possesses unity, for without unity nothing can be born.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nThe earth is at once part and material of the world. You are not, I 1\nthink, more likely to ask why it is a part than why the sky is a part.\nThe one is just as essential as the other to the existence of the\nwhole, which they go to make up, and from which [from the one no less\nthan from the other][37] sustenance is provided for all animals and\ncrops and stars. From the earth all the strength of every man, all 2\nthe energy of the world with its ceaseless demands, are supplied. Hence\nproceeds the force that, by day and by night, sustains in their labours\nso many stars, so active and so eager, and that provides their food.\nThe universal nature derives from this source what suffices for its\nnourishment. The world has appropriated all that it requires throughout\neternity. To adopt a tiny illustration of a great subject: eggs enclose\nwithin them as much moisture as they require for the completion of the\ncreature that is to be hatched.\n\n [37] The words in brackets are in all probability spurious, the\n addition of some commentator. The whole passage is very uncertain.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nThe atmosphere is in unbroken contact with the earth, in such close 1\njuxtaposition that it must always occupy the space that she has just\nquitted. It is a part, as I have said, of the universe. At the same\ntime it receives all that the earth sends forth for the nourishment\nof the heavenly bodies; so that, of course, it should be understood\nin this connection as material rather than part. It is these earthy\nelements that cause its fickleness and constant turmoil. Some\nauthorities believe the atmosphere to be composed of separate bodies as\ndust is, but they are sadly in error. For there can never be internal\neffort in a body held together in any other way than by unity,[38] 2\nsince the elements must be in agreement in order to contribute their\nunited strength toward the tension. Now, the atmosphere, if assumed\nto be cut up into atoms, must be dispersed. Scattered elements cannot\nhold together as one body. But, as a matter of fact, the tension of\nthe atmosphere is proved by inflated objects that will not yield to\na blow. It is proved, too, by weights carried up to a great height\nmerely by the support of the wind. It is proved by the sound of\nvoices sinking or swelling, according to the stirring (= vibration)\nof the air. For what is voice save tension of the air moulded by a 3\nstroke of the tongue so as to become audible? What is all running and\nmotion? Are they not the effects of tense air? This it is that imparts\nstrength to the sinews, and endows the runner with his speed. When,\nbeing violently stirred, it has twisted itself into an eddy, it uproots\ntrees and woods, carries aloft and shatters whole buildings. When the\nsea lies all peaceful, the air raises it in waves. Or, to descend to 4\nless violent manifestations, what song can be sung without tension of\nbreath? Or, take horns and trumpets, or those organs that by means of\nhydraulic pressure can produce a greater volume of sound than the mouth\nis capable of doing: is it not through atmospheric tension that they\ndisplay their functions? Or, let us note what an enormous force is 5\nexerted in secret by quite tiny seeds, whose smallness has allowed them\nto find a lodgment in the clefts of stones. Their slender diminutive\nroots gather strength enough to dislodge huge boulders, split statues,\nand cleave crags and rocks. And to what is this due but air tension, 6\nwithout which there is no strength, over which no strength can prevail?\nThe unity of the atmosphere may, in fact, be inferred from the mere\ncoherence of our bodies. What else is it that holds them together\nsave air? What else is it by which the soul is stirred (literally,\nmoved)?[39] What constitutes that motion if it be not tension? What 7\ntension can there be except from unity? What unity could there be\nunless it were in the air? What else, too, brings forth from the earth\nits fruits and slender grain, and sets erect the verdant trees, and\nstretches out their branches, or sets them on high, but the tension and\nunity of air?\n\n [38] Or, except in a body of uniform texture.\n\n [39] Nisard translates, What imparts movement, in man, to the vital\n principle?\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nSome writers believe that the air is rent and separated into small 1\nparts with void spaces, as they suppose, between. They consider the\neasy flight of birds through it a proof that it has not a compact\nbody, but has large empty spaces: fowls, great and small, pass through\nit without difficulty. But this is a mistake. For water also affords\nthe same easy motion, and there is no doubt of its unity. When it 2\nreceives bodies, it always retreats in the direction opposite to them.\nThis the Stoics call displacement, in Greek it is peristasis,[40] which\ntakes place in air just as it does in water. For it literally stands\nround every body by which it is pressed. There is no need to assume an\nadmixture of vacuum with the element. But more of this another time.\n\n [40] \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 = a standing around. The Latin equivalent in the text\n is _circumstantia_, rendered \u201cdisplacement.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nFrom what has been said it must be inferred that in nature there 1\nexists a principle of activity of enormous force. For there is nothing\nthat does not become more active through tension; and it is no less\ntrue, nothing will be found capable of tension from another body unless\nit have in itself capacity of tension.[41] In the same way we say that\nnothing could be moved by another body without possessing the quality\nof mobility in itself. But what element can be conceived more likely\nto possess tension in itself than air? Will any one deny that it can\nbe subject to that force after seeing how it tosses about the earth 2\nwith its mountains, houses, and walls and towers, and great cities\nwith their inhabitants, seas, and whole coast-lines? The tension of\nair is proved, too, by its velocity and expansion. Illustrations of\nthese properties are common: in an instant the eye extends its sight\nover many miles; a single voice resounds at the same moment through\nwhole cities; light does not creep forth little by little, but is shed\nsimultaneously over the whole world.\n\n [41] The reading at several points is so uncertain that one cannot\n be at all sure of the meaning. Probably the whole passage is very\n corrupt. So far as the main theme is concerned, the argument seems to\n be, As mobility is a presupposition of motion, so tensibility is a\n necessary condition of actual tension produced in a body by another\n body. One is tempted to employ \u201celasticity,\u201d but the term contains\n implications with which the author was apparently unfamiliar.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nAgain, how could water be subject to tension without the aid of 1\nair? You entertain no doubt, I suppose, that the jet of water in the\namphitheatre, which is thrown from the centre of the arena to the\nhighest pinnacle, is accompanied by tension of the water? And yet\nneither hand[42] nor any other engine can send or force water more\neffectively than air. It lends itself readily to the influence of the 2\nair, by the compelling force of which within the pipe it is raised. Its\nnature is to flow down, but under pressure it mounts and accomplishes\ngreat results contrary to its nature. Yes, and do not heavily laden\nvessels also prove that it is the resistance of air, not of water, that\nprevents their sinking? The water of itself would give way, and would\nbe unable to bear up the burthens, were it not itself upborne. So,\ntoo, a quoit thrown from a height into a pond does not fall straight 3\nin, but recoils, and that merely because the air bears it back. In\nwhat way, again, could the sound of a voice be transmitted through the\nthick barrier of a wall unless the solid masonry contained some air to\nreceive and transmit the sound from without? The tension of the air,\nof course, affects not only what is exposed, but what is concealed\nand enclosed as well. This is easy for it to do, since it is never 4\ndivided, but maintains an unbroken continuity even through the centre\nof objects by which it appears to be parted. The interposition of walls\nand high mountains renders it impassable by us, but is no obstacle to\nitself. The air is there all the same,[43] but a portion is enclosed\nand we cannot follow it through; that\u2019s all.\n\n [42] A conjecture widely adopted gives \u201ccrane.\u201d\n\n [43] The general sense is clear, but the particular text is uncertain.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nThus the air passes through the middle of an obstacle by which it is 1\napparently divided. It not merely surrounds and encircles all objects,\nbut permeates them likewise. It is shed abroad from the bright ether on\nhigh down to the very earth. It is nimbler and rarer and more exalted\nthan the earth, and no less so than the waters of earth; but, on the\ncontrary, it is thicker and heavier than the ether, and is naturally\ncold and dark, its light and heat coming from without. It is not of\nthe same specific quality in every region, but borrows its qualities\nfrom its surroundings. The highest part of it is extremely dry and 2\nhot, and so, very rare also, from the proximity of the eternal fires,\nthe endless motions of the stars, and the constant revolution of the\nheavens. But the lowest portion next the earth is dense and dark,\nbecause it forms a receptacle for the exhalations of the earth. The\nintermediate portion, in dryness and rarity, runs to neither extreme as\ncompared with the highest and lowest strata, but is colder than either.\nThe reason is this: The higher parts are affected by the heat of the 3\nheavenly bodies that are close by; and again the lower parts are warmed\nin the first place by the earth\u2019s breath which is charged with heat,\nwhile in addition the sun\u2019s rays are reflected from the ground, and as\nfar as the reflection extends it renders the atmosphere kindlier and\nmore genial. Besides, the temperature of the lower air is raised by the\nwarm breath of all animals, trees, and crops, whose life is dependent\non heat. Add to this also fires on the earth, not merely the 4\nartificial ones about which we know, but also those concealed beneath\nit, some of which have ere this broken out, and myriads of which are\nblazing away in the hidden depths incessantly. Add, too, that all the\nfertile parts of the earth have some degree of heat which is exhaled\ninto the air: heat is a condition of generation, the frigid is sterile.\nSo, then, the middle portion of the atmosphere being remote from all\nthese influences abides in its native cold: for air is by nature chilly.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nSuch being the divisions of the atmosphere, I may observe that in 1\nits lowest layer it is most variable, unstable, and changeful. It is\nnear the earth that the air is, so to speak, most enterprising and\nmost long-suffering, as it tosses or is tossed. But withal, it is not\nall affected in the same way, but at different times at different\npoints its different parts are in unrest and turmoil. The reasons\nof the changefulness and inconstancy are in part derived from the\nearth: her position turning hither and thither is a potent factor in\ndetermining the quality of the atmosphere. Other reasons are due to\nthe heavenly bodies, chiefly the sun, whose course directs the year,\nwhose solstices determine winter and summer. Next in importance is the\nmoon\u2019s influence. But even the other stars produce an effect alike on 2\nthe earth and on the air that rests upon the face of the earth. Their\nrising or their corresponding setting and their disturbances cause now\ncold, now rain, now other damage such as earth is subject to.\n\nIt was necessary for me to make these preliminary remarks before going\non to speak of thunder and thunderbolts and lightnings. For as these\nphenomena occur in the atmosphere, I had to explain the nature of\nthe latter, that it might more readily appear what active or passive\ncapacities it possessed.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nThere are, I have just said, three phenomena--lightnings, 1\nthunderbolts, thunderings: the last is simultaneous in occurrence with\nthe others, but its sound reaches us subsequently. Lightning (_i.e._\nsheet) merely reveals fire, the thunderbolt (forked lightning) actually\ndespatches it on its mission. The former is, so to speak, a threatening\nand feint without a blow, the latter a stroke and a blow. There are\nsome of the facts connected with the phenomena of thunder and lightning\non which there is general agreement, others on which there is much\ndiversity of opinion. For example, there is agreement that they 2\noccur in the clouds and issue from the clouds; further, it is agreed\nthat lightning of both kinds is either composed of fire or at any rate\npresents the appearance of fire. But to pass on to the points which are\ndisputed--some authorities believe that the fire is actually resident\nin the clouds, some that it is merely produced for the occasion,\nand that it does not exist until it issues out. But yet there is no\nagreement as to what brings out the fire. One explains it as due to 3\nlight. Again, a certain author says that the sun\u2019s rays accumulate\nthrough recurrent intersection, and kindle the fire. Anaxagoras asserts\nthat it is distilled from the ether, that from such heat in the sky\nmany sparks fall which the clouds enclose and retain for a long time.\n\nAristotle supposes that the fire does not gather in the clouds any long\ntime previously, but rather that it bursts out at the same instant\nas it is formed. His opinion runs thus: Two elements of the world, 4\nland and water, lie in its lower part; each exhales its peculiar\nemanation. The vapour of earth is dry, resembling smoke, and produces\nwind, thunder, and lightning; the breath of water, on the other hand,\nis moist, and produces rain and snow. But that dry vapour from the\nearth, to which [as mentioned] winds owe their origin, on account\nof its accumulation in large masses, is subject to violent lateral\npressure when it is condensed for the formation of clouds. Thereupon\nit strikes the adjacent clouds over a larger surface, and the blow 5\nreverberates loudly [in thunder]. The effect is analogous to that\nproduced by the crackling of flame from the moisture contained in green\nunseasoned firewood. In this case the air enclosed in the wood has some\nmoisture in it, and when it accumulates it bursts out in the flame. So\nlikewise the air which, as I said a little ago, is driven out through\na collision of two clouds, cannot burst or leap out without noise. The\nsound varies according to the variety of impact in the clouds; the 6\nlarger cavity in some clouds, the smaller in others account for the\nvariety. That air violently driven out is fire, which is called sheet\nlightning when it forms a fitful flame of no great violence. We see the\nflash before we can hear the sound: eyesight is swifter than hearing,\nand far outstrips it.\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\n\nThe mistakenness of the opinion that the fire is stored up in the 1\nclouds may be inferred from many considerations. For example, if the\nfire merely falls from the sky, why does it not do so every day from\nthe glowing mass that is constantly up there? Then, again, the theory\ngives no explanation of the downward course of the fire, an element\nwhich naturally rises. Fires on earth from which embers fall belong to\na different category; the embers possess a certain amount of weight,\nwhich carries them down. Fire cannot descend in the same way, but must\nbe forced or conducted down. Nothing analogous to a terrestrial fire 2\ncan take place in that pure ethereal fire which contains nothing that\ncan carry it down to earth. Otherwise, if any portion of it fall down,\nthe whole is endangered; for anything susceptible of gradual diminution\npiecemeal may evidently also fall in a mass. Besides, if an element\nwhose lightness habitually prevents its fall contain any weight in its\nhidden depths, how could it maintain itself in the place whence it\nfell? But, it is urged, are not certain forms of fire wont to descend\ninto the lower parts of air very much like these bolts of lightning\nthat we are investigating? Admitted. Only they are conveyed, they do 3\nnot proceed of themselves. Some force not resident in the ether carries\nthem down. For in the ether no violent compulsion, no breach, no\ninterruption of the wonted continuity, can occur. It preserves a fixed\nsuccession; its fire cleansed of impurity claims the upper regions as\nits own, and performs its functions in preservation of the universe\nwith beautiful precision. It cannot leave its place, no, nor even be\nthrust from it by external force, because no disturbing body can find\nlodgment in ether. Its fixed and ordered composition renders conflict\nimpossible.\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\n\nSome of your friends the philosophers, a critic may say to me, in 1\ngiving an explanation of shooting stars have told us that some parts\nof the atmosphere contract fire which is drawn from these same higher\nregions, and that the fires are kindled by the glow of the ether.\nYes, but I reply that it makes all the difference whether the fire is\nalleged to fall from the ether, which is incompatible with its nature;\nor whether it is asserted that from its fierce glow the heat leaps the\nboundary between it and the lower regions, firing them by its power.\nFor on the latter assumption, the fire does not fall from the upper\nregion, which is impossible, but is kindled in the lower. Surely, too,\nwhen a widely spread conflagration occurs in one of our cities, we 2\nsee detached blocks which have for long been heated by the fire from a\ndistance at last catch fire of themselves. So in the upper atmosphere,\nwhich is endowed with the power of drawing fire, in all probability\nthere are cases of ignition from the heat of the superposed ether. In\nnature there is never a sudden transition from one element to a totally\ndifferent one. Hence there must be some congruity between lowest ether\nand highest atmosphere; conversely highest atmosphere cannot be wholly\ndissimilar to lowest ether. On the confines the two elements pass so\nimperceptibly into one another that at a particular point there might\nwell be doubt whether one is in atmosphere or in ether.\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\n\nSome of the Stoics believe that air, being interchangeable with other\nelements such as fire and water, does not derive from without a fresh\ncause of fire; it kindles itself by its internal motion. Then in\ndissipating masses of thick, compact clouds it necessarily emits a\nloud noise from the bursting of such large bodies. Besides, the very\nconflict of the resisting clouds contributes to the energy of the\nfire. In the same way the hand contributes to the cutting power of an\ninstrument, but the actual cutting is done by the steel.\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\n\nLet me now explain the difference between the flash and the bolt of\nlightning which you naturally wish to know. The flash is the fire\nwidely spread out, the bolt is the condensed fire hurled with violence.\nLet me use a homely illustration. We sometimes join our two hands in\norder to take up water in them; then we squeeze our palms together\nand squirt out the water like a syringe. Imagine something like this\nto take place in the clouds. When they are compressed the restricted\nspace drives out the air between them, setting it on fire at the same\ntime, and hurling it forth like a cannon ball. The missiles from our\nbalistae[1] and scorpions[44] give forth a loud noise as they are\nhurled.\n\n [44] The ancient counterparts of cannon.\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\n\nA certain number of writers are of opinion that the air of itself emits\na report as it traverses the cold and moist regions. Iron, they point\nout, when heated cannot be dipped in moisture without noise. A mass of\nheated metal when plunged in water causes a loud sputtering as it is\ncooled; so, according to Anaximenes, air meeting cloud produces peals\nof thunder; then as it rushes struggling through the obstructions that\nbar its way it kindles the flame of lightning merely by its escape.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII\n\n\nAnaximander refers all the phenomena of thunder to air. Peals of\nthunder are, he says, the sounds of blows on a cloud. He explains\nthe inequality of the peals by the inequality of the blows. To the\nquestion, why it thunders in a clear sky also, he answers that even\nin absence of cloud the atmosphere is shaken and rent by the bursting\nforth of air. But why is there thunder sometimes and yet no lightning?\nThe rarity and feebleness of the air render it incapable of producing\nflame, while yet sufficient to produce sound. Lightning, according\nto him, then, is really a disturbance where the atmosphere is merely\nparted and rushes hither and thither, displaying a faint fire that will\nnot issue from its place. As for the thunderbolt, it is the career of\nthe more active and denser air.\n\n\n\n\nXIX\n\n\nAnaxagoras says all the phenomena correspond to the descent of some 1\nforce from the ether to the lower regions. So when the fire encounters\ncold clouds it emits a sound; when it cleaves them there is a flash;\nless violence in the fires produces lightning, greater, thunderbolts. 2\n\n\n\n\nXX\n\n\nDiogenes of Apollonia asserts that thunder arises in some cases from 1\nfire, in some from air. Fire precedes those it produces, to herald\nthem. Those that are attended with rattling noise, but without flash,\nare produced by air. Either sound or flash, I grant, can and sometimes\ndoes occur without the other. Still, their powers are not distinct,\neach may be produced by each. For will any one say that air borne\nwith great violence, when it can produce sound, will not also produce\nfire? Will not every one grant, too, that fire as well as air may 2\nsometimes burst the clouds without darting from them, for example, if\nit has burst through a few of the clouds, but is buried beneath an\naccumulation of them? So fire will pass into air, and lose its shining\nappearance in cutting through some cloudy obstacles and kindling\nwhat is within. Add now another inevitable result--the rush of the\nthunderbolt sends out blasts of air and drives them before it, and\nraises a wind behind it through the great extent of its impact on the\natmosphere. Thus, through the vibration caused by the wind which the\nfire drives in front of it, all objects quiver before they are actually\nstruck by the bolt of lightning.\n\n\n\n\nXXI\n\n\nWe must now dismiss our tutors and try to walk alone as we pass on 1\nfrom what is admitted to what is debatable in this subject. What is to\nbe classed as admitted? It is admitted that the thunderbolt is fire\nof some kind; similarly with the lightning flash, which is simply\nflame ready to become a bolt if it had more strength. The difference\nbetween the two is not in character but in force. The fiery nature of\nthe bolt is proved by its heat. Apart from that, its effects prove it,\nfor it has often been the cause of great conflagrations. Forests and 2\nportions of cities have been burnt to ashes by it. Even objects that\nare not struck are yet seen to be scorched, some are discoloured as if\nby smoky grime. Then, again, everything that lightning strikes has the\nsmell of sulphur. And so it is beyond dispute that both phenomena are a\nform of fire, and that they differ merely in their method of movement.\nA flash is a bolt that has not strength to carry it down to the 3\nearth. And conversely you may say that the bolt is a flash that has\nbeen conveyed right down to the ground. It is not for the purpose of\nrefinement of terms that I deal at some length with them, but in order\nto prove the phenomena related and of the same category and character.\nA bolt is something more than a flash. Inverting the statement, a flash\nis all but a bolt.\n\n\n\n\nXXII\n\n\nNow that it is agreed that the two things are both fire, let us see 1\nhow fire arises on earth, for no doubt the same method prevails aloft.\nThere are two common methods of producing fire--one by striking it out,\nas, for example, from a stone; the other by the more tedious method\nof friction, as when two pieces of wood are rubbed together for some\ntime. It is, of course, not every kind of substance that gives the\ndesired result; you must choose one suitable for giving out fire, for\nexample, laurel, ivy, and other trees familiar to shepherds for this\npurpose. Probably, therefore, clouds may in the same way emit fire\neither from a blow or from friction. Consider for a moment the force\nwith which squalls rush forth, the impetuous eddying revolution of 2\nthe whirlwind. Anything that encounters a missile from an engine of war\nis scattered and removed and driven far from its position. What wonder,\nthen, that such violence in the wind extracts fire either from some\nexternal object or merely from itself? You can readily see what a glow\nall neighbouring bodies grazed by its passage must receive. But the\nforce of storms cannot for a moment be compared with the energy of the\nheavenly bodies, whose immense power is beyond question.\n\n\n\n\nXXIII\n\n\nPerchance, too, when the wind only blows softly and exerts no great 1\nforce, the clouds, wafted against each other, will emit fire strong\nenough to show a gleam, though not to issue from them. Less force is\nrequired for lightning than for the thunderbolt. We found above what a\nglow the friction of certain woods caused. Now when the air, which is\ninterchangeable with fire, [has been changed in full force into fire 2\nand][45] undergoes friction, it is credible and even probable that fire\nis struck out, but of an evanescent and transitory character, as it\narises from no solid material and has no fuel in which it can lodge. It\ntherefore quickly passes; its duration is no longer than its route and\ncourse; it has nothing to support it when hurled forth into space.\n\n [45] These words seem of more than doubtful genuineness.\n\n\n\n\nXXIV\n\n\nBut how, you ask me, when you philosophers say that it is the nature 1\nof fire to rise, does the bolt seek the earth? Perhaps what you said\nabout fire is not true? It seems to take its course down as well as up.\n\nBoth my statements, I reply, may be true. Fire naturally does rise\nand mounts if nothing prevents it, just as water naturally gravitates\ndownwards. But water if affected by a force which drives it uphill is\npressed up in the direction from which it was precipitated in rain. In\nlike manner the same force as launched the bolt from the cloud causes\nit to fall to the ground. Something of the same kind happens to these 2\ncelestial fires as to trees when bent. The topmost branches if slender\nmay be dragged down so as to touch the ground; but when you let them\ngo, they rebound to their original position. You must not regard the\ncondition which an object involuntarily assumes as characteristic of\nit. If you allow fire to go where it will, it will return to the sky,\nthe abode of all the lightest bodies. But when there is anything to\ncarry it down and divert it from its natural course, that is not a mark\nof its disposition but a token of its subjection.\n\n\n\n\nXXV\n\n\nYou and your friends say, an objector interposes, that clouds emit fire\nthrough mutual friction when they are moist, indeed wet. How can such\nclouds produce fire, which is no more likely to be generated by a cloud\nthan by pure water?\n\n\n\n\nXXVI\n\n\nWell, first of all, the fire which is thus produced is, as it is 1\nfound in the clouds, not water, but thick air, adapted for the\ngenerating of water; it is not yet changed into it, but is already\ninclined toward, and ready for, the change. There is no ground for\nsupposing that water is first gathered in the clouds and afterwards\nshed from them. It falls simultaneously with its formation. But in\nthe second place, though I grant that the cloud is moist and charged\nwith fully formed water, still there is nothing to prevent fire being\ndrawn from what is moist, yes--and what will surprise you more to\nlearn--out of pure moisture. Some authorities have actually affirmed 2\nthat nothing can be converted into fire without a prior change into\nwater. A cloud, then, without prejudice to the water it may contain,\nmay emit fire at some part of it, just as often one end of a log is\nblazing while the other exudes moisture. I do not deny that fire and\nwater are opposing elements and that the one destroys the other. But\nwhere the fire is stronger than the water it wins the day. On the\nother hand, where there is a superabundant supply of moisture, then\nfire is powerless. That is why green wood won\u2019t burn. The result\ndepends, therefore, on the quantity of water present. If it is small,\nno effectual resistance is offered, the fire is not prevented. Why, 3\naccording to Posidonius\u2019 account, when an island rose in the Aegean Sea\nlong ago in our forefathers\u2019 days, the sea was lashed into foam for a\nlong time previously and sent up smoke from its depths. At last fire\nwas emitted, not continuously, but in flames shooting out at intervals,\nafter the fashion of thunderbolts, just as often as the fervent heat\nof what lay below had overcome the weight of water above it. By and by\nboulders were thrown up and rocks, part of them still unimpaired, 4\nwhich the air had thrust out before their calcination, part of them\ncorroded by the fire and changed to light pumice; at last the cone of\na blasted mountain issued from the waves. Subsequently, there was an\naddition to its height, and the rock grew in extent into an island.\nThe same thing happened within our own recollection during the second\nconsulship of Valerius Asiaticus.\n\nWhy have I narrated these incidents? My purpose was to make it 5\nevident that neither is fire necessarily extinguished by having the\nwhole sea poured over it, nor its violence prevented from bursting out\nby the weight of huge waves. Asclepiodotus, a pupil of Posidonius, has\nleft it on record that the height to which the fire mounted, after\novercoming the resistance of the waves, was a hundred fathoms. Now,\nif such a huge mass of water was unable to overcome the force of the\nflames that rose from its depths, how much less can the thin, dewy\nmoisture in the clouds extinguish fire in the atmosphere? In short, the 6\nmoisture of the clouds is so far from presenting any obstacle to the\nformation of fire that lightning is never seen to flash except when\nthe sky threatens rain. A clear sky has no bolts to hurl. No terror\nof that sort proceeds from a bright day, nor for the matter of that\nfrom a night that is not enveloped in cloud. But what! I hear some one\nsay. Does it not sometimes lighten in a calm night when the stars are\nvisible? It does, but you must remember that there are clouds all the 7\nsame in that quarter whence issues the flash; only, the earth\u2019s hump\ndoes not allow them to be seen by us. Add, too, what is quite possible,\nthat low clouds near the earth may produce fire through friction. This\nfire when forced up to the upper regions becomes visible in the clear\nbright part of the sky, but none the less its place of origin was in\nthe dark vicinity of earth.\n\n\n\n\nXXVII\n\n\nSome writers have distinguished different kinds of thunder, saying 1\nthere was one kind with a deep growl like that which precedes an\nearthquake, when the wind moans and tries to burst its prison walls,\nLet me tell you how they suppose this kind of thunder to arise. When\nthe clouds have enclosed air, it rolls through their cavernous depths\nand emits a hoarse, regular, continuous sound like bellowing. So also\nwhen that quarter of the heavens is charged with moisture, its exit is\nprevented until the thunder begins. Therefore, thunder of this kind 2\nis a sure sign that rain is to follow. There is another kind, which is\nsharp, and it might be described more accurately as a crackling than as\na regular sound; it resembles the report one hears when a bladder is\nburst over some one\u2019s head. Such thunder is the result of the breaking\nup of a densely massed cloud and the release of the air by which it\nwas inflated. This is appropriately named a peal, sudden and violent.\nWhen it occurs, people collapse and are sometimes literally frightened\nto death by it; others retain life, but are dazed and completely lose\ntheir wits: we call them thunder-struck, for that sound in the heavens\nhas quite unhinged their minds. This sound may also be produced by 3\nthe atmosphere shut up in a hollow cloud being rarefied, merely through\nmotion, and expanded. By and by in seeking more room for itself it\nresounds against the walls that envelop it. In fact, is it not just\nsimilar to the applause given out by the clapping of the hands? only,\nwhen the clouds collide, the sounds may be expected to correspond in\nvolume to the greatness of the encountering bodies.\n\n\n\n\nXXVIII\n\n\nBut clouds, says some one, are seen striking upon mountains. without 1\ncausing any sound. How is that consistent with your theory? Well, in\nthe first place, a sound is not caused by any and every method of cloud\ncollision, but only when there is an arrangement of their position\nsuitable for producing a sound. Striking the backs of the hands does\nnot produce clapping, but the contact of palm with palm does. It makes\na great difference, too, whether the clouds that strike are hollow,\nor flat and extended. In the second place, the clouds must not merely\ndrift, as against a mountain, but be driven with great tempestuous\nviolence. Besides, a mountain does not cut through a cloud, it merely 2\ndisperses it by displacing the successive front layers of it. Even a\nbladder does not give a report irrespectively of the method in which it\nemits the air in it; it depends on the way in which the air escapes.\nIf the bladder is cut with a knife, the air is emitted without the ear\nperceiving it. It must be burst, not cut, in order to give a report.\nThe same, I assert, holds in regard to the clouds: they emit no peal\nunless broken up with great violence. Besides, clouds driven against a\nmountain are not broken up, but merely pour round certain parts of 3\nthe mountain, tree branches, shrubs, and rough projecting boulders.\nThey are rent thereby, and emit by numerous exits whatever air they may\ncontain; but there is no rattle unless the air all burst out at once.\nIn proof of this, bear in mind that the wind blowing through a tree, 4\nwhich cuts it, hisses but does not roar. A broad blow, so to speak,\nthat dissipates the whole mass at once, is required in order to the\nemission of a sound such as is heard when there is thunder.\n\n\n\n\nXXIX\n\n\nMoreover, the atmosphere is by constitution adapted to the transmission\nof sound.[46] Of necessity this is so, since sound is nothing but an\nimpact of the atmosphere. The clouds that [as indicated] are completely\nrent must therefore be hollow and taut. One sees how much more resonant\nempty vessels are than full, and distended ones than slack. So this\naccounts for the sound of tambourines and cymbals; the former resound\nbecause the blow upon the air is resisted at the farther side; the\nlatter are beaten against the air directly, but unless there were a\ncavity in the instrument it would not tinkle.\n\n [46] The specific word _vox_ = voice is used in the text.\n\n\n\n\nXXX\n\n\nSome authors, including Asclepiodotus, are convinced that thunder 1\nand lightning may also be produced by the collision of certain solid\nbodies. Once Etna was in violent eruption and cast up a huge quantity\nof burning sand. The daylight was veiled with the cloud of dust, and\nsudden night terrified the world. On that occasion, they allege,\nthere was much thunder and lightning, produced, they maintain, by\nthe concourse of dry bodies, not of clouds: with such a glow in the\nfirmament there probably were no clouds at all. Cambyses once sent an\narmy to the temple of Jupiter Ammon in the desert. The sand raised by 2\nthe south wind fell on it like snowflakes, first covering and finally\noverwhelming it. Probably on that occasion also there was thunder and\nlightning, caused by the mutual friction of the particles of sand. Such\na view is not inconsistent with my contention above. I have said that 3\nthe earth\u2019s exhalations contain bodies of two kinds, dry and moist,\nportions of which roam through the whole expanse of the atmosphere.\nSo if any heavy element be introduced, it makes a cloud thicker and\nmore solid than if its texture were of pure air exclusively. Such a\n[solid] cloud may burst with a loud report. The elements I have 4\nmentioned, whether they have charged the atmosphere with moist fires or\nwith earth-sweeping winds, must produce a cloud before they produce a\nreport. Dry elements no less than moist may make up a cloud. For cloud,\nas we have already said, is just a condensation of thick air.\n\n\n\n\nXXXI\n\n\nBut further, if you will but open your eyes to them, there are 1\nmarvellous effects in lightning that leave no doubt that a subtle\ndivine power is inherent in it. For example, coins are fused while\nthe purse containing them is uninjured and intact. A sword is melted\nwhile the sheath remains. The iron point is fused in a javelin, but\nthe wooden shaft suffers no damage. The jar is smashed and the wine\nfrozen, but the stiffness does not last for more than three days.\nThere are other no less notable effects of lightning. The head of 2\nman or other animal struck by it always points in the direction whence\nthe lightning issued: the twigs of all trees that are struck rise\nstraight up in the direction of the lightning. Let me add, too, when\nvenomous serpents or other animals whose bite is fatal are struck with\nlightning, all the poison disappears. How, you say, can I tell that? In\nthe dead bodies of poisonous animals worms are not produced. But when\nstruck with lightning they breed worms within a few days.\n\n\n\n\nXXXII\n\n\nLightning portends the future, too. Nor do the signs it gives refer 1\nto only one or two events. Often a complete series of fate\u2019s succeeding\ndecrees is intimated, with proof, too, plain to demonstration, far more\ndistinct than if it were recorded in writing. There are differences\nof interpretation, however, between our countrymen and the Tuscans,\nthe latter of whom possess consummate skill in the explanation of the\nmeaning of lightning. We think that because clouds collide, therefore 2\nlightning is emitted; they hold that clouds collide in order that\nlightning may be emitted. They refer everything to the will of God:\ntherefore they are strong in their conviction that lightning does not\ngive an indication of the future because it has occurred, but occurs\nbecause it is meant to give this indication. Whether the indication is\nits purpose or its consequence makes no difference in the method of its\noccurrence. How, then, do they give indication unless they are sent by\nGod? Just in the same way as birds give favourable or unfavourable 3\nomens, though they are not moved on their flight for the express\npurpose of meeting us. God moves them too, it is urged. You imagine He\nhas so little to do that He can attend to trifles of this sort, if you\nwill have Him arrange visions for one, entrails of victims for another.\n\nNevertheless, all those things are managed by Divine agency, not, 4\nhowever, in the sense that the wings of birds are immediately directed\nby God, or the bowels of cattle arranged by Him in certain forms under\nthe priest\u2019s axe. It is in far other way that the roll of fate is\nunfolded; it sends ahead in all directions intimations of what is to\nfollow, which are in part familiar, in part unknown to us. Everything\nthat happens is a sign of something that is going to happen: mere\nchance occurrences uncontrolled by any rational principle do not\nadmit of the application of divination. An event that belongs to a 5\nseries thereby becomes capable of being predicted. But why, then, is\nthe honour conferred upon the eagle of giving omens concerning great\nevents? or a similar function assigned to the raven and a very few\nother birds, while all the rest give no presage by their notes? The\nreason simply is that some departments have not yet been brought within\nthe sphere of the art of augury, while some are incapable of ever being\nbrought within it, because our acquaintance with them is too slight.\n\nAs a matter of fact, there is no living creature whose movement or 6\nmeeting with us does not foretell something. Of course, only some, not\nall, can be observed. The omen lies in the observation. So it concerns\nthe person who directs his attention to it. But other things as well\nconcern him, though they pass unheeded. For instance, the Chaldaeans\nconfined their observation to the five great planets. But do you\nsuppose that the influence of so many thousands of other bright stars\nis naught? The essential error of those who pretend to skill in 7\ncasting the horoscope lies in limiting our destinies to the influence\nof a few of the stars, while all that float above us in the heavens\nclaim some share in us. Perchance the lower stars exert their force\non us more directly; and[47] the same may be true of the stars that\nby reason of their more frequent movements turn their view upon man\nin a different way from that in which it is turned upon other living\ncreatures. But even those stars that are either stationary or, from\ntheir velocity being the same as that of the world as a whole, seem\nto be so, are not without sway and dominion over us. Add one other 8\nconsideration and you have the subject set out with due arrangement of\nits parts:[48] it is not more easy to ascertain what the power of the\nstars is than justifiable to doubt that they possess such power.\n\n [47] Or, Turn their view upon man no less than on the other living\n creatures now from one point, now from another, _i.e._ under more\n varied aspects. The passage is doubtful. The general sense is plain:\n nearness, frequency of appearance, and variety of aspect severally\n are or may be special factors in determining a star\u2019s influence on\n the fate of man.\n\n [48] The text is corrupt and the sense more or less conjectural.\n Ruhkopf suggests that the words may have been transferred from some\n other passage to this. One would be inclined to suspect that _adjice_\n = add, instead of _aspice_ = see, regard, is the correct word at the\n beginning of the sentence.\n\n\n\n\nXXXIII\n\n\nTo return now to lightning: the art relating to it falls into three\ndivisions--its observation, its interpretation, its deprecation. The\nfirst has regard to the category in which it should be placed, the\nsecond to divination, the third to the propitiation of the gods, whose\nblessings we ought to ask and whose threats we must avert by prayer.\nWe must ask them to fulfil their promises, pray them to remit their\nthreats.\n\n\n\n\nXXXIV\n\n\nPeople are convinced that lightning possesses sovereign power, 1\nbecause its occurrence destroys the force of other portents. On the\nother hand, whatever it portends is regarded as unalterable, and the\nappearance of no other omen lessens its import. Anything threatened\nby unfavourable entrails or inauspicious birds will be cancelled by\nfavourable lightning. But any warning given by lightning cannot be\ndefeated by opposing entrail or omen. Now this belief seems to me\nmistaken. My reason? Simply that nothing can be truer than the truth. 2\nIf birds have truly foretold the future, the omen cannot be nullified\nby lightning: if it can, then it was not a true prophecy the birds\nuttered. It is not bird and lightning whose force I am here comparing,\nbut two revelations of truth, which must be equal in authority if\nthey are equally intimations of truth. Therefore, if the occurrence\nof lightning destroys the indications given by priests or augurs,\nthere must have been a flaw in the inspection of the entrails or the\nobservation of the auguries. It is not a question of which of the 3\ntwo kinds of omen possesses the more exalted or powerful character:\nif both have furnished indications of truth, they are so far equal.\nYou would be quite justified in asserting that the power of flame\nwas greater than that of smoke; but flame has just the same power as\nsmoke, and no more, in giving indication of the existence of fire. So\nif the statement is confined to the assertion of the greater authority\nof lightning on occasions when the entrails give one indication and\nlightning a different one, I shall perhaps agree. But if the statement\ngo on to affirm that although other signs have foretold the truth, 4\nyet the lightning stroke has destroyed all that went before and claims\ncredit only for itself, then the statement is untrue. And for this\nreason: the mere number of the auspices makes no difference. Fate is\nbut one. If it was rightly understood through the first auspice, it\nis not destroyed through the second; it remains just the same. And so\nI say again it does not matter whether the means of our inquiry (=\nauspice) is the same or different, since the object of the inquiry\nremains the same.\n\n\n\n\nXXXV\n\n\nFate cannot be changed by lightning. And why? Lightning is itself 1\na part of fate. Well, then, it may be asked, what is the good of\nexpiation and atonement if the fates are immutable? Let me uphold the\nrigid sect that takes exception to such rites and regards vows as but\ncomfort to a breast ill at ease. The fates perform their function in a\nfar different way from that supposed; they are not moved by any prayer\nnor changed by pity nor by favour. The course they hold is irrevocable;\nonce they have entered upon it they flow on by unalterable decree. 2\nAs the water of rushing cataracts returns not upon itself, nor yet\nlingers, since each succeeding wave drives headlong that which went\nbefore; so the order of events is rolled on by the eternal succession\nof fate, whose first law it is to abide by its decrees.\n\n\n\n\nXXXVI\n\n\nFor what is one to understand as meant by fate? I suppose it is the 1\nbinding necessity of all events and actions, a necessity that no force\ncan break. If you believe that such a power can be prevailed upon to\nchange through sacrifice or the head of a snow-white lamb, you know\nlittle about the Divine dispensation. You say that even a wise man 2\ndoes not change his mind: how much less is God a man that he should\nchange? Even the wise man knows what is best under present conditions;\nto the Divine wisdom everything is present. Still, I wish, for the\nmoment, to advocate the views of those who hold that atonement should\nbe made for lightning, and who have no doubt that expiation is of\navail, now to remove dangers, now to mitigate them, now to delay them.\n\n\n\n\nXXXVII\n\n\nIn a little I will follow up what I have said and show the 1\nconsequences involved. Meantime we have so much in common with the\npersons last mentioned in holding that vows are of service, but without\nprejudice to the power and sway of fate. Some things are, in fact,\nleft by the immortal gods in such a state of suspense as to turn to\nthe advantage of worshippers if they employ prayer to heaven and take\nvows upon them. This, then, is so far from being opposed to fate that\nit is actually a part of fate. But my opponent argues thus: an event is\neither going or is not going to take place. If it is going to, then 2\nit will take place, even though you take no vows upon you. If it is not\ngoing to, then it won\u2019t, even though you take the vows. The dilemma, I\nreply, is no valid one: you overlook an alternative that lies between\nthose horns of yours. This, say I, will take place, but not unless vows\nhave been taken upon those concerned. This, too, one may say, must be\nincluded in the order of fate, either that you undertake the vows or\nthat you do not.\n\n\n\n\nXXXVIII\n\n\nSuppose that I surrender at discretion and admit that it is likewise 1\nincluded in fate that vows be assuredly performed. Then for that\nreason they will be performed. It is fated that a man be eloquent, but\nonly if he use due means and apply himself to study. The same destiny\nenjoins that he should study; therefore he will study. Another will be\nrich, but he must first go to sea. But in the order of fate in which\nhe is promised a great fortune, it is also decreed that he go to sea;\ntherefore he will go to sea. In regard to expiation, I apply just 2\nthe same principle. A man is fated to escape danger if he expiate the\nthreats foretold by heaven. But it is likewise contained in fate that\nhe offer expiation; therefore he will offer it.\n\nAn objection is usually urged against this view which seeks to prove\nthat no freedom of will is on this assumption left to us, all sway\nis handed over to fate. When I come to treat of that subject, I will\nexplain how, without infringing the power of fate, something may still\nbe left to human choice. For the nonce, I have explained the point at 3\nissue, viz. how, consistently with an order fixed by fate, perils from\nprodigies may be averted through expiation and sacrifice, inasmuch as\nthey do not conflict with fate, but, on the contrary, are assumed by\nthe very law of fate. What benefit, then, you say, can I derive from\na soothsayer? In any case I must of necessity offer expiation, even\nthough he be not by to advise it. He so far does good in that he is the\ninstrument of fate. In like manner, when recovery from illness seems\nthe work of fate, it is due at the same time to the doctor, because the\nboon of fate passes through his hands in order to reach us.\n\n\n\n\nXXXIX\n\n\nThere are, Caecina says, three kinds of lightning--the counselling, 1\nthe authoritative, and what is called the ordinary. The counselling\noccurs before an event, but after the design is formed. When something\nis simmering in one\u2019s mind, the lightning stroke either urges it or\ndeters from it. The authoritative one succeeds an event, indicating\nits outcome as good or ill fortune. In the ordinary case, people 2\nare busied neither with action nor design when the lightning suddenly\noccurs. The flash conveys either threat, promise, or warning. The\nlast form is indeed called admonitory: I am disposed to think it is\nidentical with the counselling mentioned above. One who warns at\nthe same time counsels. Yet there is a distinction between them.\nTherefore they are put in different classes. The one applies suasion\nor dissuasion, the other is restricted to warning how to avoid\nan impending danger; as, for example, fire, or deception from 3\nneighbours, or a plot by slaves. Besides, I can perceive another\ndifference between the two kinds: if one has a design, then the\nlightning that occurs counsels; but if one has no such design, it\nwarns. Each situation has its own peculiar features. In deliberation\nadvice is appropriate, but a warning comes unsought.\n\n\n\n\nXL\n\n\nOn the face of it, one\u2019s comment on this view would be that these 1\nare so many kinds of prognostications and not of lightning. Of the\nlatter the kinds are the boring, the splitting, and the scorching.\nThe first has a subtle flame, which from its unalloyed purity can win\nescape through the tiniest aperture. The second, which scatters to the\nwinds what it strikes, is massed fire with an admixture of condensed\ntempestuous wind. So the first kind escapes again by the opening by\nwhich it entered. The second spreads wide the effects of its violence,\nit bursts what it strikes, and does not perforate it. The third kind\nmentioned, the scorching, has much earthiness in its composition, 2\nand contains fire rather than flame. It therefore leaves deep scars of\nfire, which will be branded in what it has struck. No lightning, it is\ntrue, that comes to earth is fireless, but this kind is distinctively\ncalled fiery, because it imprints the marks of fire so manifestly, by\neither scorching or staining. It scorches in three different ways,\nthat is, it either breathes on its object, so to speak, inflicting\nslight injury, or burns it right up, or sets it on fire. All those\nare methods of what I have called scorching, differing, however, in\ncharacter and degree. Whatever is, for example, burnt up is necessarily\nscorched as well. But [the converse is not equally true], everything 3\nthat is scorched is not necessarily burnt up. And so with what is set\non fire; it is not necessarily consumed, the fire may merely have\nscorched it in passing. Everybody knows that things may be scorched\nwithout breaking out into fire, but that nothing can break out into\nfire without being scorched. I have only one further remark on the\npoint: an object may be consumed without being set on fire; it may also\nbe set on fire without being consumed.\n\n\n\n\nXLI\n\n\nI pass on now to the kind of lightning that stains objects struck by 1\nit. The staining is either discolouring or colouring, between which I\ndraw a distinction. When the colour is spoiled, without being changed,\nthere is discolouring. On the contrary, there is colouring when the\naspect of an object becomes different in kind from what it was, for\nexample, when it turns dark blue or black or pale. So far the Etruscans\nand the philosophers are in agreement. But disagreement begins when\nthe former go on to assert that lightning is sent by Jupiter, to whom\nthey assign three species of bolt. The first, according to their 2\nstatement, gives a peaceful warning, being sent by Jove\u2019s own counsel.\nThe second is, it is true, sent also by him, but by advice of his\ncouncil, to which he summons the twelve gods as assessors. This bolt\nis no doubt beneficial, but not without doing damage to some extent.\nThe third kind of bolt is still of Jove\u2019s sending, but he summons into\ncouncil the so-called supreme veiled gods. This bolt causes destruction\nof what it encounters, and in particular it changes the existing\ncondition of private and public affairs that it finds. For fire allows\nnothing to remain as it is.\n\n\n\n\nXLII\n\n\nTaking a superficial view one would pronounce these old beliefs all 1\nwrong. What could be more absurd than to believe that Jupiter hurls\nbolts from the clouds, aiming at pillars, trees, aye, and statues of\nhimself sometimes, or that, passing by the sacrilegious unbelievers, he\nstrikes sheep, sets fire to altars, and smites innocent flocks? or can\none imagine that great Jove should call the gods into council, as if\nhe were himself lacking in counsel? Or that those bolts bring promise\nof peace and joy that he hurls unaided, and those cause destruction in\nwhose despatch a greater crowd of deities was concerned? If you ask my 2\nopinion on the point, however, I may tell you that I do not for a\nmoment suppose those people of old were so obtuse as to believe that\nJupiter was evilly disposed or, to say the least of it, insufficiently\nprepared with his missiles. When he issued fiery bolts to pass over\nthe heads of the wicked and strike the innocent, as is alleged, did\nhe, do you suppose, refuse to send them with truer aim, or did he miss\nhis shot? If that cannot be the explanation, what was the idea of\nthose ancients in speaking as they did? Being men of profound wisdom 3\nthey were, in my opinion, of the settled conviction that fear was\nessential to restrain the passions of the ignorant; we must reverence\nsomething higher than ourselves. In a time of such audacious crime it\nwas expedient that there be a belief in something which no criminal\ncould seem powerful enough to resist. And so it was to terrify those\nwretches, against whose passions innocence is no protection unless\nbacked up by fear, that they placed over us in the heavens the image of\nan avenger, and him well armed.\n\n\n\n\nXLIII\n\n\nWhy, therefore, on this assumption, is the bolt that Jupiter sends\nalone, peaceful, while the other is destructive on which he has sought\ncounsel, and which he has sent down with the approval of other gods\nbesides? The reason is that Jupiter, that is, an absolute monarch, when\nacting alone ought to be always a power for good; he should not inflict\ninjury unless when a numerous council has ratified the decision.\nFrom this let all those who have inherited great earthly power learn\nthat not even the bolt of heaven is sent without counsel taken. Let\nthem call to them their advisers, let them ponder the opinions of a\nmultitude of counsellors, let them temper the rigour of their decrees;\nand when some blow must fall, let them not forget that even Jupiter\nneeds more than his own wisdom to guide him.\n\n\n\n\nXLIV\n\n\nNor, again, were the ancient sages so stupid as to suppose that 1\nJupiter changed his missiles. It is only the licence of poetry that can\nwith decency say:\n\n There is another and lighter bolt to which the Cyclopes\u2019 hands\n Have added less of harshness and of flame, less, too, of wrath.\n The dwellers above call them missiles of peace.\n\nThose men of exalted wisdom were undoubtedly not possessed with the 2\ndelusion that Jupiter sometimes employs lighter bolts, weapons of the\npractising school, so to speak. Their object was to warn those who\nhave to direct their bolts against the sins of men, that all offences\nare not to be visited after the same fashion: some offenders must be\ncrushed, some censured and lightly punished, some[49] dismissed with an\nadmonition.\n\n [49] _Admoneri_ = to be admonished, seems necessary, instead of\n the authoriser _admoveri_, to which it is impossible to attach any\n satisfactory meaning in this connection. The word means to be moved\n towards; _amoveri_ = to be removed, would make sense.\n\n\n\n\nXLV\n\n\nNor yet did these ancient sages believe that the Jupiter we worship 1\nin the Capitol and the rest of the temples ever really hurled\nthunderbolts from his hand. They recognised the same Jupiter as we do,\nthe guardian and ruler of the universe, its soul and breath, the maker\nand lord of this earthly frame of things, to whom every name of power\nis appropriate. If you prefer to call him fate, you will not be wrong.\nHe it is on whom depend all things, from whom proceed all causes of\ncauses. If you prefer to call him providence, you will still be right;\nfor he it is by whose counsel provision is made for the world that 2\nit may pursue its orderly course and unfold the drama of its being.\nIf you prefer to call him nature, you will make no mistake; for it is\nhe from whom all things derive being, and by whose breath we live. If\nyou prefer to call him the world, you will not be in error; for he is\neverything that you can see, he is wholly infused in all his parts,\nself-sustained through inherent power. The Etruscans thought so too.\nThey said bolts were sent by Jove, just because nothing is performed\nexcept by his power.\n\n\n\n\nXLVI\n\n\nBut, you ask, why does Jupiter pass over the guilty and strike the\ninnocent? That is too big a question to enter on here; it shall have\nits own place and time. Meantime I insist on this, that bolts are not\nsent directly by Jupiter, but that all things are so arranged that even\nwhat is not done by him is yet not done without some plan, which plan\nis his. The force of the bolts is a consequence of his permission. For\neven though Jupiter does not make them, he caused them to be made. He\ndoes not superintend every detail; but to all he gives the signal,\nforce, and cause.\n\n\n\n\nXLVII\n\n\nThere is another division of them made to which I cannot agree. They\nare, according to the assertion of some, either constant or limited\nor deferred. The constant are those whose prognostication extends all\nover life, not merely intimating a single occurrence, but embracing the\nseries of coming events through the whole subsequent life. This is the\nkind of bolt that occurs first after entrance on an inheritance, or\nwhen an individual or a city has entered on a new phase of existence.\nLimited ones answer exactly to a definite date. Deferred are those\nwhose threats may be delayed, though they cannot be averted and\ncompletely avoided.\n\n\n\n\nXLVIII\n\n\nI will now state my reasons for disagreeing with this division. One 1\nis that even the bolt which is called constant lasts for a limited\nperiod. Such bolts correspond no less than others to a definite date.\nNor do they cease to be limited because the period they signify is a\nlong one. So, too, what is thought to be deferred is limited. For by\nthe admission of the advocates of this division the period for which\ndelay can be procured is a definite one. Bolts that relate to private\nmatters cannot, according to them, be delayed longer than ten years,\nthose relating to public affairs not more than thirty. So this class,\nas well as the first, is limited, as it includes the date beyond which\nthe prognostication cannot be deferred. There is thus a fixed period 2\nfor bolts and results of every kind. For of what is uncertain there\ncould be no distinct knowledge. Then, too, these people talk in too\nvague and general terms about the points to be noted in lightning. They\nought rather to divide them according to the scheme of the philosopher\nAttalus, who had specialised in this department. The inspection\nshould determine where the lightning occurred, when, to whom, in what\nconnection, of what kind, of what amount. If I were to attempt to\narrange and classify all these, I should just be committing myself to\nan endless task.\n\n\n\n\nXLIX\n\n\nLet me now glance at the names of the lightning adopted by Caecina, 1\nand explain my own opinion of them. He calls one kind imperative, as\nit demands the re-establishment of sacrifices neglected or informally\noffered. Admonitory is the second kind, giving information of what\nmust be guarded against. Pestilential is a kind that portends death or\nexile. Deceptive is that which, under guise of some benefit, inflicts\ninjury; for example, it gives the consulship to some one whose ruin 2\nthe office will prove, or bestows an estate the profit of which\nmust be compensated by some great loss. The avertible, again, bring\nan appearance of danger without real danger. The destructive remove\nthe threats of previous lightning. The attested signify an agreement\nwith former lightning. The earth-borne occur in a covered place. The\noverwhelming strike what was previously struck without due atonement\nhaving been made. The royal smite either the election ground or the 3\ngovernment quarter of a free city; their prognostication threatens a\nfree state with an absolute monarchy. Infernal are when fire issues\nfrom the ground. Hospitable summon or, to use a more polite word,\ninvite Jupiter to share a sacrificial feast with us. If he happen to\nbe angry with his host when he is invited, then his coming, Caecina\nsays, is fraught with danger to his entertainers. Auxiliary come by\nsummons too, but bring good to the summoner.\n\n\n\n\nL\n\nBut how much simpler is the division employed by our distinguished 1\nStoic, Attalus, who combined skill in the Etruscan lore with all the\nsubtlety of Greek thought! Of the different kinds of lightning, he\nsays, one gives intimation of something that concerns us, another kind\nintimates either a thing of no importance or something whose meaning\ndoes not reach us. Of the significant lightning there are several\nvarieties--one is favourable, one unfavourable, a third neither one\nnor other. Of the unfavourable there are all these forms--the evils 2\nportended may be either unavoidable or avoidable, or such as may be\nmitigated, or such as may be delayed. Again, the benefits foretold\nby the favourable may be either abiding or transient. The mixture of\nfavourable and unfavourable may either consist of half and half, good\nand ill; or ill may be turned by them into good, or good into ill.\nThe lightning that is neither unfavourable nor favourable gives us\nintimation of some action by which we need neither be terrified nor\nelated, for example, a journey abroad from which there is nothing\neither to fear or hope.\n\n\n\n\nLI\n\n\nLet me revert for a moment to the lightning that portends something,\nbut a something that does not concern us; for instance, whether the\nsame kind of lightning as has occurred will again occur in the same\nyear. Sometimes lightning contains no indication at all, or one whose\ngrasp eludes us; as, for example, those manifestations of it that are\nscattered through the spaces of the sea or in lonely deserts. Their\nindication, if any, is lost.\n\n\n\n\nLII\n\n\nI have still a few remarks to add in order to show more fully the 1\nforce of lightning in various ways, for its power is not always\ndisplayed in just the same way in every kind of material. For instance,\nthe stronger bodies are shattered with greater violence on account of\ntheir resistance; it sometimes passes through the yielding ones without\ndoing any damage. With stone and iron and all the hard substances\nit enters into conflict, because in its impetuous course it must\nfind a way through them; so it makes a way by which to escape. The\nmore flexible and thinner substances, though they seem very suitable\nmaterial for flames, it spares, mitigating its fury when it encounters\nno obstacle to its passage. And so, as I said at a previous point,\ncoin is found fused, while the purse that contained it is untouched;\nthe extremely thin fire runs through the invisible interstices of the\nlatter. But whatever solidity it meets in a beam it subdues as being\nrefractory. For, as I have just said, its fury does not always 2\ntake the same form; the nature of the force in each case is revealed\nmerely by the kind of the damage, and you can tell the species of the\nlightning by its effect. Again, the force of the same flash produces\nmany varieties of damage in the same material. For example, in a tree\nit scorches any portion that is very dry; what is firm and hard it\nbores through and smashes; the outer bark it scatters, the inner layers\nnearer the centre it bursts and cuts up, the leaves it lashes and\nstrips off. Wine is frozen, iron and copper fused.\n\n\n\n\nLIII\n\n\nIt is a strange fact that when wine that has been thus frozen is used 1\nafter it returns to its liquid state, it either kills or drives mad\nthose who have drunk of it. When one inquires why this effect should be\nproduced, the suggestion presents itself that the lightning contains\na pestilential force, some taint of which probably is left in the\nliquid it has condensed and frozen. Indeed, the substance could never\nhave been solidified had not some bond of cohesion been introduced.\nMoreover, in oil and every kind of unguent there is a foul smell\nafter lightning has touched them. Whence it is manifest that this 2\nsubtle fire, driven in a direction contrary to its nature, contains a\npestilential power, for not only its blow but even its mere breath is\noverwhelming. Moreover, wherever lightning has struck there is sure\nalways to be a smell of sulphur, a substance which, being naturally\npoisonous, causes delirium if breathed too freely. But we shall return\nto this point when we are more at leisure. For I should like some day\nto prove the extent to which the world is indebted to philosophy, the\nparent of the arts, for knowledge of all such matters. She it was that\nfirst both investigated the causes of things and noted their effects.\nShe performed a service far more valuable than the inspection of\nlightning in thus comparing results with the principles from which they\nare derived.\n\n\n\n\nLIV\n\n\nI will at this point revert to Posidonius\u2019 opinion of the cause of 1\nthunder. From the earth and its confines are exhaled certain elements,\npartly moist, partly dry and smoke-like. The latter element remains in\nthe sky as material for lightning, while the former falls in rain. The\ndry smoky particles that reach the atmosphere will not allow themselves\nto be enclosed in clouds, but burst their envelope. Thence comes the\nreport which we name thunder. Besides this, anything in the atmosphere\nitself that is rarefied is at the same time dried and heated up. This\nalso, if it is enclosed, seeks an exit with equal eagerness, and 2\ncauses a report as it escapes. On one occasion it makes a complete\nburst, and the thunder is consequently the more violent; on another it\nescapes by degrees in small portions. Air of this kind, then, by either\nbursting or flying through the clouds, produces peals of thunder. The\nrolling of the air enclosed in a cloud is the most potent cause of\nsetting fire to what is struck.\n\n\n\n\nLV\n\n\nThunder is, in short, simply the report of explosions of dry air, 1\nwhich cannot occur unless there is either friction or a rent in a\ncloud. Posidonius adds that if the clouds merely collide with each\nother, the kind of blow needed to produce an explosion is given,\nbut not completely; clouds do not meet through their whole extent,\nbut only part with part. And again, soft substances do not resound\nunless knocked against hard ones; a wave is not heard unless when it\nbeats on the hard shore. But fire, which is soft, says an opponent,\nwhen let into water, also a soft substance, produces sound in being\nextinguished. Well, suppose it is so, it makes for the opposite view 2\nwhich I urge. For it is not really the fire that makes the sound,\nbut the air escaping through the water that is quenching it. Granted\nthat fire is both produced and extinguished in the cloud, it arises\nfrom air and friction. Well then, it is urged, may not some of the\nshooting stars plunge into a cloud and be extinguished? Even supposing\nthat such a thing can and sometimes does occur, it does not remove\nthe difficulty. It is not the occasional chance cause but the natural\nnormal one that we are in search of. Suppose I admit the truth of your\ncontention that occasionally after thunder fires gleam in the heavens\nmuch like shooting and falling stars. Yet this does not prove that 3\nthe thunder was caused by them; it merely shows that the thunder\noccurred simultaneously with this other phenomenon. Clidemus asserts\nthat a lightning flash is an empty reflection, and not real fire; for\nin the same way after nightfall a gleam appears from the motion of oars\nin water. His illustration is not on all fours with the phenomenon. In\nthe latter case the gleam is seen actually within the water; in the\nformer, in the atmosphere, it bursts and leaps out of its element.\n\n\n\n\nLVI\n\n\nHeraclitus is of opinion that the flash of lightning is the first 1\nattempt of a fire to kindle; just as on earth when the flame is at\nfirst unsteady, now dying down and now darting up again. The ancients\nused to call this summer lightning. We now say in the plural thunder\npeals (_tonitrua_); the ancients said either thunder (_tonitruum_,\nsing.) or merely peal (noise, _tonus_). The foregoing remark I 2\nfind in Caecina, an eloquent man, who would have had a considerable\nreputation as such had he not been overshadowed by Cicero\u2019s towering\nform. Besides, the ancients had other variants of a similar kind. They\nemployed with the penult short the word that we use with it long; we\nsay _fulg\u0113re_ (to lighten) just as we do _splend\u0113re_ (to gleam). But in\norder to denote this sudden burst of light from the clouds their usage\nwas to shorten the middle syllable so as to make it _fulg\u011bre_.\n\n\n\n\nLVII\n\n\nWhat do I think myself about the matter, you ask. For up to this 1\npoint I have been reproducing the opinions of others. Well, I will tell\nyou. There is lightning when light bursts out suddenly and widely.\nThis occurs when the atmosphere has been changed, by the rarefaction\nof the clouds, into fire, which has not gathered strength to issue to\nany considerable distance. There is, I presume, no cause for surprise\neither that movement rarefies air or that rarefaction kindles fire.\nIn the same way a leaden bullet is liquefied when discharged from a\nsling, and falls in drops by reason of atmospheric friction just as\nit would do through fire. Bolts of lightning are more numerous in 2\nsummer, for the reason that there is most heat at that season. Fire\nnaturally starts more readily when the friction is in warmer air. A\nflash of lightning which merely gleams and a bolt which is discharged\nare produced in exactly the same way. But there is less force in the\nformer case and less fuel. To put my opinion on the point shortly: a\nbolt is just lightning in its most intense form. So then, when a body 3\nof the nature of heat or smoke is exhaled from the earth and, meeting\nwith clouds, is for a long time rolled about in their hollows, at last\nit bursts out. Since it possesses no strength, it is merely a flash.\nBut when lightnings have more material and burn with fiercer glow, they\nnot merely become visible, but also fall to the earth.\n\n\n\n\nLVIII\n\n\nSome writers are firmly convinced that the lightning bolt always 1\nreturns to the clouds. Others hold that the bolt settles in the\nground, at least when its fuel is heavy, and when it has comparatively\nlittle force in its stroke as it glides down. But why, it may be\nasked, does the bolt make its appearance suddenly, and is there not a\ncontinuous trail of fire? It is on account of the extreme rapidity of\nits motion; it fires the air at the same moment as it bursts through\nthe cloud. By and by when the motion ceases, the flame subsides. For\nthe course of the air that forms the bolt is intermittent, which 2\nprevents continuity in the fire. As often as the air by its more\nviolent agitation sets itself on fire it conceives an impulse toward\nflight. When the internal conflict has been ended by its escape, it is\nafterwards for the same reason sometimes carried down as far as the\nearth, and sometimes, if urged down with less force, it is dissipated\nin air. Why, again, is the course of the lightning oblique? The\nreason is that the air current of which it is composed is oblique and\ntortuous. Nature summons fire upward, violence presses it downward, 3\nand so it begins to be zigzag. Sometimes, when neither force gives way\nto the other, the fire is at the same moment urged toward the upper and\ndepressed toward the nether regions. Why are the peaks of mountains\nfrequently struck by it? Because they are exposed to the clouds, and\nobjects falling from heaven to earth must pass by way of them.\n\n\n\n\nLIX\n\n\nI know quite well what you have long been anxious to say and what you 1\ndemand. I had rather, you say, get rid of fear of thunderbolts than\nlearn all about them. So you may reserve for others your instruction\nregarding their origin. Let me be delivered from fear of them rather\nthan be informed of their nature. Well, I will follow your invitation,\nfor I quite allow that some moral should be attached to all studies\nand all discourse. As we dive into the secrets of nature and treat 2\nof things in the heavens, the soul must be delivered from its errors\nand from time to time reassured. Even the learned who devote themselves\nexclusively to this pursuit require such reassurance; not in order to\nescape the arrows of fortune, for her missiles are hurled on us from\nevery side, but in order to bear them with resolution and constancy.\nUnvanquished we may be, unassailed we cannot be, though meantime the\nhope sometimes insinuates itself that even this is possible. How? you\nexclaim. Despise death and then everything that leads to death is 3\ndespised, be it war or shipwreck, or the jaws of wild beasts, or the\nweight of roofs rushing down with sudden fall. What more can they do\nthan part the body from the soul? And this parting no care can shun, no\ngood fortune can remove, no power can prevent. Other features in human\nlot are variously assigned; to death\u2019s call all are alike subject. 4\nWhether heaven is propitious or wrathful, die we must.\n\nLet courage be derived from our very despair. The most cowardly of\nanimals which nature has created for flight, if they find no way of\nescape open to them, show fight with their unwarlike body. In fact, no\nfoe is more deadly than one into whom a tight corner has put courage.\nFar more violent resistance is offered to death through necessity\nthan through valour. A desperate soul shows as much daring as a 5\ncourageous, probably more. Let us assume that, so far as concerns\ndeath, we are given over to it; and so we are. The fact is so,\nLucilius; we are all destined to death. All this nation that you see,\nall the people you can anywhere suppose to exist, will some day soon\nbe recalled by nature to the grave. There is no question of the fact,\nonly of the day. Sooner or later we must all go to the one place. Well,\nthen, does not he seem to you the most fearful and silliest of men 6\nwho by great entreaty seeks to delay death? Would you not despise a\nman who was set in a company of those appointed to death if he asked\nby way of favour to be allowed to be the last to lay his head upon the\nblock? We do the same in setting such store upon a little delay in the\ntime of death. Capital punishment is the sentence on all mankind, and\nthe sentence is most just. We possess what is wont to be regarded as 7\nthe greatest consolation that those sentenced to the extreme penalty\ncould enjoy; the circumstances of all being the same, our fate is the\nsame. If handed over by a judge or magistrate to execution, we should\nfollow and render obedience to our executioner; what difference does it\nmake whether it is by order of another or of our own accord that we go\nto death?\n\nHow foolish you must be, how forgetful of your feebleness if you are\nafraid of death every time it thunders! Does your abiding safety really\ndepend on this? Will life be secure if you escape the lightning? You 8\nwill be a victim of the sword, of a stone, of a fever. The lightning\nis not the most serious of dangers, it is only the most conspicuous.\nYour fate, I should think, would not be a bad one if the inconceivable\nrapidity of your death prevented any sense of it, if your death was\nthe occasion of sacrificial ceremonies, if even when you breathe your\nlast, you are not quite a superfluity, but remain as a sign of some\ngreat event. Your fate is surely not bad if you are buried along 9\nwith the bolt of lightning. And yet you are in panic at a crash in the\nsky, you tremble at the sound of a hollow cloud; as often as there is\na flash you are ready to give up the ghost. Well then, is it in your\njudgment more creditable to die of sheer chicken-heartedness than to be\nkilled by lightning? Rather, say I, confront all the more resolutely\nthe threats of the heavens, and when the universal world is in flames\naround you, consider that in such a mighty mass you have nothing to\nlose. But if you can bring yourself to believe that that wreck of 10\nheaven, that conflict of the stormy winds, is aimed at you, if it is on\nyour account that the clouds are piled up and collide and roar, if it\nis for your destruction that such a mass of fire is scattered abroad,\nthen you may surely regard it as some consolation that your death has\ncost so dear! But there will then be no room for such a reflection.\nThe fate of one struck by lightning removes all fear. Among other\nadvantages it includes this, that it anticipates your expectation; no\nman ever was afraid of lightning except one who had escaped it.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III\n\nWHICH TREATS OF THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF WATER\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nI am not unaware, my dear friend Lucilius, of the greatness of the 1\nedifice whose foundations I am laying in my old age, when I resolve to\nsurvey the universe, to unearth its motives and secrets, and to reveal\nthem to the knowledge of others. When shall I ever manage to cover\nsuch a field, gather together such widely-spread material, behold with\nclear vision such profound secrets? Old age presses hard on the rear,\nupbraiding me with the years bestowed on vain pursuits. We must ply our\ntask all the more vigorously, and toil must now make good the loss of a\nlifetime withdrawn from its true purpose. Night must be added to day,\nengagements cut short, care abandoned of property that lies far away 2\nfrom its owner. The mind must be wholly set free from other thoughts,\nand at least at the moment of its flight from earth must bestow itself\nin self-contemplation. It shall do so, and shall urge itself on, and\neach day it shall measure the brief span of time left. What has been\nlost shall be repaired by diligent use of the remainder of life. The\nsurest pledge of virtue is repentance and amendment. I may exclaim in 3\nthe words of an illustrious poet:\n\n High is the courage that inspires me, great the work, but short\n The time in which to plan.\n\nI should say the same were I planning it in boyhood or in youth. No\nperiod could be anything but narrow in face of such an undertaking. As\nit is, when the midday of life is past, I have entered upon a task that\nis serious, difficult, limitless. Let me act as people generally do 4\nin a journey--those that are late in starting make up for the delay by\ntheir speed. I must hurry on, and without further excuse on the score\nof age proceed to tackle my problem--undoubtedly a vast, possibly an\ninsuperable, one. My mind swells with pride when I survey the magnitude\nof my undertaking and reflect how much is unaccomplished of my plan,\nthough not of my life.\n\nSome writers have wasted their efforts in narrating the doings of 5\nforeign kings, and in telling, as the case may be, the sufferings\nor the cruelties of nations. Surely it is wiser to try to end one\u2019s\nown ills than to record for a coming generation the ills of others.\nHow much better to make one\u2019s theme the works of the gods than the\nrobberies of Philip, or Alexander, or the other conquerors who earned\ntheir fame by the destruction of mankind! Such men were as truly\nscourges of humanity as a flood by which a whole plain has been\ninundated, or a conflagration by which the greater part of its living\ncreatures has been burnt up. The historians tell us how Hannibal 6\ncrossed the Alps, how he suddenly transferred into Italy a war rendered\nmore formidable by Roman disasters in Spain; how, when his fortunes\nwere shattered, more determined still, even though the fate of Carthage\nwas sealed, he wandered through all kingdoms, offering to be leader\nagainst Rome, and begging for an army; how he never ceased even in\nhis old age to seek to rouse up war in every corner of the world. He\ncould, it was plain, endure to be without a country, but not without a\nfoe.\n\nHow much better is it to inquire what ought to be done than what 7\nhas been done, and to teach those who have entrusted their state to\nfortune that nothing she gives is stable, but that all her gifts are\nmore fickle than the very air! For she cannot rest, her delight is to\nmatch sadness with joy, and to mingle smiles with tears. Therefore in\nthe day of prosperity let no man exult, in the day of adversity let no\nman faint: the successions of fortune alternate. Why should you boast\nyourself? The wave meantime bears you aloft on its crest; but where 8\nit may strand you, you cannot tell. Its end will be of its own choice,\nnot of yours. Or why, again, do you despond? You have been carried\ndown to the nadir; now is the chance of rising again. Adversity alters\nfor the better, success for the worse. Changes of the kind must be\nanticipated, not merely in private families, which are affected by a\nslight cause, but also in sovereign houses. Dynasties rising from the\ngutter have ere now established themselves above the ruling powers,\nwhile ancient empires have fallen when in the very heyday of their 9\npower. The number cannot be reckoned of the kingdoms that have been\noverthrown by other kingdoms. God now makes it His special aim to exalt\nsome and to overthrow others; nor does He let them gently down, but\ndashes them from their pinnacle, so that no remnant of them is left. A\ngreat sight it is; we think it so only because we are ourselves small.\nThere are many departments in which the standard is not derived from 10\nthe actual size of the objects, but from our own littleness.\n\nWhat, I ask, then, is the principal thing in human life? Not to have\nfilled the seas with fleets, nor to have planted the standard of the\nnation on the shores of the Red Sea, nor, when land has been exhausted,\nto have wandered for the injury of others over the Ocean in quest of\nthe unknown. Rather it is to have grasped in mind the whole universe,\nand to have gained what is the greatest of all victories, the mastery\nover besetting sins. There are hosts of conquerors who have had cities\nand nations under their power, but a very few who have subdued self.\nWhat is the principal thing? I say again. To raise the soul above the\nthreats and promises of fortune; to consider nothing as worth hoping\nfor. For what does fortune possess worth setting your heart upon? 11\nWhy, as often as you lapse from converse with what is divine back to\nwhat is human, your eyes will be blinded just like the eyes of those\nwho have returned from bright sunlight into gross darkness. What is\nthe principal thing? To be able to endure adversity with joyful heart;\nto bear whatever betide just as if it were the very thing you desired\nto happen. For you would have felt it your duty to desire it, had\nyou known that all things happen by God\u2019s decree. Tears, complaints,\nlamentation, are rebellion. What is the principal thing? A heart 12\nin face of calamity resolute and invincible; an adversary, yea, a\nsworn foe, to luxury; neither anxious to meet nor anxious to shun\nperil; a heart that knows how to fashion fortune to its will without\nwaiting for her; which can go forth to face ill or good dauntless and\nunembarrassed, paralysed neither by the tumult of the one nor the\nglamour of the other. What is the principal thing? Not to admit evil 13\ncounsel into the heart, and to lift up clean hands to heaven; to seek\nfor no advantage which some one must give and some one lose in order\nthat it may reach you; to pray--a prayer that no one will envy--for\npurity of heart; as for other blessings which are highly esteemed by\nthe world, even should some chance bring them to your home, to regard\nthem as sure to depart by the same door by which they entered. What\nis the principal thing? To lift one\u2019s courage high above all that 14\ndepends upon chance; to remember what man is, so that whether you be\nfortunate, you may know that this will not be for long; or whether you\nbe unfortunate, you may be sure you are not so if you do not think\nyourself so.\n\nThe principal thing is to have life on the very lips, ready to\nissue when summoned. This makes a man free, not by right of Roman\ncitizenship, but by right of nature. He is the true freeman who has\nescaped from bondage to self. That slavery is constant, from it there\nis no deliverance; it presses us day and night alike, without pause,\nwithout respite. To be a slave to self is the most grievous kind 15\nof slavery; yet its fetters may easily be struck off, if you will but\ncease to make large demands upon yourself, if you will cease to seek a\npersonal reward for your services, and if you will set clearly before\nyou your nature and your time of life, even though it be the bloom of\nyouth; if you will say to yourself, Why do I rave, and pant, and sweat?\nWhy do I ply the earth? why do I haunt the forum? Man needs but little,\nnor needs that little long.\n\nTo this end it will be profitable for us to examine the nature of the\nuniverse. In the first place we shall rise above what is base; in\nthe second, we shall set the spirit free from the body, imparting to\nit that courage and elevation of which it stands in need. Besides,\nsubtlety of thought practised on the hidden mysteries of nature wil 16\nprove no less efficacious in problems that lie more on the surface.\nAnd nothing is more on the surface than these salutary lessons we are\ntaught as safeguards against the prevailing vice and madness--faults we\nall condemn, but do not abandon.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nLet us enter then on an investigation of forms of water, and let us 1\ntrace the causes that produce them; whether, as Ovid says:\n\n There was a fountain silvery clear with gleaming wavelets;\n\nor, as Virgil says:\n\n Whence through nine mouths with mighty roar of the mountain\n The sea issues in broken waves, overspreading the fields with its\n resounding flood;\n\nor, as I find it in your own poem, my dear Lucilius:\n\n The stream of Elis wells up from Sicilian fountains.\n\nLet us inquire by what method the waters are supplied; how it is that\nday and night unceasingly so many huge rivers roll down their course; 2\nwhy some are swollen by the rain of winter, some increase in summer\nwhen all the other streams fail. Meantime let us separate the Nile\nfrom the common crowd; it is a river of peculiar and unique character.\nWe shall give it its turn by and by. At present we will confine our\ntreatment to the common waters, cold as well as hot. In regard to\nthe latter we must inquire whether the heat is due to natural or\nartificial causes. We shall discuss other waters too which are rendered\nremarkable by taste or some special virtue. Some, for example, I may\nexplain, alleviate affections of the eyes, some, those of the sinews, 3\nsome effect complete cure of chronic maladies given up by doctors as\nhopeless. Some again heal sores, some by being drunk ease internal pain\nand relieve complaints of the lungs and bowels. Some staunch the flow\nof blood; in fact their individual uses are as varied as their taste.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nAll waters are classed as either standing or running; they are either\ngathered in one or occupy different channels underground. Some of them\nare sweet, others have pungent flavours of different kinds, among them\nsalt, bitter, medicinal. Belonging to the last class one may name\nsulphur, iron, alum waters. The taste shows the quality. Waters of\ndifferent kinds have many other differences. First there is touch, hot\nand cold; then weight, light and heavy; then colour, pure, muddy, dark\nblue, yellowish; then wholesomeness, wholesome and useful, or deadly or\ncapable of petrifaction. Some waters are thin, some thick; some give\nnourishment, others pass through the system without benefiting it at\nall; the use of some removes barrenness.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nThe lie of the ground makes water either stand or run; on a slope it\nflows down, a plain keeps it in, causing it to stagnate. Sometimes\nunder pressure of air it is forced uphill; it is then driven, it does\nnot flow. Surface water comes from rain; spring water from a natural\nfountain. There is, however, nothing to prevent surface and spring\nwater in the same spot. This we see in Lake Fucinus, into which the\nstreams drain all the rainfall of the surrounding mountains, while\nthere are also large springs concealed under the surface of the lake\nitself. So, even when the torrents discharge into it in winter, it\npreserves its appearance unaltered.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nLet us inquire therefore, in the first place, how the earth can contain\nsufficient water to maintain the unbroken flow of the rivers, and where\nsuch a vast quantity of water comes from. We are surprised that the\nocean is not sensible of the additional water derived from rivers. It\nis no less surprising that the earth is not sensible of the loss of all\nthe water that issues from it. What is it that has so filled it up that\nit can from its hidden recesses furnish such quantities and continually\nmake good the loss as it does? Whatever explanation we give regarding a\nriver must apply also to streams and springs.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nSome are of opinion that the earth receives back all the water it has\nlost. The sea, therefore, does not get larger, because it does not\nassimilate the water that runs into it, but forthwith restores it to\nthe earth. For the sea water returns by a secret path, and is filtered\nin its passage back.[50] Being dashed about as it passes through the\nendless, winding channels in the ground, it loses its salinity, and,\npurged of its bitterness in such a variety of ground as it passes\nthrough, it eventually changes into pure, fresh water.\n\n [50] The ordinary text, as Koeller saw, is evidently wrong. It runs:\n \u201cFor by a secret path the sea water enters the ground and becomes\n visible, and returns stealthily, and is filtered, etc.\u201d No author can\n be supposed to have written such a sentence. The restoration must be\n conjectural. I have adopted what seems simplest and most in keeping\n with the context.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nSome suppose that all the water that the earth drinks in from rain is\nsent out again into the rivers. They set down by way of proof the fact\nthat there are fewest rivers in the localities where there is least\nfrequent rain. On that account, they say, the deserts of Ethiopia are\ndestitute of streams, and few springs are found in the interior of\nAfrica, because there is always a blazing sky and almost perpetual\nsummer. Therefore there are ugly stretches of sandy waste, without tree\nand without inhabitant, sprinkled at rare intervals by showers that\nthey immediately swallow up. On the other hand, it is well known that\nthere are abundant streams and rivers in Germany and Gaul and next to\nthem in Italy, because they enjoy a moist climate, and even the summer\nis not without rainfall.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nA great deal can obviously be urged in reply to this. First of all, 1\nas a diligent digger among my vines, I can affirm from observation\nthat no rain is ever so heavy as to wet the ground to a depth of\nmore than 10 feet. All the moisture is absorbed in the upper layer of\nearth without getting down to the lower ones. How, then, can rain,\nwhich merely damps the surface, store up a supply sufficient for\nrivers? The greater part of it is carried off at once into the sea by\nriver-channels. But a small portion is absorbed by the ground, and even\nthat is not retained. For the ground is either dry and so uses up at 2\nonce the water poured into it; or else it is saturated and throws off\nwhat of the rainfall it does not require. This is the reason why rivers\ndo not rise with the first rainfall; the thirsty ground absorbs it all.\n\nAnd then, again, how are we to explain the fact that some rivers burst\nout from rocks and mountains? What contribution can be made to them\nby rains that are carried down over the bare crags and have no earth\ninto which to sink? Besides, wells sunk in the very driest localities 3\nto a depth of 200 or 300 feet reveal rich springs of water at a depth\nto which rain water does not penetrate. One may be sure there is no\nrain water there nor any gathering of moisture, but living (= spring)\nwater as it is usually called. The opinion in question is disproved by\nthis other argument, too; some springs well up in the very summit of a\nmountain. It is plain, therefore, that the water in them is forced up\nor forms on the spot, since all the rain water runs off.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nSome writers think there is an exact parallelism between the external\nand the internal distribution of water in the earth. On the outer\nsurface are huge marshes, great navigable lakes, and seas covering\nimmense tracts of earth and pouring over its hollows. So in the\ninterior of the earth there is abundant store of fresh water, which\noverflows great spaces no less than the Ocean and its gulfs above\nground; in fact, still more extensively, as the depth of the earth\nextends farther down than that of the sea. From that supply in the\ndeeps, therefore, those rivers of which we have spoken issue. And\nwhy should one be surprised that the earth is not sensible of their\nwithdrawal since the sea is not sensible of their addition?\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nSome approve the following explanation: The earth contains, they 1\nassert, many hollow recesses and a great quantity of air. This air,\nunder pressure of the gross darkness, of necessity freezes. Then\nremaining sluggish and unmoved it ceases to circulate and turns into\nwater. Just as on earth a change in the density of the atmosphere\nproduces rain, so beneath the earth the change of density starts a\nriver or a stream. In the former case the air above our heads cannot\nlong remain sluggish and heavy; for sometimes it is rarefied by\nthe sun\u2019s heat, sometimes expanded by the wind\u2019s force. There are,\ntherefore, long intervals between falls of rain. But underground 2\nthe forces, whatever they are, that turn air into water, are\nconstant--perpetual darkness, everlasting cold, inert density; they\ncan, therefore, supply without a break the sources of fountain or\nflood. We Stoics are satisfied that the earth is interchangeable in\nits elements. So all this air that she has exhaled in her interior,\nsince it is not taken up by the free atmosphere, condenses and is\nforthwith converted into moisture.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nThere you have the first cause of the origin of underground water. 1\nYou may add the more general principle that all elements arise from\nall: air comes from water, water from air; fire from air, air from\nfire. So why should not earth be formed from water, and conversely\nwater from earth? If the earth is capable of transmutation into other\nelements, water must be one of them, in fact, the most suitable of\nthem. The two things are cognate; both are heavy, condensed, both\ndriven by nature down to the very confines of the universe. Earth is\nformed from water; why not water from earth in like manner?\n\nBut, you say, the rivers are too large to be accounted for in this way.\nWell, after you have considered the size of the rivers, just look at\nthe size of the reservoir whence they issue. Are you surprised that a 2\nfresh supply of water is always forthcoming for them, since they flow\non for ever, some even rushing down their channel with impetuous haste?\nSurely you might as well be surprised, when the winds drive hither\nand thither the whole atmosphere, that the supply of air does not\nfail, but flows on day and night unceasingly. And the wind, remember,\nis not confined to a definite channel, as rivers are, but goes with\nwide sweep over the broad expanse of heaven. You might well, too,\nbe surprised that after so many breakers have spent their force, any\nsucceeding wave is left. The truth is, nothing is ever exhausted that\nreturns upon itself (_i.e._ is self-supported). All the four elements 3\nreturn alternately upon one another; what is lost in one is conserved\nby passing into another. Nature, too, weighs her parts as if with\nnice adjustment in the balance, lest their just proportion should be\ndisturbed and the world topple over into ruin (= lose its equilibrium).\nAll elements are in all. Air not only passes into fire, but it is never\nwithout fire. Deprive it of its heat and it will grow stiff, stagnant,\nhard. Air passes into moisture, but nevertheless contains moisture.\nEarth yields both air and water, and is never at any time devoid 4\nof water any more than it is of air. The mutual transition is the\neasier, because there is already an admixture of the element to which\nthe transition is to be made. So (1)[51], then, the earth contains\nmoisture, which it forces out. (2)[51] It contains air, which the\ndarkness of its wintry cold condenses so as to form moisture. (3)[51]\nBy nature, too, it has itself the power of changing into moisture: this\npower it habitually exerts.\n\n [51] The numerals here have no counterpart in the original.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nYou have still a difficulty, you say. If the causes giving rise to 1\nrivers and fountains are constant, why are their waters sometimes\ndried up? and why do they sometimes appear in places where they did\nnot exist before? Their routes, I should reply, are often disturbed by\nearthquakes; the channel is cut off by a fall of rock or earth, and\nthe water being held back seeks a fresh exit, which it forces with a\ncertain measure of violence; or merely by the earth\u2019s vibration the\ncourse is shifted from one place to another. On the surface of the\nearth one may observe that rivers that have lost their channels are\nfirst of all dammed back, but afterwards, in lieu of the course they\nhave lost, force a new one. Theophrastus affirms that an incident of 2\nthe kind took place in the Corycian Mount,[52] where, after a slight\nshock of earthquake, a fountain burst out from a fresh source.\n\n [52] In Cilicia.\n\nBut some writers are of opinion that other causes too are at work to\ncall up water in other ways, or to drive or turn it from its course.\nMount Haemus was once destitute of water; but after a tribe of the\nGauls, being hard pressed by Cassander, took refuge there, and felled\nthe woods, an immense supply of water appeared. No doubt the woods had\nattracted it for their nourishment previously. When they were uprooted,\nthe moisture, ceasing to be used up by their roots, overflowed.\nTheophrastus affirms that the same thing happened near Magnesia. 3\n\nBut with all respect to Theophrastus, this is not a very likely story.\nEverything that is most shady tends most to gather water. But that\nwould not be the case if trees drained off water. Roots draw their\nnourishment from their immediate vicinity; but the volume of river\nwater flows from recesses far down, and is derived from a source deeper\nthan roots can penetrate. Besides, when trees are cut down, more\nmoisture than before is required; the stumps suck up a supply, not\nmerely for life, but for new growth.\n\nTheophrastus tells us, too, that round Arcadia, which was a city in 4\nthe island of Crete, the wells and lakes disappeared, because the land\nceased to be tilled after the destruction of the city; but after it had\ngot back its tillers, it recovered its waters also. He sets down as the\ncause of the dryness, that the earth had got hidebound and quite hard,\nand not being stirred could not transmit to the underground reservoirs\nthe rain that fell. But if this is true, how comes it that we see\nsprings in great plenty in the most desert ground? In fact, one finds 5\na great deal more ground that began to be tilled on account of the\nabundance of water than that began to have an abundant supply of water\nbecause it was tilled. You may be quite sure that it is not mere rain\nwater that is carried down in our greatest rivers, navigable by large\nvessels from their very source,[53] as is proved by the fact that the\nflow from the fountain-head is uniform winter and summer. Rainfall may\ncause a torrent, but it cannot maintain the steady, constant flow of a\nfull river. Rains cannot produce, they can only enlarge and quicken, a\nriver.\n\n [53] The text seems to be at fault, but the argument is quite clear.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nLet us, if you please, go into the matter a little more deeply, and 1\nyou will soon see that you have no cause to put further questions, once\nyou reach the true origin of rivers. A river is, of course, formed by\na supply of water that is always constant. If you ask me, therefore,\nhow water is produced, I will ask in my turn how air or earth is\nproduced. If there are four elements in nature, you are not entitled\nto ask where water, one of them, comes from; it _is_ the fourth part\nof nature. Why, therefore, are you surprised that so great a portion 2\nof nature can furnish a perpetual supply of liquid from itself? Just\nas the atmosphere, which is likewise a fourth part of the universe, is\nthe source of winds and breezes, so is water, of streams and rivers.\nIf wind is atmosphere in motion, so is a river water in motion. I have\ngiven it strength enough in saying that it is one of the four elements.\nYou must be aware that what has an element as its source can never run\nshort.\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\n\nWater is, according to Thales, the most powerful of the elements. 1\nHe thinks it was the first of them, and that all the others sprang\nfrom it. We Stoics, too, are also of the same opinion; or perhaps I\nshould rather say that we think it is the last.[54] For we say that it\nis fire that lays hold upon the world and changes all things into its\nown nature. We suppose that fire eventually fades and sinks, and that,\nwhen the fire is quenched, nothing is left in nature save moisture, in\nwhich lies the hope of the world that is to come. So fire is the end,\nmoisture the beginning, of the world. Can you wonder that rivers may\nalways issue from this, which was before all things, and from which all\nthings have been formed? In the separation of the elements [at the 2\nbeginning] the moisture was reduced to a fourth part, and was placed in\nsuch a situation that it could furnish a sufficient supply for rivers,\nstreams, and fountains. The next opinion expressed by Thales is a\nsilly one. The whole earth, he says, is upborne by water, and floats\njust like a boat; when it is spoken of as trembling, it is rolling by\nthe movement of the water. It is no wonder, then, that there should be\nabundance of water to pour forth in rivers, since the world is itself\nwholly set in water. You should put out of court such an antiquated,\nunscientific idea. There is no ground for believing that the water\ncomes in through the chinks in the earth\u2019s sides, and forms bilge-water\nin her centre.\n\n [54] _I.e._ that to which all others may be reduced: the text seems\n corrupt, and the meaning is more or less conjectural. Gercke\u2019s text\n reads, \u201care also of the same or an analogous opinion.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\n\nThe Egyptians have recognised four elements also; and they then form\neach into two, male and female. The atmosphere they consider male where\nit is windy, female where it is cloudy and sluggish. They call the sea\nmanly water, every other kind of water they call womanly. Fire they\ncall masculine where a flame is burning, and feminine where there is\na glow that is harmless to touch. The firmer kinds of earth, such as\nboulders and crags, they call male, reserving the term female for the\nparts that are amenable to cultivation.\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\n\nThere is but one sea, which has so existed no doubt from the 1\nbeginning of things. It has sources of its own, from which its impulses\nand tides are derived. As with the raging sea, so with this gentler\nkind of water, there is a vast supply[55] in secret, which no river\ncourse can drain dry. The exact explanation of its reserve strength\nhas not yet been discovered. It is only the superfluous portion of\nit that is released. Now, there are some of these beliefs to which 2\nwe may safely subscribe; but I hold this further opinion. My firm\nconviction is that the earth is organised by nature much after the\nplan of our bodies, in which there are both veins and arteries, the\nformer blood-vessels, the latter air-vessels. In the earth likewise 3\nthere are some routes by which water passes, and some by which air. So\nexactly alike is the resemblance to our bodies in nature\u2019s formation\nof the earth, that our ancestors have spoken of veins (= springs) of\nwater. Again, in our bodies there is not merely blood, but many other\nkinds of moisture, some essential to life, others tainted and somewhat\nthick--brain in the head, marrow in the bones, mucus, saliva, tears,\nand a kind of lubricating substance that suffuses the joints, and\nenables them to turn more quickly (= synovial fluid).\n\n [55] All the texts give _via_ = way. The obvious correction is _vis_\n = amount, supply. Gercke confirms this correction.\n\nSo, too, in the earth there are several different kinds of moisture.\nThere are some kinds that grow hard when fully formed. Hence arises 4\nall the metalliferous soil, from which our avarice seeks gold and\nsilver. Then there is the kind which turns from liquid into stone. In\nsome localities the earth and its moisture combine to form a liquid\nlike bitumen and other substances of the same kind. There, then, we\nfind the cause of waters produced according to the law and will of\nnature. But as in our bodies, so in the earth, humours often contract 5\ntaints of various kinds. A blow, or some shock, or exhaustion of the\nground, or cold or heat injures the natural vigour. A vein of sulphur,\ntoo, may solidify the moisture, lasting for a longer or shorter time.\nTherefore, as in our bodies, when a vein is cut, the flow of blood\nlasts till the blood is exhausted or the incision in the vein has\nclosed up and stopped it, or until some other cause has staunched the\nblood; in like manner in the ground, when the seams have been loosened\nand laid bare, a stream or river rushes forth. The way in which the 6\nwater is used up depends on the extent of the opening in the seam. At\none point its flow is checked by some obstacle; at another it heals up,\nso to speak, into a scar and chokes the path it had made; at another\nthe power of transmutation, which we have said the earth possesses,\nreaches its limit and cannot longer supply material that may be\nliquefied: sometimes the exhausted source is replenished, now by energy\nself-recruited, now by a supply drawn from external sources. For I\nought to say that often dry objects placed opposite to wet attract the\nmoisture to them. Earth itself, which easily assumes another form, 7\noften wastes away, and is dissolved in moisture. The same phenomenon\noccurs under the earth as above it in the clouds; becoming too dense\nand heavy to retain longer its own character, solid begets liquid.\nThere is often a gathering of thin, scattered moisture like dew, which\nfrom many points flows into one spot. The dowsers call it sweat,\nbecause a kind of drop is either squeezed out by the pressure of the\nground or raised by the heat. This slender trickle scarce suffices to\nform a spring. But if the sources are great and the gatherings great,\nrivers issue. Sometimes they flow gently if the water merely descends\nby its own weight, sometimes with violence and loud roar if air be\nintermingled and eject the water.\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\n\nAnother peculiarity requires explanation: some wells are full for 1\nsix hours and dry for six alternately: why is this so? It is hardly\nnecessary to name the rivers individually which are at certain months\nbroad, at certain narrow, and to give separate causes of this, seeing I\ncan give a common explanation that applies to all. An ague returns at\nthe same hour, gout always keeps its appointment, the custom of women,\nunless interrupted, observes its stated period, birth is ready at the\nproper month. In like manner waters have their intervals of recurrence,\nat which to withdraw and at which to return. Now, some intervals are\nshorter, and the more striking on that account; some are longer, 2\nbut no less certain. And what is strange in that, when you see that\nthe succession of events, and all nature, by decree preserve their\nappointed order? Winter has never mistaken its time. Summer has always\nblazed forth in its season. The changes of spring and autumn have\noccurred according to their wont. Solstice and equinox alike have kept\ntheir appointed days.\n\nBeneath the earth likewise there are laws of nature, less familiar to\nus, but no less fixed. Be assured that there exists below everything\nthat you see above. There, too, there are antres vast, immense\nrecesses, and vacant spaces, with mountains overhanging on either\nhand. There are yawning gulfs stretching down into the abyss, which 3\nhave often swallowed up cities that have fallen into them, and have\nburied in their depths their mighty ruins. These retreats are filled\nwith air, for nowhere is there a vacuum in nature; through their\nample spaces stretch marshes over which darkness ever broods. Animals\nalso are produced in them, but they are slow-paced and shapeless; the\nair that conceived them is dark and clammy, the waters are torpid\nthrough inaction. Most of these creatures are blind, such as moles and\nunderground rats, which have no sense of sight, since it is unnecessary\nfor them. From these depths fish are, according to Theophrastus, dug up\nin certain localities.\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\n\nAt this point many pleasantries will occur to you to apply to my 1\nincredible narrative, which you will politely call a good story. A man\nwill no longer go to fish with net and hook, but with his mattock!\nThe next thing will be for some one to go out hunting at sea. Now\nwhat reason is there, I ask, why fish should not cross the land if we\ncan cross the sea and change our abodes? You are surprised at this\nhappening. How much more incredible are the achievements of luxury\nas often as it either counterfeits or vanquishes nature? Fish are to\nbe found swimming in the dining couch; one is caught right under the\ntable, to be transferred immediately to the table. A mullet is not\nthought fresh enough unless it expires in the hand of the banqueter. 2\nThese fish are handed round enclosed in glass jars, and their colours\nare observed while they expire; death paints many hues on them as they\ndraw their last struggling breath. Others are pickled alive and killed\nin the sauce. These are the people who think one is romancing who\nasserts that a fish can live underground and instead of being caught\ncan be dug up! How inconceivable it would sound to them to hear that a\nfish swam in sauce and was killed during dinner, but not to be served\nat dinner; that first it was long admired, and that the eyes were\nfeasted on it before the gullet was!\n\n\n\n\nXVIII\n\n\nSuffer me here to lay aside my subject, and to apply the scourge to 1\nluxury! Commend me for a beautiful sight, says one, to an expiring\nmullet. In the death-struggle, as its life ebbs away, first a ruddy\nglow, then a pallor suffuses it. How symmetrical are the variations as\nit changes from tint to tint between life and death! Our somnolent,\njaded luxury gets a long respite by means of this.[56] It was late\nin waking up to find how cruelly it had been circumscribed in being\ncheated of such a pleasure! Hitherto only fishermen have been able\nto enjoy this grand and beauteous sight. But why should we at the 2\nbanquet be satisfied with a cooked, a lifeless fish? Let him expire\non the very tray. We used to be surprised at the fastidiousness of\nour epicures in refusing to touch fish unless it had been caught on\nthe same day, when, as the saying goes, it smacked of the briny. It\nused for that reason to be delivered post haste--way had to be made\nfor the breathless porters as they hurried along shouting. To what 3\nlengths have refinements now been pushed? A fish killed to-day has\ncome to be considered as already stinking. \u201cHe was taken out of the\nwater this day, I assure you.\u201d \u201cI cannot trust you in a matter of such\nmoment. I must have the evidence of my own senses; let the creature be\nbrought here and breathe out his life before my eyes.\u201d Such a pitch of\nfastidiousness has the gourmands\u2019 palate reached that they will not\ntaste a fish unless they have seen it swimming and throbbing in the\nvery banqueting room.\n\n [56] The passage is almost hopelessly corrupt. The meaning of this\n sentence seems to be that luxury gets some respite from the fatigues\n of the table by watching the mullet\u2019s death-struggle. Ruhkopf\n suggests an emendation which would give the sense: Our somnolent,\n jaded luxury has taken a long time to discover this new enjoyment.\n That would certainly be well in keeping with the following sentence.\n\nThe more skill our jaded luxury has had placed at its disposal, 4\nthe more refined and elegant the devices that in its frenzy it day\nby day invents; it spurns everything that is common. We used to hear\nthe remark, \u201cNothing can surpass a mullet caught on the rocks\u201d; but\nnow it runs, \u201cNothing equals the beauty of an expiring mullet. Let\nme hold in my own hands the glass vase, to see him jump and quiver.\u201d\nAfter long and fulsome praise has been lavished on him, he is taken 5\nout of his transparent pond. Then each guest shows off his experience\nof such scenes by pointing out the hues to his fellows. \u201cLook how the\nred bursts forth, deeper than any carmine; look at the veins he has\nalong his sides: see, you would think his belly was covered with blood;\nwhat a gleam of dark blue shot forth just under the brow! Now he is\nstretching himself out, and sinking to a uniform pallid hue!\u201d Not one\nof these selfish fellows would sit by a dying friend\u2019s bedside, none\nof them can endure the sight of a father\u2019s death--a sight they have\ndearly longed for. How few will attend the funeral of a relative! The 6\nlast hour of brothers and friends is shunned by them; they are all in a\nhurry to be in at the death of a mullet! For he has a delicate beauty,\ndon\u2019t you know, that nothing can surpass. My impatience makes me\nsometimes exceed the bounds of decency and use words at random. These\ndrivellers are not satisfied to bring teeth, and palate, and stomach to\nthe revel; they make their very eyes partners in the gluttony.\n\n\n\n\nXIX\n\n\nBut to return to my subject. Here is a proof I have to give you 1\nthat in the underground recesses are concealed great quantities of\nwater which abound in filthy fish. Any time that the water bursts\nout, it brings in its train a huge crowd of creatures foul to sight,\ndisgusting and noxious to taste. At any rate, once, near the city of\nHydissus in Caria, a flood of underground water threw up to the light\nof day a number of strange fishes, and all who ate them died. And no\nwonder. Their bodies were full of oil from their long inactivity; 2\nthey had been fattened in the darkness without exercise, and deprived\nof that light whence health is derived. A further proof that fish may\nbe produced in those depths of earth is afforded by the breeding of\neels in shady places; they also are a heavy diet through their want of\nexercise, especially if a considerable depth of mud has hidden them\nquite out of sight. So then the earth contains not only veins of water 3\nby the union of which rivers may be formed, but also streams of very\ngreat size. In some cases their channel is concealed throughout, until\nthey are swallowed up in some cavern; others of them well up in the\nbottom of some lake. Everybody knows that some marshes have no bottom.\nWhat is the point of my argument? It shows plainly that mighty rivers\nhave here unending supplies whose limits are incalculable, just as is\nthe duration of rivers and fountains themselves.\n\n\n\n\nXX\n\n\nFor the variety of taste in water there are four causes. The first is 1\nthe kind of soil through which it flows. The second also depends on the\nsoil when the water arises from transmutation of it. The third is from\nair which has been transformed into water. The fourth comes from some\ntaint which water often contracts when injuriously affected by foreign\nbodies. These causes impart to water, first, variety of taste, then 2\nmedicinal power, its heavy pestilential smell, its lightness and\nheaviness, its heat and its excessive astringency. It is affected by\nits passage through ground full of sulphur, or nitre (= saltpetre),\nor bitumen. If the water is tainted in this way, the drinking of it\nendangers life. This is the explanation of a passage in Ovid:\n\n The Ciconians have a river a draught of whose waters turns into stone.\n The bowels; which mantles in marble all that it touches.\n\nThe river in question has medicinal properties, its mud being of 3\nthe kind that glues together and hardens the bodies it encounters.\nJust as the dust at Puteoli becomes stone if it touches water, so,\ncontrariwise, if the water of this river touches a solid body, it\nadheres and gets firmly affixed to it. This is the reason why objects\nthrown into the same lake[57] are constantly found to be turned to\nstone when they are taken out. This occurs at several places in Italy;\nyou may put into the water a twig or bough and a few days after you\ncan take out a stone. The mud surrounds the object and gradually 4\ncoats it over. This will seem the less surprising if you have remarked\nthat the Albula, and, generally speaking, all water charged with\nsulphur, deposit a coating of it on the banks of their channels and\nstreams. Some one or other of the foregoing causes accounts for the\npeculiarities of those lakes, whereof who tastes with the lips, in the\nwords of the same poet,\n\n [57] The allusion is not quite evident.\n\n Goes raving mad or endures a sleep of wondrous depth.\n\nThe effect is like that of strong drink, only more violent. Drunken- 5\nness is madness until its effects pass off; with a weight like lead\nit bears down its victim into sleep. In the like manner the strong\ninfusion of sulphur in this water contains a sort of poison that is\nmore potent owing to the noxious atmosphere, and either goads the mind\nto madness or weighs it down in deep sleep. The river in Lyncestis\nlikewise possesses this baleful power:\n\n For whoso with intemperate lips has drained a draught,\n Staggers as if having drunk deep of wine undiluted.\n\n\n\n\nXXI\n\n\nThere are certain caves a glance down into which has cost people their\nlife. So swift is their destructive power that it kills in flight the\nbirds that cross them. That is the kind of air and the kind of place\nfrom which waters of death escape. If the infection of the air and\nplace is less severe, the damage is less fatal too, merely affecting\nthe sinews like men overpowered by intoxication. I am not at all\nsurprised that place and air infect water and render it similar in\ncharacter to the tract through which and from which it proceeds.\nSimilarly, milk shows the taste of the cow\u2019s fodder, the quality of\nthe wine comes out even in the vinegar it yields. There is, in fact,\nnothing that does not bear marks of its origin in the same way.\n\n\n\n\nXXII\n\n\nThere is another species of water which we Stoics are satisfied must be\ncoeval with the world. If the latter has existed from all eternity, so\nmust it too. If the world has had some beginning, then the water was\nassigned its place at the creation. You want to know what kind of water\nI mean? I mean the Ocean and all its seas that wash the continents of\nthe earth. Some philosophers are convinced that the rivers likewise\nwhose nature is inexplicable, date from the creation of the world; such\nare the mighty rivers Danube and Nile, too remarkable to be supposed by\nany possibility to have the same origin as other rivers.\n\n\n\n\nXXIII\n\n\nSuch is the division of various kinds of water, as it presents itself\nto some minds. After that come waters of the sky, which the clouds pour\ndown from the upper regions. Of terrestrial waters, they say, there are\nsome that overflow, so to speak, and creep along the surface; others\nare concealed underground. I have already explained all these.\n\n\n\n\nXXIV\n\n\nSeveral explanations are given of the temperature of water. Some- 1\ntimes it is hot, sometimes it boils so fiercely that it cannot be\nused until it has given off its steam in the open, or is tempered\nby mixing cold water with it. Empedocles is of opinion that as there\nare fires concealed in many places beneath the earth, water is heated\nwhen they happen to lie beneath the ground through which it has to\nflow. Let me use an illustration. We are in the habit of constructing\nserpentines,[58] and cylinders, and vessels of several other designs in\nwhich thin copper pipes are laid in descending spiral coils. The object\nis to make the water meet the same fire over and over again, and flow\nthrough a space sufficient for heating it up; so, entering as cold it\ncomes out hot. Empedocles supposes something of the same kind to take 2\nplace underground. People who have their baths heated without fire may\nwell believe that he is right. In this case air from the heated furnace\nis introduced. The air glides along the passages, warming up the walls\nand vessels of the bathroom just as if fire had been directly applied.\nIn short, all the cold water in these instances is changed into hot by\nmerely passing through a heated medium; and inasmuch as it is conveyed\nin an enclosure there is no evaporation to impart a flavour to it.[59]\nOthers, again, suppose that the water contracts heat by issuing from\nor passing through ground charged with sulphur; the heat is imparted\nby the properties of the material, to which also smell and taste bear\nwitness. All substances, I may say in general terms, tend to reproduce\nthe qualities of the medium by which they have been warmed. If you are\nsurprised at sulphur warming water, you have only to pour water over\nquicklime; it will at once evolve heat.\n\n [58] The technical name is \u201cworm.\u201d\n\n [59] There is considerable doubt regarding the correct text and\n meaning.\n\n\n\n\nXXV\n\n\nSome waters are fatal, although they give no indication of this 1\neither by smell or taste. In Arcadia, near Nonacris, the river called\nby the people there the Styx lures strangers to ruin, as its appearance\nand smell rouse no suspicion. This is like the drugs of accomplished\npoisoners, which cannot be detected save by their fatal effects. The\nwater I mentioned a little above brings destruction with amazing\nswiftness, and allows no opportunity of applying a remedy. It hardens\nimmediately it is drunk, and, much like chalk under the influence ofcccc 2\nwater, it sets and binds fast the bowels. There is a poisonous water\nin Thessaly, near Tempe, shunned by all cattle and wild beasts. It\ncomes out through seams of iron and copper, and contains the power of\nsoftening the very hardest material. It does not nourish any trees\neither, and it kills grass. Certain rivers possess a peculiar and\nstrange power. Some there are whose draught dyes whole flocks of\nsheep. Within a short time those that were black have white fleeces;\nin other cases those that came white go away black. This is what two\nrivers in Boeotia do, one of which from its effect is called Melas\n(Blackwater). Both the rivers issue from the same lake, to go on their\nopposite missions. So, too, in Macedonia, Theophrastus asserts there 3\nis a river to which shepherds who desire to turn their sheep white\nbring them. If the sheep drink it for any length of time, their colour\nchanges as if they had been dyed. But if those people want a dark wool,\nthey have a dyer ready at hand who charges nothing; they have merely\nto drive the same flock to the river Peneus. I have recent authorities\nfor the statement that there is a river in Galatia that has the same\npower of changing the colour in all animals, while in Cappadocia there\nis one which if drunk changes the colour of horses but not of any other\nanimal; their skin is dappled with white spots.\n\nIt is well known that there are lakes whose waters bear up those 4\nwho cannot swim. There used to be a pool in Sicily, there still is\none in Syria, in which brickbats float, and no objects thrown in,\nhowever heavy, will sink. The cause of it is obvious. Weigh any object\nand compare it with water while they are equal bulk for bulk. If the\nwater is the heavier, it will bear the object that is lighter than\nitself, and will raise it above its surface to a height proportionate\nto its lightness; objects heavier than the water will sink in it.\nBut if the weight of water and of the object compared with it in 5\nrespect of weight be equal, the object will neither go to the bottom\nnor yet will it stick up; it will just be in equipoise with the water.\nIt will float, it is true, but almost submerged and without any part\nprojecting. The differences in weight give the reason why some logs\nfloat almost entirely above water, while some sink to their centre, and\nsome go down until they are in equipoise with the water. For it always\nholds good that, when the weights of the two are equal, neither yields\nto the other; but objects heavier than water sink, those lighter are\nupborne.\n\nNow heavy and light do not refer to our judgment of weight, but are 6\nrelative to the medium by which an object is to be supported. So when\nwater is heavier than the human body or than a stone, it does not allow\nthe inferior weight to sink. So it comes to pass that in some lakes\neven stones will not go to the bottom; I mean hard solid stones. There\nare many light pumice stones, of which in Lydia whole islands that\nfloat are composed. Theophrastus is my authority for the statement. I\nhave myself seen a floating island in the lake near Cutiliae. Another\nis carried about in the Vadimonian Lake, another in the lake by\nStatonia. The island at Cutiliae contains trees and grows grass, and 7\nyet it is borne up by the water, and is wafted now in this direction,\nnow in that, not merely by wind, but even by a mere air. So light the\nbreath that moves it that night and day it never remains stationary in\none spot. There are two reasons for it: first, there is the weight of\nthe water, which is medicated and therefore heavy; and then there is\nthe portable material of the island itself, which contains no solid\nbody, although it supports trees. Perhaps in the first instance the 8\nthick liquid laid hold upon and made fast light trunks and boughs\nscattered over the surface of the lake. So also whatever rocks are\nin the island, you will find porous and hollow. They resemble those\nformed of moisture that has hardened especially near the banks of\nmedicinal springs; in such cases the scourings of the spring coalesce\nand the foam is solidified. It is necessarily light, being formed by\nconcretions of windy, empty material.\n\nThere are other peculiarities attaching to waters of different kinds, 9\nof which no explanation can be offered. For example, why should Nile\nwater make women more fruitful? So effective is it in this respect that\nin some instances wombs shut up in prolonged barrenness have relaxed\nso as to render conception possible. Or why should certain waters in\nLycia prevent miscarriage, being sought after by ladies who are subject\nto this frailty? For my own part I set these down among vulgar errors.\nIt is firmly believed by people that certain waters, whether applied\noutwardly or taken inwardly, affect the body with scab, certain with\nleprosy and foul blotches over the skin. Water gathered from dew,\nthey say, has this fault. Wouldn\u2019t any one suppose that water that 10\nturns into ice is the heaviest of all? The truth is just the opposite\nof this. The change takes place in the thinnest water, which for that\nvery reason is most easily congealed by the cold. The origin of the\nstone that resembles ice is plain from the very name used for it by\nthe Greeks. They apply the term crystal (\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) equally to the\ntransparent stone and to the ice from which the stone is supposed to be\nformed. Rain water, which contains very little solid matter, once it is\nfrozen becomes more and more condensed through the persistence of the\nlonger cold until all the air is expelled, and it is compressed to the\nlast degree; then what was once moisture is changed into stone.\n\n\n\n\nXXVI\n\n\nSome rivers rise in summer like the Nile, of which I will give an 1\naccount later on. Theophrastus makes himself responsible for the\nstatement that in Pontus likewise certain rivers rise in the summer\nseason. Four different causes are assigned for this. First, the earth\nis at that period most readily changed into moisture. Second, there are\nin the remote districts heavier rains, the water from which, finding\nits way by secret channels, comes unnoticed to swell the volume of the\nrivers. A third explanation is that the estuary is exposed to more\nfrequent winds, and is lashed by the sea waves; the river is checked\nand seems to increase because it cannot discharge freely. The fourth\nreason connects itself with the heavenly bodies. These bodies by 2\ntheir more severe pressure during certain months drain the rivers; when\nthey retire to a greater distance, the waste and drain are less. What\nwas previously lost now accrues by way of increase. Certain rivers\nfall visibly into some grotto or other, and thus are withdrawn from\nsight; some are gradually wasted and disappear. They return, however,\nat some distance off and recover their name and course. The reason is\nplain enough. There is vacant space underground. All liquid naturally 3\nis carried to the lower level and to the unoccupied space. The rivers\nreceived into these recesses have run their course there in secret. But\nas soon as any solid obstacle blocks the way, they burst through the\npart that offers the slightest obstruction to their escape and regain\ntheir channel above ground.\n\n So when Lycus has been swallowed up by the yawning earth,\n He comes forth far thence, and is born from another source.\n So is now drunk up, now gliding with silent stream,\n Is restored to its Argolic waves the mighty Erasinus.\n\nIn the East as well as the West this happens. The Tigris is absorbed 4\nby the earth and after long absence reappears at a point far removed,\nbut undoubtedly the same river. Some fountains cast out their scourings\nat a fixed period; the fountain Arethuse does so every fifth summer\nduring the Olympic festival. Thence comes the belief that the Alpheus\nmakes its way right from Achaia to Sicily, stealing under sea by secret\nsluice, and reappearing only when it reaches the coast at Syracuse. On\nthat account, during the days on which the Olympic festival is taking\nplace, the dung of the victims offered in sacrifice being thrown into\nthe stream of the river (Alpheus) turns up in quantity away in Sicily.\nYou have yourself told the story, my dear Lucilius, in your own poem, 5\nand so has Virgil, who says in his address to Arethuse:\n\n So when thou glid\u2019st beneath Sicilian seas,\n Never may sea nymph mingle bitter salt waves with thine.\n\nIn the Carian Chersonese there is a fountain of the Rhodians which at\nlong intervals sends up from its depths certain foul excretions of mud,\nuntil it is set free of them by being cleaned out. At certain places 6\nwells throw up not merely mud but also leaves, and bits of crockery\nand any other filthy things that have accumulated in them. The sea\ndoes the same everywhere, its nature being to drive ashore all filthy\nimpurities. In the neighbourhood of Messana and Mylae as it boils and\ntosses in storms it throws up on the beach something actually like\nordure, which has a vile smell too. Whence comes the fable that the\noxen of the sun are stalled in that neighbourhood. In certain cases of\nthis kind it is difficult to reach the true explanation, especially\nwhen the time of the occurrence in question has not actually been\nobserved and is therefore doubtful. But though the immediate and 7\nspecial cause cannot be discovered, there is a general one worth\nmentioning; all waters when standing and enclosed tend to throw off\nimpurities. In water that has a current the impurities cannot settle,\nas they are carried down and expelled by the mere force of the stream.\nThe waters which do not throw off foreign bodies that settle in them\nalways boil more or less. As for the sea, it drags from its lowest\ndepths dead bodies, refuse of vegetation, and all kinds of wreckage,\nand purges itself of them, not merely when its billows rage in a storm\nbut likewise in its calm and peaceful moments.\n\n\n\n\nXXVII\n\n\nThe occasion reminds me of a wider question. When the fated day of 1\ndeluge comes, after what fashion will the earth for the most part\nbe overwhelmed by the waves? Will it be by the strength of Ocean\nand the rise of the outer sea against us? Or will the rain descend\nuninterruptedly, and will summer be cut out of the year while\npersistent winter bursts its clouds and pours down endless masses of\nwater? Or will earth herself open new reservoirs and shed forth 2\nrivers more abundantly? Or will a single cause be insufficient to\nproduce such a catastrophe, and all the methods conspire together, the\nrains descending and the river floods rising, and the seas hurrying\nin hot haste from their place--all agencies in concert bent upon the\none aim, the destruction of the human race? The last is the truth.\nNature finds no difficulties in compassing her ends, especially when\nshe hastens to make an end of herself. At the creation of things she\neconomises her efforts, putting forth her energy in small imperceptible\nincrease: for destruction she comes with sudden and irresistible might.\nHow long a time is needed to bring the embryo child to the birth! How 3\ngreat the toil called for in rearing the tender infant! How careful the\nnurture through which the frail body is at length brought to manhood!\nBut how insignificant the effort needed to undo it all! Cities take\ncenturies to establish: an hour brings their ruin. Ages rear the\nforest: a moment turns it to ashes. To its stability and vigour this\nuniverse of things calls for great and constant protection; quickly and\nsuddenly dissolution comes. Deviation by nature from her established 4\norder in the world suffices for the destruction of the race.\n\nSo when that day of fate comes, many causes will be at work in\nfulfilling its decrees; and as some, including Fabianus, think, such\na change will not come without a shock to the whole universe. In the\nfirst instance there will be excessive rainfall, a dull leaden sky with\nnever a glimpse of the sun. The clouds will be unbroken, the gathering\nmoisture will cause thick darkness, and there will be no winds to lick\nit up. Hence the crops will be diseased, the grain ere it be grown 5\nwill wither without fruit. All tillage of man\u2019s hand will be ruined;\nmarsh grass will spring up over all the plains. Presently the stronger\nplants feel the strain; their roots are loosened, and the pollard elms\nfall forward, carrying their vines with them. All shrubs lose their\nhold on the soil, which has become soft and flabby. Soon the ground is\nso saturated that it can support neither grain nor fruitful pasture.\nThe stress of famine is felt, and recourse is had to the ancient\nsustenance of berries. The fruit is shaken from ilex and oak, and any\nother tree that has been able to keep its ground by the support of the\nclefts of the rocks in the mountains. Roofs are sodden and rickety;\nthe rain has penetrated to the depths, and the foundations sink. The 6\nground is all a marsh. It is vain to seek supports to the tottering\nhouses; every foundation is set on slippery ground, and in the muddy\nsoil nothing is firm. After the storm-clouds have more and more densely\nmassed, and the accumulated snows of centuries have melted, a cataract\nsweeps down from the lofty mountains carrying before it the woods now\ninsecure in their place, tearing off boulders from their fastenings,\nand whirling them down in fierce career. It washes off the country 7\nhouses, and takes down with it flocks of sheep among the _d\u00e9bris_. The\nsmaller hamlets it carries off as it passes, but at length it leaves\nits course and rushes in fury upon the larger homesteads. It draws in\nits career whole cities, inhabitants, and buildings all mixed together:\npeople know not whether to complain of a catastrophe or a shipwreck. So\nutterly crushed are they and at the same time submerged by its coming.\n\nBy and by, as it advances, the cataract is swollen by the absorption\nof other torrents, and in devastating course roams through the whole\nplain. Finally, it holds universal sway; it has earned a title by the\nwidespread destruction of the world which it carries as its burthen.\nThe rivers, too, originally large, have been so hurried down by 8\nthe storms that they have left their channels. The Rhone, the Rhine,\nthe Danube, even when confined within their banks, have an impetuous\ntorrent. What, suppose you, are they now that they have overflowed\nand made themselves new banks, and, cutting through the soil have all\nwandered from their wonted course? With what headlong rush they roll\ndown! The Rhine overspreads the plains, but the wideness of the space\ncauses no slackening of its energy; it pours its waters in full force\nover the whole extent as if it were rushing through a gorge. The Danube\nno longer washes the base, or even the middle, of the mountains; it 9\nlashes the very summits, bearing down with it the mountain sides it has\nflooded, the crags it has overturned, the beetling promontories through\nwhole provinces; it undermines their foundations, and carries them far\noff from the mainland. And, after all, the river finds no exit--for it\nhad closed up every passage against itself--but returns in a circuit,\nand envelops in one vast whirlpool the huge expanse of lands and cities.\n\nMeantime the rains continue, the sky becomes still more threatening,\nand thus, for long, disaster is heaped upon disaster. What was once\ncloud is now profound night, and that, too, dread and terrible, with 10\ngleams of lurid light between. For frequent flashes show, and squalls\ndisturb the sea. Then for the first time, feeling the increase from\nthe rivers, and too narrow to contain itself, the main advances its\nshores. Its own bounds cannot contain it, and yet the torrents from\nland prevent its escape, and drive back its waves. Still, the greater\npart of the torrents detained by their narrow mouth recoil in pools,\nreducing the fields to the aspect of a continuous lake. Now everything,\nfar as the eye can reach, is a waste of waters. Every hill is hidden\nin the abyss, everywhere is fathomless depth of water. Only in the 11\nhighest mountain tops are there shallows. To these heights men have\nfled with wives and children, and have driven up their cattle. All\nintercourse and communication have been cut off among the wretched\nsurvivors; for all the lower ground has been filled by the waves. The\nremnants of the human race cling to every lofty peak. Brought to the\nlast shift, they have this one solace, that apprehension has passed\ninto stupor. Astonishment so fills them that there is no room for\nfear. Even grief finds no place; for it loses its force in one 12\nwhose wretchedness has passed beyond perception of suffering. So there\nare only mountain tops that appear like islands above the water, and\nincrease the number of the scattered Cyclades, as that accomplished\npoet finely says; with an exaltation of language too in keeping with\nhis theme, he exclaims:\n\n All was sea; to the sea there was no shore.\n\nIt is a pity he reduced that burst of genius and his splendid subject\nto childish twaddle by adding:\n\n The wolf has to swim among the sheep, the wave carries tawny lions.\n\nThere is too little seriousness in making sport in this way when the 13\nearth has been swallowed up. He expressed a fine thought and caught a\nvivid picture of the utter confusion when he said:\n\n Through the open plains the rivers wander at their will,\n ... The towers totter and sink beneath the flood.\n\nThat was splendid, if he had not minded what the wolf and the sheep\nwere doing. Could anything, in fact, swim amid such deluge and\ndestruction? Was not every hoof drowned in the same torrent as carried\nit off? You conceived a worthy image, Ovid, when all the world was\noverwhelmed, and the sky itself descended upon earth. Keep it up. You\nwill know what it ought to be if you reflect that the whole world was\nafloat. Now we must return to our discussion.\n\n\n\n\nXXVIII\n\n\nThere is a section of philosophers who hold that while the earth may 1\nbe greatly harassed by excessive rains, it cannot be overwhelmed by\nthem. By a mighty blow this mighty earth must be smitten. Rain will\nspoil the crops, hail will knock off the fruit; but the rivers will\nonly be swollen above their banks, and will subside again. Some, again,\nare satisfied that the cause of the widespread destruction will be\nderived from the movements of the sea. The great shipwreck of the world\ncannot, they think, arise from injury by cataract, river, or rain. I am\nwilling to grant that when that day of destruction is at hand, and 2\nHeaven is resolved to create a new race of men, the rain will pour down\nincessantly, and there will be no limit to the floods, the north and\nother dry winds will cease to blow; the south will bring up in plenty\nclouds and rain and stream.\n\n But hitherto only damage has been inflicted.\n The crops are laid low, and to the grief of the farmer,\n All hope of increase is abandoned; the toil of the long year is\n wasted and vain.\n\nBut for our purpose the earth must be more than damaged, it must be\nsubmerged. In fact, the disasters described are merely the prelude\nto destruction. After that, the seas swell far beyond their wonted\nbounds, sending out their waves far above the farthest high-water\nmark of the most violent tempest. The winds will urge them on from\nthe rear, rolling up huge billows that will break far inland out of 3\nsight of the highest shore. In course of time the shore will thus be\nshifted forward, the deep will be established in a realm that is not\nits own; the mischief will come nearer, and from its new base the tide\nwill issue still from the deepest recesses of the main. For just like\natmosphere and ether, this element, sea, has a large reserve, and in\nits depth is far more copious than appears to the eye. This reserve,\nmoved by fate, not merely by tides--for tides are but the agency of\nfate--raises and drives before it a gulf of vast extent. Then in 4\nwondrous wise it rears its crest, and overtops all man\u2019s refuges\nof safety. Nor do the waters find this a hard task, since, if the\nheights were calculated, it would be found that the sea mounts from an\nelevation equal to that of earth. The surface of the sea is of uniform\nlevel; for the earth itself as a whole is uniformly level. Hollows and\nplains are everywhere below the general level.\n\nBut the whole globe is as a matter of fact formed into a regular\nsphere, while in part of it is the sea, which unites to form the unity\nof a single ball. But just as when one looks out across a plain, the 5\nground that sinks gradually deceives the eye, so we are not aware of\nthe sea\u2019s curvatures, and all that is visible is a plain. But being on\na level with the earth, the sea does not require to raise itself to\nany great height in order to overflow. In order to overtop what is on\na level with it, it need make only a slight rise. Besides, the flow\nof it does not proceed from the shore where it is lower, but from mid\nocean where the heap in question stands. Therefore, as the tide at the\nequinox soon after the conjunction of moon and sun rises to a height 6\ngreater than at any other time of year; in like manner this one that is\nsent out to seize upon the earth must exceed in violence the highest\nof ordinary tides, and bear a far greater volume of water; nor does\nit begin to ebb until it has swollen above the peaks of the mountains\nthat are its objective. Some localities have at present a tide that\nruns up inland for a hundred miles in ordinary course harmlessly. It\nflows up to its normal limit and then ebbs again. But when the time of\ndeluge comes, the tide, freed from all restraint, will set no limit 7\nto its advance. In what way? you say. Just in the same way as the great\nconflagration is destined to take place. Both will take place when God\nhas seen fit to end the old order, and bring in a better. Fire and\nwater are lords of the earth. From these it took its rise, and in these\nit will find its grave. So when a new creation of the world has been\nresolved upon by Heaven, the sea will be let loose on us from above;\nor it may be the raging fire, if another variety of destruction is\nHeaven\u2019s will.\n\n\n\n\nXXIX\n\n\nSome suppose that in the final catastrophe the earth, too, will be 1\nshaken, and through clefts in the ground will uncover sources of\nfresh rivers which will flow forth from their full source in larger\nvolume. Berosus, the translator of [the records of] Belus, affirms\nthat the whole issue is brought about by the course of the planets. So\npositive is he on the point that he assigns a definite date both for\nthe conflagration and the deluge. All that the earth inherits will, he\nassures us, be consigned to flame when the planets, which now move in\ndifferent orbits, all assemble in Cancer, so arranged in one row that a\nstraight line may pass through their spheres. When the same gathering\ntakes place in Capricorn, then we are in danger of the deluge.\nMidsummer is at present brought round by the former, midwinter by the\nlatter. They are zodiacal signs of great power seeing that they are 2\nthe determining influences in the two great changes of the year. I\nshould myself quite admit causes of the kind. The destruction of the\nworld will not be determined by a single reason.\n\nBut I should like to apply in this connection as well, a principle\nwhich we Stoics adopt in regard to a conflagration of the universe.\nWhether the world is a soul, or a body under the government of nature,\nlike trees and crops, it embraces in its constitution all that it is\ndestined to experience actively or passively from its beginning right\non to its end; it resembles a human being, all whose capacities are\nwrapped up in the embryo before birth. Ere the child has seen the 3\nlight the principle of beard and grey hairs is innate. Albeit small\nand hidden, all the features of the whole body and of every succeeding\nperiod of life are there. In like manner the creation of the world\nembraces sun and moon, stars with their successive phases, and the\nbirth of all sentient life; and no less the methods of change in all\nearthly things. Among the latter is flood, which comes by a law of\nnature just as winter and summer do. So, that catastrophe will not be\nproduced simply by rain, but rain will contribute: nor by inroads 4\nof the sea, but these inroads will contribute: nor by earthquake, but\nearthquake will contribute. All elements will aid nature, that nature\u2019s\ndecrees may be executed. The chief cause of its inundation will be\nfurnished by the earth herself, which, as has been already said, is\nsubject to transmutation, and may dissolve in moisture.\n\nTherefore, there will one day come an end to all human life and 5\ninterests. The elements of the earth must all be dissolved or utterly\ndestroyed in order that they all may be created anew in innocence, and\nthat no remnant may be left to tutor men in vice. There will be more\nmoisture then than there ever was before. At present the elements are\nall carefully adjusted to the parts they have to fulfil. To destroy\nthe equipoise in which the balance stands, there must be some addition\nto one or other of them. The addition will be to moisture. It has,\nat present, power to surround, but not to overwhelm the earth. Any\naddition to it must of necessity overflow into ground that does not now\nbelong to it.[60] So the earth as the weaker is bound to yield to sea\nwhich has gathered unnatural strength. So it will begin to rot, then\nto be loosened and converted into moisture, and to waste away by the 6\ncontinuous drain. Rivers will then issue forth beneath mountains,\nshaking them to the foundations by their fury; then they will flow on\nin silence without a breath of air. The soil will everywhere give forth\nwater; the tops of mountains will pour it out, just as disease corrupts\nwhat is sound, and an ulcer taints its whole vicinity. The nearer the\npart is to the soil that is being liquefied, the more quickly will\nit be washed off, dissolved, and finally carried away. The rock will\neverywhere gape in fissures, and the fresh supplies of water will leap\ndown into the gulfs, and unite in forming one great sea. There will be\nno Adriatic any longer, no strait in the Sicilian Sea, no Charybdis, no\nScylla. All the fabulous dangers will be swallowed up in the new sea; 7\nthe existing Ocean which surrounds the fringes of the earth will come\ninto the centre.\n\n [60] The text is uncertain, but the meaning fairly obvious.\n\nNor will this be all. As if this were not enough, winter will seize\nupon months that are not his, summer will be stopped, the heat of\nevery heavenly body that dries up earth\u2019s moisture will be quenched\nand cease. All these names will be obliterated--Caspian and Red\nSea, Ambracian and Cretan Gulfs, the Pontus and the Propontis. All\ndistinctions will disappear. All will be mixed up which nature has 8\nnow arranged in its several parts. Nor will walls and battlements\nafford protection to any. Temples will not save their worshippers, nor\ncitadels their refugees. The wave will anticipate the fugitives, and\nsweep them down from their very stronghold. Some enemies will hasten\nfrom the west, others from the east. A single day will see the burial\nof all mankind. All that the long forbearance of fortune has produced,\nall that has been reared to eminence, all that is famous and all that\nis beautiful, great thrones, great nations--all will descend into the\none abyss, will be overthrown in one hour.\n\n\n\n\nXXX\n\n\nNature, as I have said, finds no task hard, and especially one 1\nresolved upon from the beginning, to which she does not come of a\nsudden, but of which long warning has been given. From the world\u2019s\nfirst morning, when out of shapeless uniformity it assumed this form it\nwears, nature\u2019s decree had fixed the day when all earthly things should\nbe overflowed. Nay, from of old the seas have practised their strength\nfor this purpose, lest at any time destruction as a strange work might\nbe found difficult to compass. Do you not see how the breaker dashes\nagainst the beach as if it wished to leave its element? Do you not\nsee how the tide sometimes crosses its bounds and instals the sea in\npossession of the land? Do you not see how unceasing is the war it 2\nwages against its barriers? But what special apprehension need there\nbe of the sea, the place where you see such turmoil, and of the rivers\nthat burst forth in such fury? Where has nature not placed water? She\ncan attack us on all sides the moment she chooses. I can give my own\nword of honour for it that water meets us as we turn up the soil; every\ntime our avarice sends us down a mine, or any other motive induces us\nto sink a shaft deep in the earth, the end of the excavation is always\na rush of water.\n\nRemember, too, that there are huge lakes hidden deep in the earth, 3\ngreat quantities of sea stored up, and many rivers that glide through\nthe unseen depths. On all sides, therefore, will be causes of deluge;\nfor some waters flow in beneath the earth and others flow round it.\nThough long restrained they will at last prevail, and will join stream\nto stream and pool to marsh. The sea will fill up the mouth of every\nfountain, and will open it out to wider extent. Just as the bowels\ndrain the body in the draught, or as the strength goes off into 4\nperspiration, so the earth will dissolve, and though other causes\nare inactive, it will find within itself a flood in which to sink.\nAll the great forces will thus, I should suppose, combine. Nor will\ndestruction tarry. The harmony is assailed and broken when once the\nworld has relaxed aught of its needed care. At once, from all sides,\nopen and hidden, above and beneath, will rush the influx of waters.\nThere is nothing like the letting loose of the sea\u2019s full force, 5\nfor violence and ungovernable fury; it rises in rebellion and spurns\nevery restraint. It will make full use of its permitted liberty; as\nits nature prompts, what it rends and surrounds it will soon fill\nup. Just as fire that breaks out at different points will speedily\nunite the flames and make one grand blaze, so the overflowing seas\nwill join forces in an instant. But the waves will not enjoy their\nunrestrained liberty for ever. When the destruction of the human race 6\nis consummated, and when wild beasts, whose nature men had come to\nshare, have been consigned together to a like fate, the earth will once\nmore drink up the waters. Nature will force the sea to stay its course,\nand to expend its rage within its wonted bounds. Ocean will be banished\nfrom our abodes into his own secret dwelling-place. The ancient order\nof things will be recalled. Every living creature will be created 7\nafresh. The earth will receive a new man ignorant of sin, born under\nhappier stars. But they, too, will retain their innocence only while\nthey are new. Vice quickly creeps in; virtue is difficult to find;\nshe requires ruler and guide. But vice can be acquired even without a\ntutor.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV\n\nCONTAINING A DISCUSSION OF SNOW, HAIL, AND RAIN [THE NILE]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nYou tell me you are delighted, Lucilius, my most esteemed of friends, 1\nwith your peaceful government of Sicily. You will continue to be\ndelighted if you are willing to observe the bounds of moderation, and\ndo not try to turn into an empire what is merely a province. Nor do I\ndoubt that this will be your choice, knowing as I do that you are a\nstranger to ambition, and a friend to a peaceful life of letters. Let\nthose who cannot bear their own company, long for a crowd of affairs\nand of people! You are on the best of terms with yourself. It is\nlittle wonder that few attain such a happy lot. We are always laying 2\ncommands upon ourselves to our own dispeace. We suffer at one moment\nfrom love of, at another from weariness of, ourselves. Our unhappy soul\nis now inflamed with pride, now inflated with passion. Sometimes we\nrelax it through indulgence, sometimes we consume it with anxiety. The\nmost pitiable thing of all is that we are never alone with ourselves.\nSo, where such a crowd of vices have to mess together, there must becccc 3\ncontinual wrangling among them. Behave, therefore, my dear Lucilius, as\nyou are wont to behave. Separate yourself as far as possible from the\ncommon herd, and expose no side to the attack of flattery. Flatterers\nare adepts in spreading a net for their betters. However much you are\non your guard, you will be no match for them. If you allow yourself\nto be caught, you will be delivering yourself up to betrayal, take my\nword for it. Flattery has in it the inherent charm, that even when 4\nspurned, it is not unpleasing: often shut out, it is at the last taken\nto the bosom. Flattery accepts its rejection as a mark of attention;\neven insults cannot subdue it.\n\nWhat I am going to tell you may sound incredible, yet it is the simple\ntruth. Every man is most open to danger on the side on which he is 5\nattacked. Perhaps, indeed, that is the very reason why he is attacked\non that side. You must, therefore, lay your account to recognise that,\ndo what you will, you cannot manage to be impervious to adulation. When\nyou have closed every loophole, it will still wound you through your\nharness. One assailant will employ his flattery secretly and sparingly;\nanother, above board, openly, with an affectation of honest sincerity,\nas if it were straightforward bluntness, not device. Plancus, the\ngreatest adept in the art before Vitellius\u2019 time, used to say that\nsecret, dissembled flattery was not to be employed. Advances, quoth he,\nare lost if they are not recognised. The flatterer makes most headway 6\nwhen he is detected; still more, in fact, if an open rebuke brings the\nblush to his cheek. You must assume that a public character like you\nwill encounter many Plancuses. It is no remedy against the inveterate\nplague to refuse to be praised. I never knew a man more shrewd in every\npractical matter than Crispus Passienus, and especially in diagnosing\nand treating faults of character. He often used to say that we only\nput-to the door against flattery, and do not shut it, much in the same\nway as in the face of a mistress. If she gives it a shove, we are\npleased, still more so if she forces it open. I remember hearing that 7\ndistinguished man, Demetrius, remark to a certain powerful freedman\nthat he, too, had an easy road to riches on the day that he made up\nhis mind to renounce all virtuous resolutions. Nor will I grudge any\nof you, said he, the knowledge of the art, but I will teach those\nwho regard gain as the one thing needful how they may attain their\nobject. They need not follow the doubtful fortune of the sea, nor the\ncompetition of buying and selling: they need not place their faith in\nthe fickle proceeds of the ground, nor the still more fickle fortunes\nof the exchange. I will teach them a means of making money not merely\neasy, but positively so merry that the victims whom they fleece will\nshare the fun. Flattery shall be the means. If you have the stature 8\nof the pigmy Thracian matched against Thracian in the arena, I will\nswear that you are taller than Fidus Annaeus or Apollonius Pycta. I\nwill say that no fellow could be more liberal than you, nor shall I\nlie, since you may be considered to have bestowed upon all whatever you\nhave not robbed them of.\n\nThe fact is, my dear Junior, the more open and shameless flattery is,\nand the more completely it has brazened its own features and raised\nthe conscious blush in those of others, the more quickly it storms the\ncitadel. We have now reached such a pitch of madness that he who uses\nflattery sparingly is considered niggardly. I used to tell you thatccccc 9\nmy brother Gallio--a man whom even his most ardent admirer cannot love\naccording to the measure of his deserts--was a stranger to other vices,\nbut this he positively loathed. You might assail him on every side.\nOne began by paying homage to his intellect, the greatest and worthiest\nof all, which one had rather see consecrated to the service of heaven\nthan wasted in weak human effort; he ran away from one who talked thus.\nOr one began to praise his thrift--he was so indifferent to money that\nhe seemed neither to possess it nor to condemn it--he cut short the\nvery first words of the panegyric.\n\nOr, again, one would admire his _bonhomie_ and unaffected grace 10\nof character, which charms even those it passes unnoticed--a service\nto every one he meets, which costs the author nothing. No one in the\nworld, I may tell you, is such a favourite with his one chosen friend\nas he is with all. At the same time so great is his natural amiability\nthat it is free from all savour of artifice or pretence. No one, you\nwould think, can refuse credit for a goodness in which all share. At\nthis point, too, he successfully resisted your blandishments, leading\nyou to exclaim that you had found a man absolutely impregnable to\nassaults of the flattery which no one ever refuses to take to his\nbosom. You were forced to admit that you respected his wisdom and 11\ndetermination in escaping from that unavoidable plague, all the more\nthat you had hoped that your insinuating words would be received with\nopen ears because they were true. Yet all the more he saw that he must\nresist your wiles. For when truth is attacked by falsehood, the attack\nalways seeks the aid of some measure of truth. Still, I would not have\nthe flatterer who tried his art upon my brother displeased with his\nsuccess, as if he had acted his part ill while the other suspected some\njoke or trick. You had not been detected, your advances had simply 12\nbeen rejected. Now do you, Lucilius, adapt yourself to this model.\nWhen any flatterer approaches you, say to him: Do you wish to convey a\ncomplimentary message such as passes between magistrates duly installed\nin office? Do you think that I am prepared to return the compliment,\nand willing, therefore, to listen to your long story? Neither do I wish\nto dupe, nor can I be duped. I should like well enough to have the\npraise of people like yourself if you did not praise the bad as well as\nthe good.\n\nAnd yet, Lucilius, why is it necessary for you to come down to their\nlevel, and allow them to attack you at close quarters? Keep a long\ndistance between you and them. When you desire to have genuine praise,\nwhy should you be indebted to another for it? Yourself commend your own\nefforts. Say thus: Though my poverty prompted another kind of career,\nand tempted me to devote my talents to a field which promised to 13\napplication a quick return, yet I gave myself up to liberal pursuits.\nI turned aside to the unremunerative domains of poetry, and bestowed\nmyself upon the wholesome study of philosophy. I have showed that\nseeds of virtue are planted in every breast. I have surmounted the\ndifficulties of birth; measuring my powers, not by my lot, but by my\ncapacity, I have reached a position on a level with the highest. My\nfriendship with Gaetulicus did not sap my allegiance to the Emperor\nCaius Caligula. Messalina and Narcissus, long enemies of the State\nbefore they became enemies of one another, were unable to overturn 14\nmy resolve to be true to others whom it was a crime to love.[61] I\nrisked my head for my loyalty. No word was wrung from me that I could\nnot utter with a clear conscience. All my fears were for my friends,\nnone for myself, except the fear of not proving a true friend. No\nwomanish tears escaped me, nor did I cling as suppliant to the hands\nof any ruler. I have done nothing unbecoming a man or a good man.\nRising superior to dangers, ready to face all they threatened, I 15\nthanked fortune for affording opportunity of showing what a price I put\nupon honour. Such an issue could not be lightly esteemed in my eyes.\nThe suspense was not of long continuance. The weights in the scale\nwere by no means equal--was it better for me to perish for honour\u2019s\nsake or for honour to perish for my sake? I did not rush headlong to\nself-destruction, the refuge of despair, to rescue myself from the\nmad rage of the rulers. In Caius\u2019 time I saw tortures and fires of\npersecution. Under his reign I recognised at one period that the lot of\nhumanity had sunk to such a depth of misery that the loss of one\u2019s 16\nlife might be ranked among the deeds of mercy. Yet, I did not fall upon\nmy sword, nor leap open-mouthed into the sea: I would not have it seem\nthat death was the only service I could render for honour\u2019s sake. Add,\nnow, that my soul has never stooped to bribes, amid the eager race for\nwealth my hand has never reached forth to receive unjust gain. Add,\ntoo, the thriftiness of my mode of life, the restraint of my speech, my\ncourtesy toward inferiors, my respect for superiors.\n\n [61] The passage is evidently corrupt; the facts with which it deals\n are in part unknown.\n\nAfter these reflections, ask yourself, my friend, whether what you\nhave related of yourself be true or false. If it is true, you have a\nmost important witness to your character; if false, there will be no\nwitness to the derision you have earned. I may myself appear at 17\npresent to be either seeking to throw my net over you or trying to make\nyou rise to my fly. Take either supposition for true, and begin, from\nthe example I offer, to fear all flatterers. Meditate on Virgil\u2019s words:\n\n Nowhere is honour safe;\n\nor on Ovid\u2019s:\n\n As far as earth extends, the savage Fury rules;\n For crime, methinks, all have conspired;\n\nor on this sentiment of Menander\u2019s--for who has not put forth the\nfull strength of his indignation on this topic, in abhorrence of 18\nmankind\u2019s agreement in rushing toward vice? All are bad livers, says\nthe poet, presenting himself on the stage in the rude character of a\nraw countryman. He excepts neither greybeard nor youth, neither man\nnor woman. He adds to the charge that it is not individuals or small\nnumbers that sin, but that wickedness is now ingrained in society all\nthrough. One must flee from the world and return to oneself, nay,\nrather one must escape from oneself. Though you and I are separated by\nthe sea, I will endeavour to render you some service: placing my 19\nhand in yours I will guide your doubtful steps along the more excellent\nway. At this distance I will mingle my talk with yours, that you may\nnot feel the loneliness. We shall be united in our noblest part--the\nspirit. We shall impart mutual counsel, and, as you hang upon the lips\nof your monitor, I will lead you far away from that province of yours.\nFor I would not have you put too implicit trust in records of the\npast, or become self-satisfied as often as you reflect: I have under\nmy jurisdiction a province here which both maintained and crushed 20\nthe armies of the mightiest states, when it was offered as a prize in\nthat colossal war between Carthage and Rome. It saw the strength of\nfour Roman generals, in other words, of the whole empire, massed in\none spot; it raised high the fortunes of Pompey, brought Caesar\u2019s to\ntheir culmination; transferred the power of Lepidus to his rivals, and\ncontained the fate of all. Sicily was an eye-witness of that great\nspectacle which showed plainly to the world how rapid the descent 21\nfrom highest to lowest could be, and in how many different ways great\npower might be overthrown by fortune. For at one and the same time it\nwitnessed the downfall of Pompey and Lepidus from the pinnacle of power\nin opposite ways; Pompey had to run from his enemy\u2019s army, Lepidus from\nhis own.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nAlthough Sicily, then, has many wonderful sights in and around it, I\nwill meantime withdraw your mind wholly from your own province, and,\npassing by all questions relating to it, will direct your thoughts\nto a far different scene. In your society I will resume the inquiry\npostponed in my last book, why the Nile overflows in the summer months.\nNow, let me remark that the philosophers have asserted the similarity\nof the Danube to the Nile, because its source is unknown and it is\nlarger in summer than in winter. Both statements are clearly false.\nWe know for a fact that the Danube rises in Germany. Again, though\nthe rise of the Danube begins in summer, it is at a period when the\nNile still remains within its ordinary limits: the heat is then only\nbeginning, and the stronger sun toward the latter part of spring is\nsoftening the snows, but it has to melt them before the Nile begins\nto rise. During the remainder of the summer the Danube actually falls\nuntil it reaches its winter size, from which in due course it begins\nits rise again.[62]\n\n [62] The meaning of the last clause is taken by some to be: and even\n falls below it--a somewhat pointless remark.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nBut the increase of the Nile begins in the middle of the hot season, 1\nbefore the rise of the dog-star, and continues till after the equinox.\nNature has raised up this noble river before the eyes of the world, and\nhas so ordered its inundation of the land of Egypt that it should occur\nat the very time at which the ground is most parched with heat. The\nearth thus drinks the more deeply, and imbibes sufficient to counteract\nthe drought of the whole year. In the part of Egypt that stretches\nround Ethiopia, you must bear in mind, there is either no rain at all\nor it occurs only at long intervals, and is insufficient to give much\nrelief to a land which ordinarily knows nothing of water from the\nclouds. It is in the Nile, as you are aware, that Egypt reposes all 2\nits hopes. According to the abundance or scantiness of its overflow is\nthe leanness or the fatness of its season. _None of its farmers regards\nthe sky_, are the words of your own poem. And why should I not crack\na joke with my dear poet friend, and retort with a verse from his\nfavourite Ovid?[63] who says:\n\n Nor do the herbs make supplication to the rain-god Jupiter.\n\n [63] The quotation is really from Tibullus.\n\nIf one could only ascertain at what point in the course of the river 3\nthe rise begins, the causes of the rise would also be discovered.\nAs it is, the river wanders through great deserts, spreads out into\nmarshes, among many scattered tribes, before it is for the first time\nafter its wandering, mazy course gathered into one near Philae. Philae\nis a rugged island, precipitous on all sides; it is surrounded by the\ntwo branches of the river before they unite to form the one river\nwhich henceforth bears the designation Nile. The whole city of Philae\nis surrounded by the Nile, which after leaving Ethiopia is a large\nrather than rapid river.[64] Next in its course are the sandy deserts\nthrough which passes the trade route to the Red Sea.[64] After that 4\nthe Nile enters the Cataracts, a spot famous for a wonderful sight.\nThe river rises over high crags that are at several points jagged.\nThe opposing rocks break up its course and rouse its utmost force;\nas it struggles through the narrows, swirls show the points where it\nconquers or is conquered. A smooth channel had hitherto conducted its\nwaters without uproar. Here for the first time they are roused, and the\nturbulent cataract leaps down through the narrow passage quite unlike\nits former self. Up to that point the stream was thick and muddy. 5\nBut once it enters the craggy gorge it breaks into foam. Its colour is\nno longer the natural one, but derived from the ground through which\nit has to force its way. When at length it has struggled through the\nobstructions, suddenly deprived of support, it falls from a vast height\nwith a roar that resounds through all the surrounding regions. The\nrace planted in that savage place was indeed unable to endure the din;\ntheir ears were deafened by the constant crash, and they were therefore\nremoved from the settlement.\n\n [64] The text is very uncertain.\n\nAmong the wonderful sights of the river I have been told of a feat of\nincredible daring performed by the inhabitants. Two of them embark in\na small boat, one steering, the other baling out the water. Forthwith\nthey are violently buffeted from side to side by the furious waves of 6\nthe rapid river, and at length reach the narrowest channels, through\nwhich they thread their way till they escape from the craggy gorge.\nThen they are carried down along with the whole volume of the stream,\nguiding all the time by hand the rushing craft. At one moment they seem\nto stand right on their head; the spectators are in great alarm; one\ngives them up for lost, and believes they must be sunk and overwhelmed\nby such a mass of water. But finally they are shot out like an arrow,\nand are discovered afloat at a point far below where they had entered\nthe current. The waves in their fall do not swamp them, but pass them\non to smooth water.\n\nThe first rise of the Nile is observed near the island Philae which I 7\nhave just mentioned. A short distance from it the river is divided by\na rock in the centre, which the Greeks call the Inaccessible (\u1f0c\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2).\nNo foot approaches it save that of the priestly ministers. Those cliffs\nfirst feel the increase of the river. Then along distance below that\ntwo crags project, called by the natives the veins of the Nile. A\ngreat quantity of water is shed out by them, but yet insufficient to\nflood the land of Egypt. When the date of the sacred festival comes\nround, the priests throw into these fountains a public offering, while\nthe magistrates offer gifts of gold. From this point the Nile, 8\nobviously displaying the fresh energy it has gained, flows onward in\na channel of profound depth, but is restrained by mountain barriers\nfrom spreading widely beyond its banks. Only when it reaches Memphis is\nit released; and separating into numerous channels, it roams over the\nchampaign.\n\nIn order to regulate the supply, canals are constructed by hand, and\nthus the water is distributed over all Egypt. At first near its bank\nthe stream is simply divided; by and by the waters extend till they\nassume the aspect of a wide, swollen sea at rest. The extent of the\ncountry flooded, which embraces the whole land of Egypt to right and\nleft, deprives the current of all its force. The height of the Nile\u2019s 9\nrise determines the expectation of growth for the year. The farmer\nis never out in his reckoning; the fertility of the land answers\nunfailingly to the measure of the river\u2019s increase. It spreads a\ncoating of soil as well as water over the thirsty, sandy ground. As it\ncomes down swollen, it deposits all its sediment in the dry, gaping\ncracks, and spreads over the parched soil all the rich mud it has\nbrought down. It thus renders a double service to the land--first, by\noverflowing it, and then by coating it with slime. And so any portion\nthat it does not reach lies waste and unsightly. If the inundation 10\nis unduly high, it does damage.\n\nThe river possesses this wonderful characteristic: while all other\nrivers wash away and exhaust land, the Nile, though so much larger\nthan the rest, far from eating away or rubbing off soil, actually\nadds to its vigour; it contains very little that injuriously affects\nthe soil,[65] for by the mud it brings down, it soaks and binds the\nsands. Egypt, in fact, owes to the river not merely the fertility of\nthe soil, but also the soil itself. It is a beautiful sight when the 11\nNile has spread itself over all the fields. The plains are hidden, the\nvalleys have disappeared; only the towns stand out like islands. In the\ninterior of the country there is no communication except by boat. The\npeople are overjoyed the more, the less they can see of their country.\nEven when the river has resumed its normal course, it discharges into\nthe sea by seven mouths, any one of them itself a sea. Moreover, it\nsends out many less famous arms toward either bank.\n\n [65] Or, its least service is that it tempers the soil.\n\nAnd then when we look at the monsters it rears, they are equal to those\nof ocean in size, and no less formidable. One may judge indeed of the 12\ngreatness of the river from the hugeness of the animals for whose\nsustenance it provides food in abundance, and for whose free movements\nit affords room. Balbillus, a most excellent man who has distinguished\nhimself in every walk of letters, has recorded that during his own\ngovernment of Egypt he himself saw in the largest mouth of the Nile,\nthe Heracleotic, the strange sight of what may be called a pitched\nbattle between dolphins, coming up from the sea, and crocodiles meeting\nthem in front from the river. The crocodiles were in the event 13\nvanquished by the inoffensive animals with harmless bite. It happened\non this wise: The upper part of the crocodile\u2019s body is hard, and\ncannot be pierced by the teeth even of larger animals; but the lower\npart is soft and tender. The dolphins dived in the fight and wounded\nthe belly of the crocodiles with the projecting spikes they carry\non their back; then driving home the stroke, they fairly cut up the\nenemy. When a number of the crocodiles had been opened out in this 14\nfashion, the remainder, to adopt military language, wheeled their line\nand retreated. The battle was not to the strong, the fleeing creature\nsuccessfully resisted the daring, the most daring fled before the\ntimid! Nor is it by any peculiar virtue of stock or blood that the\nislanders from Tentyra beat the crocodiles, but merely through pluck\nand contempt of them. They take the offensive against them, and as the\ncrocodiles try to escape they lasso them and drag them ashore. At the\nsame time many of the hunters lose their lives through lack of nerve in\nthe chase.\n\nTheophrastus assures us that the Nile has at times brought down sea\nwater. It is a well-established fact that for two successive years, 15\nthe tenth and eleventh of the reign of Cleopatra, there was no rise\nin the river. People say that this was an intimation of the impending\nfall of its two rulers. For as a matter of fact, the rule of Antony and\nCleopatra did fall. At an earlier period the Nile did not rise for nine\nwhole years, according to the statement of Callimachus.\n\nBut I must now go on to inquire into the explanations of the 16\noccurrence of the rise of the Nile in summer; and I will begin with the\nmost ancient of them. Anaxagoras asserts that the snow melting on the\npeaks of Ethiopia is constantly running down to the Nile. All antiquity\nshared the same view, which is recorded by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and\nEuripides. But many proofs make it plain that it is a mistaken 17\none. First of all, the blackened complexion of the people shows that\nEthiopia is exceedingly hot. So do the habits of the Troglodytes\n(cave-dwellers), who for coolness have underground houses. The rocks\nglow with heat as if a fire had been applied, and that, not only at\nmid-day, but even toward nightfall. The dusty ground is so hot that\nno foot of man can endure it. Silver is unsoldered.[66] The joints of\nstatues are melted. No coating of plated metal will stick on. The south 18\nwind, too, coming from that tract of country, is the hottest of all\nwinds. None of the animals that go to earth in winter ever hibernates\nthere. Even in midwinter the serpent is seen above ground in the open.\nAt Alexandria, too, which lies far north of this excessive heat, snow\ndoes not fall; but the upper regions have not even rain.\n\n [66] Some render--is dissolved and gives off its lead.\n\nHow then, I ask, could a district exposed to such broiling heat receive\na snowfall sufficient to last through a whole summer? No doubt some of 19\nthe mountains in Ethiopia, as well as elsewhere, intercept snow;\nbut there can never be a greater fall than in the Alps, or the peaks\nof Thrace, or the Caucasus. It is in spring, however, or early summer,\nthat the rivers that flow from the European mountains are swollen;\nsubsequently during winter time they decrease. The reason, of course,\nis that the rains in spring wash off so much of the snow, and the\nfirst heat of summer soon scatters the remnants. Neither the Rhine,\nnor the Rhone, nor the Danube, nor yet the Ca\u00ffstrus is liable to the\ncatastrophe of an overflow in winter; their increase is in summer,\nthough in those northern peaks where they rise the snow lies very\ndeep. The Phasis, too, and the Dnieper would swell during summer 20\nif snows had the power of raising the rivers high in spite of the\nheat of that season. Besides, if this were the cause of the flooding\nof the Nile, its stream would be fullest in early summer; for that is\nthe period when the snow is deepest and least impaired, and when from\nits softness the thaw is quickest. The Nile, however, has a regular\nincrease to its stream during four months.\n\nIf one may believe Thales, the Etesian winds hinder the descent 21\nof the Nile and check its course by driving the sea against its\nmouths. It is thus beaten back, and returns upon itself. Its rise is\nnot the result of increase: it simply stops through being prevented\nfrom discharging, and presently, wherever it can, it bursts out\ninto forbidden ground. Euthymenes of Marseilles bears corroborative\ntestimony: I have, he says, gone a voyage in the Atlantic Sea. It\ncauses an increase in the Nile as long as the Etesian winds observe\ntheir season. For at that period the sea is cast up by pressure of the\nwinds. When the winds have fallen, the sea is at rest, and supplies 22\nless energy to the Nile in its descent. Further, the taste of that sea\nis fresh, and its denizens resemble those of the Nile. Now, if the\nEtesian winds, as alleged, stir up the Nile, why, I should like to\nknow, does its rise begin before them and last after them? Moreover,\nit does not rise higher in proportion to the violence of their blast.\nNor does it swell and fall according as they blow furiously or gently.\nAll which would happen if it derived from them the strength of its\nincrease. Then, again, the Etesian winds beat on the shore of Egypt, 23\nand the Nile comes down in their teeth: whereas, if its rise is to be\ntraced to them, the river ought to come from the same quarter as they\ndo. Furthermore, if it flowed out of the sea, its waters would be clear\nand dark blue, not muddy, as they are. Add to this that Euthymenes\u2019\nevidence is refuted by a whole crowd of witnesses. At such a time when\nforeign parts were all unknown, there was opportunity for falsehood:\npeople like Euthymenes had scope for giving currency to travellers\u2019\nmyths. But nowadays the whole coast of the sea beyond Gibraltar is\nvisited by trading vessels: none of the traders tell us that the Nile\nrises there, or that the sea in the Atlantic tastes differently from\nwhat it does elsewhere. The very nature of the sea forbids belief 24\nin the story that it is fresh: the freshest water is always lightest,\nand as such attracted by the sun in evaporation: the residuum, sea,\nmust be salt. Besides, why, on this theory, does the Nile not rise in\nwinter? The sea may be raised at that season by storms too, which are\nconsiderably greater than the Etesians; the latter are comparatively\nmoderate in their force. Besides if the source were derived from the\nAtlantic Ocean, Egypt would be flooded all at once; but, as a matter of\nfact, the increase is very gradual.\n\nOenopides of Chios has another explanation: he says that in winter 25\nheat is stored up under the ground; that is why caves are then warm,\nand the water in wells is less cold. The veins of water are dried up by\nthis internal heat, he thinks. In other countries rivers swell through\nrain: but the Nile, being aided by no rainfall, dwindles during the\nrainy season of winter, and by and by increases in summer, a season\nat which the interior of the earth is cold, and the frost returns\nto the springs. Now, if that were true, rivers in general would 26\nincrease in summer, and all wells would then have greater abundance\nof water. Besides, it is not true that there is an increase in the\nheat underground in winter. Water and caves and wells are warm at that\nseason because they do not admit the frosty air from without. Thus,\nthey do not possess heat, they merely exclude cold. For the same reason\nthey are chilly in summer, because the air heated by the sun is drawn\noff to a distance, and does not penetrate to them.\n\nThe next account is that of Diogenes of Apollonia. It runs thus: 27\nThe sun attracts moisture; the earth drained of it replenishes its\nsupply in part from the sea, in part from other water. Now, it is\nimpossible that one land should be dry and another overflowing with\nmoisture. The whole earth is full of perforations, and there are paths\nof intercommunication from part to part. From time to time the dry\nparts draw upon the moist. Had not the earth some source of supply,\nit would ere this have been completely drained of its moisture.\nWell, then, the sun attracts the waves. The localities most affected\nare the southern.[67] When the earth is parched, it draws to it 28\nmore moisture. Just as in a lamp the oil flows to the point where\nit is consumed, so the water inclines toward the place to which the\noverpowering heat of the burning earth draws it. But where, it may be\nasked, is it drawn from? Of course, it must be from those northern\nregions of eternal winter, where there is a superabundance of it. This\nis why a swift current sets from the Black Sea toward the Lower 29\nSea, without interruption, and not, as in the case of other seas,\nwith alternate flow and ebb of tide; there is always a descending\nflood in the one direction. Unless this took place, and these routes\nsupplied the means whereby what is lacking may be bestowed on each\nland, and what is superfluous may be given off, the whole earth would\nere now have been either drained or flooded. Now, one would like to ask\nDiogenes, seeing the deep and all streams are in intercommunication, 30\nwhy the rivers are not everywhere larger in summer. Egypt, he will\nperhaps tell me, is more baked by the sun, and therefore the Nile rises\nhigher from the extra supply it draws; but in the other countries, too,\nthe rivers receive some addition. Another question--seeing that every\nland attracts moisture from other regions, and a greater supply in\nproportion to its heat, why is any part of the world without moisture?\nAnother--why is the Nile fresh if its water comes from the sea? No\nriver has a fresher and sweeter taste.\n\n [67] The text is uncertain; the general meaning is, however, plain.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nI should be somewhat too bold if I were to assure you as on oath that 1\nhail is formed in the sky much in the way ice is with us, only that in\nthe former case a whole cloud is frozen. So I may regard myself as a\nwitness only in the second degree--one of those who say not that they\nhave actually seen but have been informed. Or, I may, for once, do as\nthe chroniclers do. After lying at large to their heart\u2019s content,\nthey fix on some one point for which they refuse to vouch, adding:\nEvidence of this will be found in the authorities. So, if you do not 2\nbelieve me, Posidonius will vouchsafe to you his authority both for\nthe statement I have made, and for one that I am going to make. He\nwill assure you, as confidently as if he had witnessed the process of\nformation, that hail is formed from a cloud that is charged with rain,\nand has already turned into moisture. You can discover without a tutor\nwhy the hail is round if you observe that drops of all kinds tend to\nbecome globular. This is seen, for example, in looking-glasses, which 3\ngather moisture from the breath, as well as in cups, and any other\nsmooth surface bedewed with it. So, too, in the leaves of grass or\ntrees, any drops that adhere take a circular form.\n\n What is harder than rock, what softer than water?\n Yet the hard rock is hollowed by drops of the soft water;\n\nor, as another poet tells us:\n\n The drip by its fall hollows the stone:\n\nand this hollow is itself round. Whence it is evident that its shape 4\nresembles this drip which hollows it out, sculpturing the spot to its\nown form and character. Besides, the hail, even were it not of this\nshape, might be rounded in its fall, and worn equally on all sides into\nglobular form as it is again and again whirled round in its descent\nthrough the space of thick air it traverses. Snow, on the contrary,\ncannot be affected thus, because it is not so solid, being indeed very\nmuch scattered, and falling from no great height. It has its source\nin the neighbourhood of the earth, and its descent is of no great\ndistance through the air, but starts from a point quite close by. Why\nshould I not allow myself the same licence as Anaxagoras in differing 5\nfrom my authorities? Nowhere can equality of rights be claimed with\nmore propriety than among the philosophers. Hail is simply ice held\nsuspended in mid-air; snow is a floating congealed mass of the nature\nof hoar-frost. I have already said that the difference between water\nand dew is reproduced in the difference of hoar-frost and ice, and, in\nlike manner, in that between snow and hail.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nI might take leave of the question here, holding that I had finished 1\nit. But I will give you good measure, and, having begun to trouble you\nwith my speculations, I will discuss everything connected with the\ntopic. One of the cognate questions is, why in winter there is snow but\nno hail, while in spring, after the worst of the cold is over, there\nare falls of hail. For let me be deceived for your benefit, though I\nmay say I am fully persuaded of the truth of what I am about to affirm.\nI lend always a credulous ear to these trivial falsehoods; perhaps\nthey deserve to be punished by having one\u2019s mouth stopped, but they 2\nhardly call for the putting out of one\u2019s eyes! In winter the atmosphere\nis stiff, and is therefore not as yet capable of being converted into\nwater, but only into snow, to which the atmosphere is more akin. But\nwhen spring begins, a greater variation of the atmosphere ensues, and,\nthe sky being warmer, the drops are larger. Therefore, as our poet\nVirgil says:\n\n When rain-charged spring descends,\n\nthere is a more violent change in the atmosphere, which everywhere\nopens up and relaxes through the action of the mere warmth. For this\nreason the clouds that are carried to earth are heavy and large 3\nrather than lasting. Winter rain is thin and persistent. The fall often\noccurs in the form of small, fine rain, with an admixture of snow.\nWe call it a snowy day when the cold is intense and the sky leaden.\nBesides, when the north wind doth blow, producing its characteristic\nsky, there may be fine rain. With south wind the rain is more\npersistent, and the drops heavier.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nOne position held by the philosophers of my sect I neither venture 1\nto adopt on account of its seeming weakness, nor yet can I pass it by\nwithout mention. Where can be the harm of suggesting even an improbable\nexplanation when one has such an indulgent judge? If we are to apply\na test like the pyx to every argument, we shall soon cease to advance\nany hypothesis at all and be reduced to dumbness. There are very few\nstatements that pass unchallenged. All the rest have to assert their\nrights before they can win their case. Well, the assertion of the\nStoics is, that all the ice-bound region about Scythia and Pontus and\nthe northern quarter is released from its chain in spring; then the\nfrozen rivers resume their course, then the mountains melt the snows in\nwhich they have been buried. It is quite conceivable, therefore, that\ncool airs arise from this and mingle with the atmosphere of spring.\nThey add a proof which I have never tested nor have any intention of 2\ntesting. You, too, I fancy, however anxious you may be to ascertain the\ntruth, will be cautious about making such a trial of snow. The feet are\nsaid to suffer less pain when one treads on hard, solid snow than if\nthe snow were slushy and half melted. Well, then, if the Stoics do not\nlie, all the currents of air wafted from those northern parts, when the\nsnow has now been dislodged and the ice is breaking up, condense and\nbind the atmosphere of the southern region which is already becoming\nwarm and moist. So what was going to be rain becomes, through the\nviolence done by the cold, hail instead.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nI cannot refrain from trotting out all the silly fancies of ourStoic 1\nfriends. The assertion in question is that there are some people\nskilled in observing the clouds who foretell when a hail shower is\ncoming on. They gather this just from experience by marking the colour\nof the clouds and noting which was on previous occasions followed\nby hail. It seems incredible that at Cleonae there were hail-guards\n(\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2) appointed by the state to look out for the approach\nof hail. When they had given the signal that the hail was close at\nhand, what do you think? that people ran off to get their overcoats\nor cloaks? Nay, they each offered sacrifice as fast as they could, 2\none a lamb, another a chicken. Forthwith, those clouds after getting a\nlittle taste of blood drew off in another direction. You smile! There\nis something to make you smile more broadly. If one had not a lamb or\nkid by, one laid hands upon oneself to an extent that could be done\nwithout serious damage. You must not think the clouds greedy or cruel;\none merely pricked one\u2019s finger with a well-sharpened style and made\natonement with this blood. The hail as invariably turned away from his\nlittle plot as from the estate of the man who had prevailed upon it\nthrough the offering of greater victims.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nCertain writers seek for a rational explanation of this practice. One 1\nschool, adopting the only line that comports with philosophy, deny\nthe possibility of making any bargain with hail and buying off storms\nby paltry presents, true, though it be, that gifts overcome even gods.\nOthers affirm their suspicion that blood itself contains a virtue\npotent enough to avert and repel a cloud. But how, I ask, should a\ndrop or two of blood possess a virtue to reach on high and influence\nthe clouds? Is it not much easier to say, the whole thing is a parcel\nof lies? But Cleonae was strict in dealing with its warders who had 2\nreceived charge of looking out beforehand for the storm, if it happened\nthat through their neglect the vineyards had been beaten down or the\ncrops laid. And among ourselves, too, at Rome the laws of the Twelve\nTables introduce safeguards against the blighting of a neighbour\u2019s\ncrops by charms. Antiquity as yet untutored entertained the belief that\nrain could be attracted or repelled by incantations. The impossibility\nof such fancies is so evident that one need not enter a school of\nphilosophy in order to be taught how to disprove them.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nI shall add one more remark which you will be very glad, I am sure, to\napprove and applaud. It is asserted that snow is formed in the part\nof the atmosphere near the earth. This layer has more heat than any\nother, and that for three reasons. One is that all evaporation from\nthe earth, containing as it does much dry, glowing matter, is always\nthe hotter, the more recently it has left the ground. The second is\nthat the sun\u2019s rays are reflected from the ground and return upon\nthemselves. Their reflection heats up the parts next the ground, which\nthus have more warmth from getting the sun\u2019s heat twice. The third\nreason is that the upper regions are more subject to wind; but all\nplaces that are sunk are less wind-swept.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nTo the foregoing Democritus\u2019 explanation falls to be added. Every body\nreceives heat more quickly and retains it longer in proportion to its\nsolidity. For example, if three vessels, of copper, glass, and silver\nrespectively, are set in the sun, the heat will penetrate the copper\none soonest and will remain in it longest. The reason why Democritus\nis of this opinion may also be added. In the bodies, he says, that are\nharder, more compact, and dense, the openings must of necessity be\nsmaller than in others, and in each of the openings the film of air\nmust be thinner. It follows that just as smaller baths and smaller\ncylinders are heated more rapidly than others, so these concealed\napertures, so small as to elude the eye, both feel the heat more\nquickly, and by reason of this same smallness of calibre give back more\nslowly the heat they have received.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nThis long preamble leads up to the point we are now examining. All air\nis the denser the nearer it is to the earth. In water and other liquids\nthe dregs are always at the bottom; in like manner in the atmosphere\nthe thickest portions settle down to the lowest part nearest the earth.\nBut it has already been proved that all things, in proportion as they\nare denser and more compact in their consistency, guard more faithfully\nthe heat they have received. On the other hand, the more exalted the\nair is, and the farther it is withdrawn from the pollutions of earth,\nthe less contaminated and the more pure it is; and so it does not\nretain the sun\u2019s rays, but transmits them as if through a vacuum; hence\nit is less warmed by them.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nBut contrariwise, certain persons assert that mountain peaks ought to 1\nbe warmer in the degree in which they are nearer the sun. Such people\nseem to me, however, to be astray in supposing that the Apennines and\nthe Alps and other mountains famed for their exceeding height are so\ngreatly elevated that their size should enable them to feel in any\nspecial way the sun\u2019s proximity. No doubt those are lofty heights so\nlong as the standard of comparison is ourselves. But when one regards\nthe size of the universe, the lowness of them all becomes evident.\nCompared with one another, mountains are surpassed or surpass in\nheight. But nothing on earth is elevated so high that even the 2\ngreatest of objects should be any[68] appreciable portion in comparison\nwith the whole universe. Were this not so, we should not be in the\nhabit of saying that the whole earth is a ball. The distinctive mark of\na ball is a certain uniform rotundity, much the same as the uniformity\nseen in a football or cricket ball.[69] The seams and chinks constitute\nno great objection to the ball being described as symmetrical on all\nsides. As in a playing ball, those spaces do not in any way prevent 3\nthe appearance of roundness, no more, in the earth at large regarded as\na sphere, do lofty mountains, whose height is lost in a comparison with\nthe whole world. A person who says that a higher mountain ought to be\nwarmer from receiving the sun\u2019s rays at a shorter distance, may just as\nwell say that a taller man should be heated sooner than a dwarf, and\nhis head sooner than his feet! But any one who will take the trouble 4\nto judge the universe by its proper standard, and who will reflect\nthat this earth occupies but a single point in space, will not fail to\nperceive that nothing on earth can be of such eminence as to be more\nsensible than others of the influence of the heavenly bodies, as if it\nhad approached their neighbourhood. Those mountains at which we gaze\nup, their summits weighed down with eternal snows, are none the less\nbut low and humble. While it is true that a mountain _is_ nearer the\nsun than is plain or valley, yet it is in the same sense as javelin is\nspoken of as thicker than javelin, tree as larger than tree, mountain\nthan mountain. Accordingly to that mode of speech of yours, one tree 5\nmust be said to be nearer the sky than another; which is false, because\namong puny objects there cannot exist great differences except while\nthey are compared with one another. When one comes to compare such\nobjects with the mighty frame of things, it is immaterial how much the\none is bigger than the other, because the very small things, however\ngreat the differences among them, are quite dwarfed by comparison with\nthe universe.\n\n [68] The argument seems to require _ulla_ = any, instead of _nulla_ =\n no.\n\n [69] The specific references are not contained in the Latin words;\n the modern counterpart of the Roman games of ball serves, however, to\n bring out the meaning of the illustration.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nBut to return to my main theme; for the reasons which I have detailed,\nmost authorities are satisfied that snow is formed in the part of the\natmosphere which is in the vicinity of the earth. It is less compacted\nthan hail because congealed through less intense cold. For the air near\nus has at once too much cold to allow its passage into water and rain,\nand at the same time too little to get hardened into hail. Through this\nmoderate but not too intense cold the water is massed and turns into\nsnow.\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\n\nWhy, I fancy I hear you say, do you pursue so laboriously those 1\nfrivolous explanations of yours, by which no one is made either more\naccomplished or more virtuous? You tell us all about the formation of\nsnow; it would be far more to the point that we should be told why it\nis a wrong thing for snow to be bought.[70] I see you wish to drag me\ninto a dispute with luxury, a quarrel of daily occurrence that never\nleads to any tangible result. Let us withal brace ourselves for the\nstruggle; even if luxury win the day, it must find us fighting and\nresisting to the death.\n\n [70] _I.e._ the moral turpitude of sinking into such debased luxury\n as to require snow should be set forth rather than mere theories of\n the formation of snow; the ethical should take precedence of the\n physical.\n\nWell then! do you suppose that the examination of nature, irrelevant\nas it may appear, makes no contribution to the object you have at\nheart? When we inquire how snow is formed, telling that its character 2\nresembles hoar-frost, containing more air than water, do you not think\nthat it is a reproach upon the epicures? If it is a scandalous thing to\nbuy water, they are still worse, for they do not get even water [but\nchiefly air] for their money. Let us, I say, inquire rather how snow\nis formed than how it is preserved. The means of preservation have\nalready been discovered; not content with racking wines of vintage,\narranging them by flavour and age, we have devised means of compressing\nsnow to overcome the power of summer, and of protecting it by the\ncoolness of the icehouses from the hotness of the season. And what have\nwe accomplished by all our anxious efforts? The privilege of buying 3\nwater that we might have got for nothing! We are vexed that we cannot\nbuy air and sunlight, and that the atmosphere all around streams in\neasily and unbought upon the fastidious and the rich. How badly nature\ntreats us in leaving anything that is common property! Upon this other\nelement, water, which nature has allowed to flow for the free use\nof mankind, and which she has given the whole world to drink, this\nthat she has shed forth with lavish prodigality for the service alike\nof man and of beasts and birds and the very laziest of the animal\ncreation--upon this, luxury, with ill-conceived ingenuity, has 4\nmanaged to put a price. In fact, nothing can please luxury unless it is\nexpensive. Water was the one thing that used to bring down the rich to\nthe level of the common herd, in which the wealthy could not surpass\nthe very poorest. Those who found their riches a burden have devised a\nplan whereby water should become a luxury.\n\nHow it has come about that no running water should be thought cool\nenough, I will now explain. As long as the stomach is healthy and is\nable to relish wholesome food, with which it is satisfied and not\noverloaded, it is quite content with the natural stimulants. But\nwhen through daily indigestion it suffers from the heat not of the 5\nseason but of its own indulgence, when habitual drunkenness has taken\nfirm hold on the organs of life, and turns into bile which parches\nthe intestines, then it becomes necessary to seek out some means of\nquenching the internal heat. Water merely inflames it, the disease\nis aggravated by the remedies. Therefore, for this purpose they use\nsnow for drink, not only in summer, but even in the depths of winter.\nThe cause can be no other than the internal complaint. Digestion is\nspoiled through indulgence; respite is never given it in which to rest.\nBreakfast is heaped upon a supper prolonged till daylight. While the\nrevellers are literally bursting with the lavishness and variety of the\ncourses, heavy drinking plunges them still deeper in the mire.\n\nThen the continuous excess causes heartburn from the food previously 6\nconsumed, and inflames the constant craving for some new stimulant.\nSo, though they protect the banqueting hall with draperies and windows,\nand seek by roaring fires to banish winter\u2019s colds, none the less the\nlanguishing appetite, exhausted by its own heat, yearns for something\nnew to revive it. Just as we sprinkle cold water on people who have\nlost consciousness through a fainting fit, in order to bring them back\nto their senses; so the internal organs, numbed through excess, are\npast feeling, unless they are smitten by the parching, as it were, of\nmore violent cold. Hence it is, I say, that not content even with 7\nsnow, they call for ice, as if the stimulant were the more certain from\nits solidity, and melt it with repeated douches of water. The ice, too,\nis not taken from the surface, but, that it may have greater virtue\nand more lasting cold, it is dug out of the depths of the pile. Thus\nit is not even of uniform price; but water actually has its hawkers\nand--alas the day!--a varying price. The Lacedaemonians once banished\nthe perfumers from their city, ordering them to quit the country with\nall speed, because they were wasting the oil supply. What would they\nhave done, I wonder, if they had seen cold stores for preserving snow 8\nand such an army of beasts employed in carting water, whose colour and\nflavour are often all spoiled by the straw in which it is kept?\n\nGood heavens! how easy a thing it is to quench the thirst of health!\nBut what feeling can jaws retain that are deadened and numbed by\nscalding food? These epicures can have nothing cold enough, neither\ncan they have anything hot enough. Mushrooms taken from the fire and\nhastily dipped in their special sauce are crammed down the throat 9\nalmost boiling, and the heat has to be allayed by draughts chilled in\nsnow. One may see, I tell you, slender youths, rigged out in cloaks and\nmufflers, pale and sickly, not merely sipping the snow, but actually\neating it, throwing little pieces of it into their glasses to prevent\nthem from getting warm during the intervals of drinking. Do you call\nthat honest thirst? It is fever, the more acute too as it cannot be 10\ndetected by the pulse or the wonted heat that overspreads the skin. The\nvery heart is dried up by that incurable malady, luxury, whose habitual\nweakness and unsteadiness are turned into endurance and obstinacy.\nDon\u2019t you know that habit dulls the force of everything? The snow in\nwhich you are now, so to speak, swimming[71] has through custom and the\ndaily slavery of the stomach come to occupy the place of water. You\nmust now search for something colder still; for a stimulant that is\nhabitual is no stimulant at all.\n\n [71] Which you now use in your baths.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK V\n\nWHICH TREATS OF WINDS AND ATMOSPHERIC MOVEMENT IN GENERAL\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nWind is the atmosphere in motion. Some have put the definition thus: 1\nWind is the atmosphere in motion in one direction. The latter seems the\nmore accurate, because the atmosphere is never so still as not to be in\nagitation of some kind. In a similar way the sea is called calm when\nit is only slightly moved and does not set in a particular direction.\nThus, if you read the verse:\n\n When the winds slumbered and the sea was still,\n\nyou must bear in mind that the sea was not actually still, but heaved\ngently; and that it is called calm in a comparative sort of way 2\nbecause it receives no distinct impulse to this side or to that. The\nsame opinion is likewise to be adopted in regard to the atmosphere:\nit is never absolutely motionless, even though it be still. This you\nmay gather from the following observation: When the sun pours into\nany circumscribed space, one sees minute particles carried through\nthe air in different directions, some up, some down, meeting each\nother in a great variety of ways. Therefore, if one say: a wave is 3\nan agitation of the sea, one will very imperfectly express what is\nmeant, because even when at rest the sea is agitated. But one will\nmore than sufficiently safeguard oneself if the definition be: a\nwave is an agitation of the sea in one direction. So in the subject\nwhich at the moment forms our special topic, the definition will not\nbe unduly restricted if one is careful to say: wind is the atmosphere\nflowing in one direction; or, wind is atmosphere flowing through some\nimpulse, or, is the force of the atmosphere going in one direction,\nor, is a rush of the atmosphere more forcible than usual in some one\ndirection. I am aware of a criticism that may be made in regard to\nthe first definition. What need is there to add that it is in one 4\ndirection that the atmosphere flows? For surely whatever flows, flows\nin one direction. No one says that water flows if there is simply\nan internal movement of it, but only if it is borne in a particular\ndirection. So a substance may be in motion and yet not flow; but, on\nthe other hand, it cannot flow except in one direction. Well, if, on\nthe one hand, the shorter definition is free from cavil, let us employ\nit; but if, on the other, any one is a stickler, let him not omit the\nphrase whose addition will serve to preclude all ambiguity. Now that we\nhave sufficiently discussed our terms, let us come to grapple with our\nproblem at closer quarters.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nDemocritus avers that when there are many particles, which he calls\natoms, in a small empty space (_i.e._ vacuum), wind is the outcome.\nBut, on the contrary, when the space is large and the particles few,\nthere is a still peaceful condition of the atmosphere. To illustrate:\nin the market square or in a side street as long as there is a\nsprinkling of people there is no disturbance as one walks along it;\nbut when a crowd meets in a narrow space, then they jostle against each\nother, and quarrelling arises. Similarly in this space which surrounds\nour earth; when many bodies have crowded a very small portion, it is\nunavoidable that they should jostle one another and be driven back\nand forward, and be intertwined and squeezed. Hence results wind; the\nparticles that were struggling have had to give way, and after being\ntossed about and remaining in suspense for a long time they at length\nlean their weight toward one side. But when a few bodies occupy a large\nroomy place, they can neither ram each other nor be jostled by one\nanother.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nThe falsity of this view may be inferred merely from the fact that 1\nwind by no means invariably accompanies a cloud-laden atmosphere,\nand yet more particles have gathered at that than at any other time\nin a narrow space, where they produce condensation and heaviness in\nthe clouds. Besides, in the neighbourhood of rivers and lakes cloud\nis frequent from the confinement and accumulation of particles, and\nyet there is no attendant wind. Indeed, sometimes such a darkness\nover-spreads the place that the view of objects in the immediate\nvicinity is cut off; which would never happen unless numerous particles\nwere massed in a small space. Yet no period is more free from 2\nwind than a period of cloud. Add now a consideration of an opposite\ncharacter: When the sun rarefies at his rising the thick dank morning\nair, then a breeze springs up; the particles have got more room now,\nand the thickly packed crowd of them is broken up.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nBut how, you will say, are winds then formed, for you won\u2019t deny that 1\nthey are formed? Not in any single way, I reply. Sometimes the earth\nherself emits a great quantity of air, which she breathes out of her\nhidden recesses. At other times a great and long-continued evaporation\ndrives the emissions from the depths up on high, where the change\nwhich the mixed breath undergoes issues in wind. A suggestion has been\nmade which I cannot make up my mind to believe, and yet I cannot pass\nover without mention. In our bodies food produces flatulence, the\nemission of which causes great offence to one\u2019s nasal susceptibilities;\nsometimes a report accompanies the relief of the stomach, sometimes\nthere is a more polite smothering of it. In like manner it is 2\nsupposed the great frame of things when assimilating its nourishment\nemits air. It is a lucky thing for us that nature\u2019s digestion is good,\nelse we might apprehend some less agreeable consequences. Is it not,\nthen, nearer the truth to say that numerous particles are constantly\nborne up from every part of the world; and when they are accumulated\nand subsequently begin to be rarefied by the sun, wind starts up? It is\na general principle that anything contained in a narrow space when it\nexpands tries to get more room.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nWell, then, do I ask you to believe that evaporation from land and 1\nwater is the sole cause of wind? Do I affirm that it produces a weight\nin the atmosphere, the breaking up of which causes a rush of air? that\nat that moment what was previously dense and stationary gets rarefied\nand strives, as its nature requires, to obtain a wider space? I do\napprove of this as sometimes the explanation. But there is a far truer\nand more potent one, to wit, that the atmosphere by its constitution\npossesses a native capacity of movement, this power not being derived\nfrom an external source, but being like others of its powers inherent.\nFor can you suppose that we men have been endued with strength to 2\nmove about, while the atmosphere has been left sluggish and immovable?\nWater, too, has its own motion, even though the winds are at rest;\notherwise it could not produce animal life. We see also forms of\nvegetable life like moss produced by water, and certain kinds of\nherbage floating on its surface.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nWell, then, I take it, in water there resides some vital principle. In\nwater, did I say? Why, fire, the universal destroyer, has a creative\nfunction; it may not seem a likely thing, but all the same it is but\nthe truth that some animals are generated by fire. The atmosphere,\nthen, possesses some power of this kind; and that is why it sometimes\ngrows thick, sometimes expands and throws off impurities, sometimes\ncontracts, at others opens up and disperses. There is thus the same\ndifference between air and wind as between lake and river.[72] There\nare occasions when the sun is the sole cause of wind, as he rarefies\nthe stiff atmosphere and opens it out from its thick contracted state.\n\n [72] This remark would have been more apposite in Chap. I., above;\n possibly that is its correct place.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nHaving spoken of the winds in general, let us now proceed to the\ndiscussion of individual winds. Perchance the discovery of the time and\nplace of their origin will conduce to the discovery of their manner of\nformation. First, then, let us look at breezes before dawn, which are\nborne either from rivers or hollow valleys or from some bay. None of\nthese winds lasts long, but falls when the sun has got stronger; nor\nis it carried up out of sight of the earth. This class of wind sets\nin in spring, and does not last beyond summer. It comes chiefly from\na quarter where there are spaces of water and mountains. Plains, for\ninstance, may have abundance of water, and yet they have no breeze; I\nmean a breeze strong enough to be called wind.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nHow, then, is a blast of this kind, which is called by the Greeks 1\na gulf breeze (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), formed? This is the theory of them: All\nthe exhalations of marshes and rivers--and they are abundant and\nconstant--form by day the sun\u2019s nourishment. By night, however,\nthere is no drain on them, and they are enclosed by the mountains\nand accumulate in one quarter. When they have filled up this quarter\nand can no longer find accommodation in it, but are squeezed out on\none side and move in a particular direction, then you have the wind.\nIt inclines, of course, toward the side to which it is invited by\nthe freer exit, and by the openness of the place toward which the\naccumulated elements can rush. A proof of this is that a wind of 2\nthis kind does not blow in the early part of the night. At that time\nthe gathering only begins, but by daybreak it has reached the full,\nand seeks relief by flowing off. It chooses its exit by preference\nwhere there is the largest empty space and a great expanse of open.\nIt is stimulated by the rays of the rising sun striking on the chilly\nair. Even before he makes his appearance his light of itself has an\ninfluence. The sun does not at that stage, it is true, drive away the\natmosphere with his beams; still, he already attacks and harasses it by 3\nthe shafts of light he sends before him. When he comes out himself in\nhis power, part of the gathering is carried off to a greater altitude,\npart is dissipated by his heat. Wherefore power is not granted to these\nwinds to continue longer than the morning. All their strength collapses\nat sight of the sun. Even if their blast is somewhat violent, yet they\nbegin to subside as mid-day approaches; in fact, the breeze[73] never\nlasts as long as noon. Any other variety of the breeze is weaker and\nshorter in duration; they vary according as the causes to which they\nowe their origin are more or less powerful.\n\n [73] The precise meaning of this and the following sentence is\n doubtful; one would suspect that the latter originally ran--varieties\n of the breeze are longer or shorter in duration according as, etc.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nBut why, again, are winds of this nature stronger in spring and 1\nsummer? For during the remainder of the year they are very light,\nnever rising sufficiently to fill the sails of a boat. The reason is\nthat spring is a wetter season. There is at that time more evaporation\ngoing on, both from the abundance of water lying about, and from the\nsaturation of the ground to overflowing through the moist character of\nthe sky. And the reason why this wind is equally prevalent in summer\nis that the heat of the day remaining after sundown and lasting during\na great part of the night draws out exhalations, and attracts more\nforcibly any of them that are wont to be given off spontaneously by\nthe ground. But subsequently the heat has not sufficient strength to\nuse up what it drew out. This is the reason, I say, why the soil and 2\nits moisture give off for a longer period [at certain seasons] the\nparticles derived from the earth\u2019s wonted emanations and exhalations.\nThe sunrise produces wind by its stroke as well as by its warmth. For,\nas I have already said, the light which precedes the sun does not as\nyet heat up the atmosphere, but merely smites upon it; being smitten\nthe air retires to one side. And yet I cannot go so far as to admit\nthat the light is quite devoid of heat, inasmuch as it is derived from\nheat. Probably it does not contain as great an amount as would appear\nfrom its effect. Still, it accomplishes its own task by separating and\nrarefying the dense exhalations. Moreover, places which through some 3\ndisservice of nature are so shut in that they cannot receive the direct\nrays of the sun, even they, I say, are heated somewhat by the dull\ncloudy light that can pierce to them and are less rigid during the day\nthan by night. Furthermore, all heat naturally dispels cloud and drives\nit off from itself. Therefore the sun likewise has the same effect.\nFor that reason some people suppose that the blast must come from the\ndirection in which the sun lies. But this opinion is manifestly false,\nseeing that the breeze sets in any direction, and one can sometimes\nsail right toward the sunrise with all canvas set. That could not\nhappen if the wind were always coming from the direction of the sun.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nThe Etesian winds, too, which some drag into the discussion, do not 1\ngive much support to their contention. First, I will tell you what\ntheir opinion is, and, secondly, why it is not mine. The Etesians, say\nthey, do not blow in winter, because at the season of the shortest days\nthe effect of the sun ceases before the cold is overcome. So, snow\naccumulates then and freezes hard. In summer the Etesian winds begin\nto blow at the time when the day is lengthened out and the sun\u2019s rays\ncome down straight upon us. Probably, therefore, the snows smitten by\nthe greater heat exhale more moisture. The earth likewise breathes more\nfreely when uncovered and relieved of the snow. So more particles issue\nfrom the northern portion of the heavens, and are wafted toward our 2\nquarter, which lies lower and is warmer. From this the Etesians derive\ntheir impulse; wherefore they begin at the summer solstice, and do not\nblow strongly after the rise of the Dog-star, because by that time a\ngreat part of the cold northern exhalations has been carried down to\nour regions. But when the sun has changed his course he still directs\nhis beams straight down on our hemisphere; and one part of the air he\nattracts, but another he thrusts before him.[74] Thus the blast of the\nEtesians breaks the force of the summer heat, protecting us from the\nfull severity of the most broiling months.\n\n [74] The meaning is very obscure. The text has been suspected, not\n without cause: the words \u201che still ... hemisphere\u201d are out of place,\n to say the least of it.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nI must now, as I promised, tell you why the Etesian winds do not\ngive any assistance to their advocates nor contribute aught to their\nargument. We have said that the breeze is stirred by the morning light,\nbut it no less surely subsides when the full sun has touched it. And\nyet the Etesians are called by sailors sleepy-headed and dainty, for\nthe very reason that, as my brother Gallio puts it, they cannot get\nup in the morning. They begin to show face at the time when even the\nmost persistent morning breeze has fallen. This would not occur if the\nsun reduced the force of the Etesians as he does that of the morning\nbreezes. Add also that, if the cause of their rise was the lengthened\nspace of the day, they would blow even prior to the solstice when the\ndays are at their longest, and when the thaw of the snow is at its\nheight. By the month of July everything is clear of snow, or, at any\nrate, very few places are still covered with it.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nThere are some species of winds which issue from clouds that are rent 1\nand pour down their contents. They are called by the Greeks cloud winds\n(\u1f10\u03ba\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). Their method of formation, as I suppose, is this: among the\nparticles given off by the earth\u2019s vapour and carried aloft there is\ngreat inequality and dissimilarity, some being dry and others moist.\nWhen the particles have massed in one body there is great discord and\ninternal strife, which probably leads to the forming of certain hollow\nclouds with narrow pipe-shaped spaces left between, much like a flute\nin shape. In these gaps there is shut up rarefied air, which, being 2\nbuffeted about in the confined space and becoming heated, strives to\nget more room. It expands and rends its envelope, breaking forth in\nwind, which, as a rule, is squally, since it descends from above and\nfalls on us with fierce vehemence. It is not diffused, nor does it\ncome through a wide open space, but it struggles and opens up its way\nby main force. As a rule, it is a brief gust. As it bursts through 3\nthe cloudy receptacle by which it was confined and overleaps the\nbattlements, it comes in tumultuous energy, sometimes not unattended\nwith fire and the sound of thunder in the heavens. Such winds are much\nmore violent and of longer duration if they have taken up in their\ncourse other gusts proceeding from a like cause, and thus several\nhave conspired to form one. It is just like the flow of torrents of\nmoderate size, not serious as long as each has its separate course. But\nwhen a number of them have combined their streams, they surpass in 4\nsize regular, constant rivers. The same thing may probably happen in\nsqualls; they are short-lived whenever they are alone. But when they\nhave joined forces, and the air expelled from several parts of the sky\nat once has all combined in one, both force and duration are added to\nthem.\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\n\nSo, then, wind results from the breaking up of a cloud, which breach 1\nis effected in several different ways. The accumulation of air is\nburst sometimes by the internal struggle, as it seeks to gain an exit;\nsometimes by the heat produced either simply by the sun or else by the\nmutual ramming and friction of the roaming bodies.\n\nAt this point, if you have no objection, one may raise the question\nwhy a whirlwind occurs. In rivers, when their course has been without\nany obstacle for a long distance, the channel is a straight, uniform\none. But when they meet some boulder that juts from the bank, the 2\nstream is driven back and whirls the waters in a circle without a way\nof escape, so that in their revolution they are constantly sucked in\ntoward the centre to form a whirlpool. In like manner the wind pours\nout in full force as long as no obstacle stands in the way. But when it\nis reflected from some jutting projection, or is massed in a quarter\nwhich combines to form a thin downward channel, then it revolves upon\nits own axis, and produces an eddy similar to that in which, as we\nhave just said, the water revolves. This revolving wind, which 3\nalways traverses the same spot and is roused to fury by the mere giddy\nwhirling, is a whirlwind. If it is a very fierce one, and revolves\nlonger than ordinary, it ignites and causes what the Greeks call a\nfire-wind (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1), which is just a fiery whirlwind. The bursting of\nsuch winds from the clouds produces almost all the disasters by which\nherds are carried off and ships lifted, bodily, right out of the water.\nFurther, some winds produce different ones by dispersing the air and\ndriving it before them in other directions than that toward which they\nthemselves have bent their course.\n\nIt occurs to me at the moment to mention a parallel to wind that 4\nmay be drawn from drops of moisture. The single drops may begin to\nincline downwards and be on the verge of giving way, but yet do not\nmanage to fall. When, however, several have united and the mass has\nimparted strength, then they are said to flow and to move. So, as long\nas there are slight movements of the atmosphere disturbed at several\npoints, they do not produce wind. The latter begins only when all those\nmovements are united and concentrated in a single effort. Air differs\nfrom wind in degree alone. A more violent air is a wind; air in turn is\ngently flowing atmosphere.\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\n\nLet me now recall a remark that I had made early in this book, 1\nnamely, that wind issues from cave or inner recess of earth. The\nwhole earth is not of solid compact constitution down to its lowest\nfoundations, but at many points is hollow,\n\n ... hung over dark retreats.\n\nIn some places it contains voids that have no moisture. Though there\nis no light there to show the distinctions in the air, yet I venture\nto assert that cloud and mist settle in that gloom. Above ground 2\ncloud and mist surely do not exist because they are seen; but, rather,\nthey are seen because they exist. Well, there too rivers none the less\nexist that they are not seen. You must understand that down there\nrivers flow equal in size to our own. Some glide gently, others resound\nas they tumble down headlong over the broken ground. So must not you\nequally allow that there are some lakes underground and some water\nin pools without an exit? This being so, it is of necessity that 3\nthe air be charged with moisture, and that, being charged, it lean in\none direction, raising the wind by its propulsion. We must recognise,\ntherefore, that from those subterranean clouds blasts of wind are\nraised in the dark, what time they have gathered strength sufficient\nto remove the obstacles presented by the earth, or can seize upon\nsome open path for their exit, and from this cavernous retreat can\nescape toward the abodes of men. Now it is obvious that underground 4\nthere are large quantities of sulphur and other substances no less\ninflammable. When the air in search of a path of escape works its\ntortuous way through ground of this nature, it necessarily kindles fire\nby the mere friction. By and by, as the flames spread more widely, any\nsluggish air there may be is also rarefied and set in motion; a way of\nescape is sought with great roaring and violence. This point I will\nelaborate in more detail when I go on to treat of earthquakes.\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\n\nYou must now allow me to tell you a little story! Asclepiodotus 1\nvouches for the tale. Once on a time a large party of miners was sent\ndown by Philip into an old mine, long since abandoned, to ascertain its\nprospects and condition, and to see whether ancient avarice had left\nanything for posterity to glean. Down they went with plenty of light to\nlast for days. In due time, when they were quite tired by the length\nof the road, they saw a sight to make their hair stand on end--huge\nrivers and vast reservoirs of sluggish waters, equal in size to any\nabove ground, not pressed down either with a weight of earth above, but\noverarched with an open vault. I confess I felt lively satisfaction in\nreading the story. It showed me that the vices from which our age 2\nsuffers are not new; they have been handed down from ancient days.\nNor is it in our age that avarice has for the first time ransacked\nthe reefs of soil and stone, searching in the dark for treasure badly\nhidden. Those ancestors of ours, whom we are always vaunting, our\ndeclension from whose standard we constantly bemoan, were also lured\nby hope to cut down the mountains and stand beneath the ruins to gloat\nover their filthy lucre.\n\nBefore the time of Philip of Macedon there were kings who pursued 3\ntreasure down to its deepest lurking-places; leaving the free air\nand light of day behind, they lowered themselves into those caverns,\nwhich no distinction of night from day could reach. What expectation\ncould lead them on? What necessity caused man, whose head points to\nthe stars, to stoop below, burying him in mines and plunging him in\nthe very bowels of innermost earth to root up gold? The quest for the\nprecious bane is no less perilous than its possession. For this he 4\ndrove shafts and crawled round his dirty, uncertain booty, forgetful of\nday, forgetful of his better nature, which he abjured. On no dead man\ndoes earth lie so heavily as it lies on those on whom insistent avarice\nhas cast earth\u2019s weight, from whom it has withdrawn the light of day,\nwhom it has buried in the depths where that noxious poison lurks. They\nhad the hardihood to descend to a region where they found a new order\nof nature, forms of overhanging earth and winds raving through the\nblind void, where are dread fountains of waters whose streams none\ndrink, and night reigns deep and unbroken. And then, after all that has\ncome and gone, they dread the gods of the nether world!\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\n\nBut to return to the matter in hand; there are four winds, divided, 1\naccording to the cardinal points, into east, west, south, and north.\nThe rest of the winds, which are called by different names, are\nattached to these:\n\n Eurus has gone toward the dawn and the realms of Nebaioth\n And Persia and the peaks that lie beneath the rays of morn.\n Evening and the coasts that are warmed by the setting sun\n Are close to Zephyrus. Scythia and the Great Bear\n Are under the sway of dread Boreas. The land that faces these\n Is bathed in unbroken cloud and rainy Auster.\n\nOr, if you prefer a briefer enumeration, you may gather them in one 2\ngreat storm--a physical impossibility, by the way:\n\n Eurus and Notus (south) rush together, and with squall upon squall\n Africus (south-west).\n\nAnd we may add Aquilo (north), which has no place in the famous battle\nof the winds to which Virgil refers. Some make the number of the winds\ntwelve. They divide the four quarters of heaven into three parts\neach, adding two subsidiary winds to each of the principal ones. On\nthis principle that diligent author, Varro, classifies them. And 3\nthere is good ground for it; the other method, which refers them to\nseasonal changes, is very unsatisfactory. For instance, the sun does\nnot always rise or set at the same point. He has one place of rising\nat the equinox--indeed, the equinox occurs twice a year--another at\nthe summer, and still another at the winter, solstice. The wind which\nsets in from the direction of sunrise at the equinoxes is with us\ncalled Subsolane (near the sun); the Greeks call it \u1f00\u03c6\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (from\nthe sun). From sunrise in winter Eurus comes, named by our countrymen\nVulturnus (_i.e._ from Mt. Vultur in the S.E.). Livy also calls it 4\nby this name, in connection with that famous battle of Cannae, which\nproved so disastrous to Rome. Hannibal on that occasion managed to\nget our army with its face to the rising sun and to the wind; by the\naid of the wind and the glare that dazzled the eyes of the enemy he\nsnatched the victory. Varro likewise uses the same name. But Eurus is a\nname now naturalised, and has a place in our vocabulary that does not\nsuggest any foreign origin. The wind that is raised by sunrise at the 5\nsummer solstice was called by the Greeks \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2;[75] we have no name\nfor it. Sunset at the equinox sends us Favonius, which even people\nwho cannot speak Greek will tell you is called the Zephyr. Corus,\nwhich is by some called Argestes [from its clearness], comes from the\nsunset at the summer solstice. I do not approve of the identification;\nCorus is a vehement wind, rushing in one uniform direction, while\nArgestes is, as a rule, a gentle wind, and blows impartially on\ntravellers coming and going along the same road (_i.e._ is constantly 6\nshifting). From sunset in midwinter comes the rushing furious Africus\n(African wind), named by the Greeks the Libyan (\u03bb\u03af\u03c8). In the northern\nquarter the highest (_i.e._ most easterly) is Aquilo, the central\none is Septemtrio, the lowest Thracias,[76] for which there is no\ncorresponding word in Latin. In the southern region there is Euronotus,\nthen Notus, or in Latin Auster, then Libonotus, which has no Latin name.\n\n [75] No explanation of this name of the nor\u2019-easter is forthcoming.\n\n [76] _I.e._ the Thracian; Thrace must have been N.W. of the region in\n which the name had its origin.\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\n\nWe Stoics hold that there are twelve winds; not that there are 1\neverywhere so many (the slope of the earth [_i.e._ of the earth\u2019s axis]\nexcludes some), but because there are nowhere more than twelve. We\nspeak of six cases in the same way, not because every noun possesses\nsix, but because none has more than six. Those who assert the number\nof the winds to be twelve adopt the principle that the number must be\nthe same as the divisions of the heavens. Now the heavens are divided\ninto five zones passing through the cardinal points of the world. These\nare the northern, the solstitial, the equinoctial, the wintry, 2\nthe one that faces the northern. A sixth is added in the zone which\nseparates the upper part of the world from the lower. As you know,\nthere is always one-half the world above our head, and one-half beneath\nour feet. This line which lies between the visible and the concealed\nparts of the sky is called by the Greeks the Horizon (\u1f41\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd = bounding\nline): our school call it the Bounder; others, the Bounding [line].\nTo this must be added the meridian circle, which cuts the horizon 3\nat right angles. Some of these zones run transversely, intersecting\nothers. Now there must necessarily be as many divisions of the heavens\nas there are parts. So, then, the horizon or bounding circle cuts those\nfive zones, of whose position I have just spoken, making ten parts,\nfive to east and five to west. The meridian circle which meets the\nhorizon gives two additional divisions. Thus the air receives its 4\ntwelve divisions, and yields a like number of winds.\n\nThere are some of the winds that are peculiar to certain localities;\nthey do not carry far, but reach only the immediate vicinity. They do\nnot derive their impulse from a particular quarter of the world at\nlarge. For example, the wind Atabulus haunts Apulia; the Iapygian,\nCalabria; the Scironian, Athens; Cataegis, Pamphylia; Circius, Gaul.\nTo the last mentioned, though it shakes their houses, the people are\nvery grateful, believing they are indebted to it for the healthiness\nof their climate. At any rate, the late Emperor Augustus, when he was\nstaying in Gaul, erected to it a temple he had vowed. My task would\nnever be done if I were to attempt to enumerate the individual winds.\nThere is hardly any district that has not some particular wind that\narises in it and falls not far from it.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII\n\n\nWherefore among the other works of Providence this one must be 1\nregarded as worthy of all admiration. Heaven had many purposes in view\nin devising the winds and distributing them through all the varied\nquarters of the earth. The first object was to prevent the atmosphere\nfrom becoming gross; by their constant tossing the winds were meant to\nrender it beneficial, a source of life to those who were to breathe\nit. In the second place, they were to supply the earth with rain, and\nat the same time to restrain excess of rain. This they accomplish by 2\nnow gathering, now scattering the clouds, so that the rainfall should\nbe fairly distributed over the whole world. The south wind drives it\ntoward Italy, the north sends it back to Africa. The Etesian winds will\nnot suffer the clouds to settle in our quarter; but yet the whole of\nIndia and Ethiopia are watered with constant rain during the period\nof their prevalence. Moreover, crops could not be gathered in unless\nthe worthless elements were winnowed by the blast from the good grain\nwith which it is mixed. The breeze is needed, too, to rouse the seed\nand bring to light the latent fruit, by causing it to burst through\nits covering, those wrappings which the farmers call follicles.\nFurthermore, the wind has established intercommunication among all 3\nthe different nations, and has united tribes far removed from each\nother in place.\n\nA great service is this that nature here renders, did not man\u2019s\nmadness turn it to his own injury! As it is, the remark may be applied\nto the winds which was commonly made regarding Caesar the Elder\n(Julius), as recorded by Titus Livius (Livy); it was doubtful whether\nhis birth was a blessing or a curse to the state. In like manner\nall the useful and necessary services performed by the winds cannot\noutweigh the devices which man\u2019s madness has through them framed for\nhis own destruction. But they do not cease to be inherently good, 4\neven though, through fault of those who degrade their use, they are\nturned to instruments of harm. Surely Providence and God, the great\nDisposer of the world, had a beneficent aim in establishing the winds,\nand diffusing them on every side, to wit, that the atmosphere might\nbe kept in motion by them, that no part of the world should become\nunsightly through inactivity. His object was not that we might man our\nfleet with armed soldiers to seize every quarter of the main, and that\nwe might go in search of foes either in or beyond the sea. What frenzy\ngoads us on, and matches us in strife for our mutual destruction? We\nspread the sails to the winds to go in quest of war, and we run 5\nrisks of sea for the sake of meeting risks of battle! We tempt the\nuncertainty of fortune, the force of tempests that no human effort can\novercome, death without hope of burial. The prize would not be worth\nthe toil if the voyage conducted us to peace. As it is, when we have\npassed so many hidden rocks and hidden shoals of a treacherous sea;\nwhen we have escaped the billows that rise like mountains above us,\ninto which the raging wind forces all voyagers; when we have passed\nthrough days enveloped in mist, and nights rendered still more awful 6\nby cloud and thunder, and by whirlwinds that rend the frail bark in\npieces; what reward shall we have for all the toil and anxiety? What\nharbour will give us hospitable shelter, worn out as we are with so\nmany sufferings? War, I trow, will meet us, and an enemy ready prepared\non shore and tribes destined to cruel slaughter, but not without much\ndamage to the conqueror, and ancient cities in flames. Why do we press\nwhole nations into arms? Why do we enrol armies to marshal their lines\namid the billows? Why do we disquiet the seas? The land, I suppose, 7\nis not wide enough to compass our death. Fortune deals too tenderly\nwith us: she has given us too hardy bodies, too sound health. No ravage\nof plague cuts us off: each one may comfortably fill up the measure of\nhis years and reach the haven of old age. So let us launch upon the\ndeep and call toward us the loitering fates. Poor wretches, what is it\nye seek? Death, which is always too much with us? It will attack you,\neven in your couch; well, see that the victims it attacks are innocent\nof crime. It will seize you in your house; be sure it find you planning\nno mischief.\n\nBut what can one call it but plain insanity actually to carry 8\ndestruction in your train, to rush in anger against men you never saw,\nto lay waste without provocation all that comes in your path, and,\nafter the fashion of wild beasts, to kill a man you do not hate? We are\nworse than beasts, for they bite only in retaliation or from hunger;\nbut we, utterly lavish of our own and others\u2019 blood, harass the seas by\nthe vessels we launch, entrust our safety to the waves, and pray for\nfavouring winds, counting it our good fortune to be borne in safety\nto the wars! To what lengths have our crimes hurried us criminals? It\nis not enough to vent one\u2019s madness within one\u2019s own sphere. Your 9\nstupid King of Persia must cross into Greece, filling it with an army\nwith which he has failed to conquer it. Your Alexander, leaving behind\nBactra and India, must needs seek to learn what lies beyond the great\nsea, and will chafe that there is any point beyond which he cannot go.\nCrassus in like manner will fall a prey to the Parthians through his\nlust of gold. He will not dread the imprecations of the tribune who\ncalls him back, nor the storms of the tedious sea, nor the lightning\nby Euphrates that foretold destruction, nor the resistance of heaven\nitself. Through the wrath of man and God alike gold shall be sought. 10\n\nNot without good cause, therefore, it may be said that nature would\nhave done better by us had she forbidden the winds to blow at all, had\nshe checked their roaming abroad in their fury, and ordered each one\nto abide in his own land. If this had served no other end, at any rate\nthe mischief of each human life would have been restricted to itself\nand its own nation. As it is, the ills of home are too little for us;\nwe must toil to share those abroad as well. No land is so far removed\nfrom neighbours that it cannot send forth in some direction its evil\npropensities. How do I know but that some ruler of a great nation 11\nmeantime concealed from view, swollen by fortune\u2019s kindness, may choose\nnot to confine his arms within the boundaries of his own realm, but\nwith secret design may even now be fitting out his fleet against us?\nHow can I tell whether this wind or that shall convey war to me? It\nwould go far to ensure the peace of the world if the seas could be\nshut up.\n\nStill, as I said a little ago, we cannot put the blame on God, our\nAuthor, if we corrupt His blessings and turn them into curses. He gave\nus the winds to maintain the equable temperature of earth and sky, 12\nto call forth or to repress the waters, to nourish the produce of field\nand tree; the crops are brought to maturity, among other causes, by\ntheir mere tossing in the wind, which attracts the nourishment to the\ntop, and by movement prevents the stagnation of decay. He gave the\nwinds that we might gain acquaintance with foreign lands. Man would\nhave been an untutored creature without much experience of the world if\ncircumscribed by the bounds of his native soil. He gave the winds 13\nthat the blessings of each region might become common to all; not to\nconvey across the sea regiments of horse and foot, nor arms for the\ndestruction of mankind. If we simply estimate nature\u2019s boons by the\ndegraded uses to which they have been put, there is nothing that we\nhave not received for our own hurt. Who is aught the better of the\ngift of sight? or of speech? To whom is life itself not a torment? I\ndefy you to find anything of such undoubted utility that it cannot by\nmisuse be converted into a curse. So it is with the winds: nature had\ndesigned them for a boon; we have ourselves made them the opposite.\nThey all lead us to some disaster: one man has not the same motive 14\nas his neighbour for putting to sea, but none has a good one. Diverse\ntemptations lead us to essay the way. Above all, we love to go to sea\nin order to damage some one. Plato, with whose testimony I may close,\nhas observed, with great aptness, it is mere trifles that men purchase\nwith their lives. Yes, my dear Lucilius, if you estimate aright man\u2019s\nmadness, in other words, our own--for we all wallow in the same\nherd--you will be still more amused by the reflection that we amass for\nlife what in the end wears life out.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VI\n\nWHICH TREATS OF EARTHQUAKES\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nWe have just had news, my esteemed Lucilius, that Pompeii, the 1\ncelebrated city in Campania, has been overwhelmed in an earthquake,\nwhich shook all the surrounding districts as well. The city, you know,\nlies on a beautiful bay, running far back from the open sea, and is\nsurrounded by two converging shores, on the one side that of Surrentum\nand Stabiae, on the other that of Herculaneum. The disaster happened in\nwinter, a period for which our forefathers used to claim immunity from\nsuch dangers. On the 5th of February, in the consulship of Regulus 2\nand Virginius, this shock occurred, involving widespread destruction\nover the whole province of Campania; the district had never been\nwithout risk of such a calamity, but had been hitherto exempt from it,\nhaving escaped time after time from groundless alarm.\n\nThe extent of the disaster may be gathered from a few details. Part\nof the town of Herculaneum fell; the buildings left standing are very\ninsecure. The colony of Nuceria had painful experience of the shock,\nbut sustained no damage. Naples was just touched by what might have\nproved a great disaster to it; many private houses suffered, but\nno public building was destroyed. The villas built on the cliffs 3\neverywhere shook, but without damage being done. In addition, they\nsay, a flock of six hundred sheep was destroyed, and statues were split\nopen; some people were driven out of their minds, and wandered about in\nhelpless idiotcy. The plan of my present work demands a discussion of\nthe causes of this, and the disaster itself fits in with our present\ninquiries (_i.e._ our discussion is opportune in view of the recent\ndisaster). We must seek solace for the anxious and dispel overmastering\nfear. For what can any one believe quite safe if the world itself is\nshaken, and its most solid parts totter to their fall? Where, indeed,\ncan our fears have limit if the one thing immovably fixed, which 4\nupholds all other things in dependence on it, begins to rock, and the\nearth lose its chief characteristic, stability? What refuge can our\nweak bodies find? whither shall anxious ones flee when fear springs\nfrom the ground and is drawn up from earth\u2019s foundations? If roofs at\nany time begin to crack and premonitions of fall are given, there is\ngeneral panic: all hurry pell-mell out of doors, they abandon their\nhousehold treasures, and trust for safety to the public street.\n\nBut if the earth itself stir up destruction, what refuge or help can 5\nwe look for? If this solid globe, which upholds and defends us, upon\nwhich our cities are built, which has been called by some the world\u2019s\nfoundation, stagger and remove, whither are we to turn? What comfort,\nnot to say help, can you gain when fear has destroyed all way of\nescape? Where, I say, is there any protection you can trust? what is\nthere that will stand as sure defence either of oneself or of others?\nAn enemy I can drive off from my city wall. The mere difficulties of\napproach to turrets set on the dizzy heights will stop the march even\nof great armies. From storm the harbour shelters us; our roofs are 6\nable to withstand the whole force of clouds let loose, and the endless\ndeluges of rain. Fire cannot pursue us if we run away from it. Against\nheaven\u2019s threats in thunder refuges underground and caverns dug out\nin the depths of the earth are of avail--the fire of heaven does not\npierce the ground, but is beaten back by the tiniest portion of the\nsoil. In time of plague we may change our place of abode. No species of\ndisaster is without some means of escape. Lightning has never consumed\nwhole nations. A plague-laden sky has drained cities, but has never\nblotted them out.\n\nBut this calamity of earthquake extends beyond all bounds, 7\ninevitable, insatiable, the destruction of a whole State. Nor is it\nonly families or households or single cities that it swallows; it\noverthrows whole nations and regions. At one time it hides them in\ntheir ruins, at another consigns them to the deep abyss; it leaves not\na wrack behind to witness that what no longer is, once was. The bare\nsoil stretches over the site of the most famous cities, and no trace\nis left of their former existence. Nor are there wanting those who\ndread most of all this kind of death, in which they go down alive into\nthe pit, houses and all, and are carried off from the number of the\nliving: as if every form of death did not lead to the one goal. Among 8\nnature\u2019s righteous decrees this is the chief, that when we reach the\nend of life we are all on a level. It makes no difference, therefore,\nto me whether one stone wound me to death or I am crushed beneath a\nwhole mountain; whether the weight of one house come down on me, and\nI expire beneath the dust of its humble mound, or whether the whole\nworld descend upon my head; whether I yield up this breath in the open\nlight of day or in the vast abyss of the yawning earth; whether I am\nborne down to those depths all alone or along with a great throng of\nperishing nations. To me it can make no difference how great is the 9\nturmoil that accompanies my death; the thing is everywhere just the\nsame.\n\nWherefore, let us raise high our courage against that disaster, which\ncan neither be shunned nor yet foreseen. Let us cease to listen to the\npeople that have bid adieu to Campania since the time of this disaster,\nand have removed to other districts, vowing they will never set foot\nin that quarter again! Who can guarantee them more solid foundations\nin whatever soil they choose? All the world is subject to the same 10\nfate. If it has not yet suffered from earthquake, it may; perchance\nthis spot on which you stand in full security will be rent this night,\nor even this day before night. How can one tell whether is better the\nstate of the places on which fortune has already spent her force or of\nthose which are upheld meantime, but only for some disaster to come?\nWe do greatly err if we suppose any quarter of the world wholly exempt\nfrom this danger. All quarters are subject to the same law. Nature\nframed nothing to be immovable. Different things will fall at different\ntimes. Just as in large cities, now this house and now that leans 11\nover and has to be shored up, so in the world as a whole, now this\npart contains a flaw, now that. Tyre was once notorious for a disaster\nof the kind. The province of Asia lost at a single stroke twelve of\nits cities. Last year calamity overtook Achaia and Macedonia, now the\ninjury has fallen upon Campania, whatever be the nature of that force\nwhich thus assails us. Fate makes a circuit, paying a second visit to\nplaces she has long passed over. On some places her attacks are more\nrare, more frequent on some. Nothing is suffered to be quite exempt 12\nfrom injury. Not merely we men, whose life is frail and fleeting,\nbut cities too, and the earth\u2019s coasts and shores, yea, the very sea\nfalls under bondage to fate. And in face of this we promise ourselves\npermanence in the boons fortune bestows! we suppose there will be\nstability and endurance in happiness, whose fickleness is greatest\nof all things on earth! While men promise themselves all things 13\nin perpetuity, it never enters their thoughts that the very earth on\nwhich we stand is not permanent. The flaws of the ground are to be\nfound everywhere; they are not peculiar to Campania or Tyre or Achaia.\nThe earth coheres imperfectly, it suffers breach from many causes;\npermanent as a whole, it is subject to collapse in its parts.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nWhat am I doing? I had promised to offer comfort in face of danger, 1\nand lo! I threaten its terrors on all sides. I tell you that there can\nbe no assured peace in what can suffer or cause destruction. But that\nvery fact I regard as a solace, and, indeed, the most powerful of all.\nFear is but folly when there is no escape from it. Philosophy delivers\nthe wise from fear; even the unlearned may derive great confidence\nfrom despair. You must, therefore, regard the words addressed to those\namazed by sudden captivity amid fire and foe as addressed to the whole\nhuman race:\n\n The one safety of the conquered is to hope for none.\n\nIf you wish to fear nothing, think that everything is to be feared; 2\nconsider by how slight causes our life is dissipated. Neither food nor\ndrink, nor waking nor sleeping, is healthful, except in due measure.\nOne may soon realise that we are but puny, insignificant bodies, weak\nand unstable, that small effort is needed to compass our destruction.\nThe only sufficiency of danger, doubtless, would be the earth\u2019s\ntrembling, its sudden dissipation, the rending of its surface into\nchasms!\n\nSurely he sets a high value on his life who dreads only lightning, 3\nand earthquakes with their yawning abysses; won\u2019t he allow himself to\nopen his eyes to his frailty and be afraid of choking on his phlegm?\nSuch, forsooth, is our constitution by birth, such the powerful frames\nwe have obtained, such the size we have grown to, that we cannot perish\nunless the four quarters of the world are moved, the heavens thunder,\nand the earth subside! Why, a pain in a tiny nail, not even the whole 4\nnail, but a little ragnail at the side, may finish us! And I must fear\nonly the trembling of the world, when too thick a spittle will choke\nme! I am to await with dread the removal of the sea from its place,\nor the overflowing of an abnormal tide with its excess of water; why,\nsome ere now have been strangled by a drink that took a wrong course\ndown the throat! What folly to be afraid of the sea when you know that\na single drop may kill you! There is no solace of death greater than 5\nthe very liability to death, no solace of all the terrors from without\nequal to the thought that there are countless dangers within our own\nbosom. What greater madness than to collapse at the sound of thunder,\nand through fear of lightning to creep under the ground? What greater\nfolly than to stand in fear of the earth\u2019s tottering and the sudden 6\nfall of mountains, or inroads of the sea cast up beyond the shore,\nwhen death is everywhere present and meets us on every side? Nothing\nis so small as not to be strong enough to compass the destruction of\nthe human race. Great or unusual dangers ought not to unnerve us, as if\nthey implied more mischief than a common death; nay, rather when one\nmust quit the world and at last resign life, it should be a positive\njoy to perish by some grand cause. Die we must somewhere, sometime. 7\nThe ground you tread may stand firm, it may confine itself within its\nown bounds and not be tossed about by any violence; yet some day I\nshall be beneath it. Does it really matter, then, whether I place it\non myself or itself do? It is rent by the irresistible force of some\ndisaster; it bursts and draws me into its immense depths. What then? Is\ndeath easier on the earth\u2019s level surface? What reason for complaint\nhave I if nature will not have me lie in a place unknown to fame? or\nif she lays on me a portion of herself? My friend, Vagellius,[77] in 8\nthat famous poem of his, says finely:\n\n If fall I must, I should desire to fall from the height of heaven.[78]\n\n [77] The name is doubtful, as is, indeed, the quotation also.\n\n [78] The sense may be: I would have the heavens fall along with me;\n this meaning would suit the context better.\n\nWe may adopt the language. If fall I must, let the earth be shaken at\nmy fall; not that one ought to pray for a public disaster, but it is\na great solace of death to see that the earth is likewise subject to\ndeath.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nIt will be useful also to be assured that none of these things is the 1\ndoing of the gods, and that the moving of heaven or earth is no work of\nangry deities. Those phenomena have causes of their own. It is not by\nspecial command that they put forth their rage, but, just as in our own\nbodies, the disturbance arises from certain inherent imperfections; at\nthe moment when they seem to inflict injury, they sustain it. Through\nour ignorance of the truth all these things are terrible, the more as\ntheir infrequency increases our alarm. Familiar occurrences seem less 2\nserious; the unusual causes greater terror. But why is anything unusual\nin our estimation? The reason is that we grasp the meaning of nature\nonly superficially, and not rationally; we dwell too exclusively on\nwhat she has done, and do not consider what she can do. Accordingly,\nwe pay the penalty of this neglect in our terror of things that we\nsuppose unprecedented, when they are not really unprecedented, but\nmerely unusual. For instance, are not superstitious fears inspired\nboth privately and even for the safety of the State, if either the sun\nhas been seen in eclipse or if the moon, whose obscuration is more\nfrequent, has partially or wholly been concealed? And is not this far 3\nmore so in the case of such sights as we have spoken of: torches driven\nathwart the heavens, the sky on fire over the greater part of its\nextent, comets, mock suns, stars appearing in the daytime, the sudden\npassage of stars that mark their trail with a bright light? Our wonder\nat these is in no case free from fear. As the cause of the fear is\nignorance, is it not worth while to gain the knowledge that will dispel\nit? How much better it would be to inquire into the causes of the\nalarming sights, to bend, in fact, our whole mind to the task? Nothing,\nsurely, could be found more deserving than that, of having the mind\u2019s\nenergies not only lent to it, but devoted to it.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nLet us ask ourselves, therefore, what it is that stirs the earth to 1\nits foundation, what moves a mass of such weight, what it is that is\nstronger than the earth, and that in its violence can shake such a\nload. Let us inquire why at one time the earth trembles, at another\nis loosened and sinks, and again is divided into parts and opens a\nchasm; or why on some occasions the intervals of destruction are\nprolonged, on others are suddenly cut short. What is the cause why it\nnow consigns to its depths rivers of renowned greatness, and now causes\nfresh rivers to issue? why does it sometimes open up springs of hot\nwater, sometimes freeze them with cold? and why at times are fires 2\ncaused to shoot out through some hitherto unknown opening in mountain\nor crag, while sometimes well-known fires, that have been famous for\ncenturies, are suppressed? The earthquake produces a thousand strange\nsights, changing the aspect of the ground, levelling mountains,\nelevating plains, exalting valleys, raising new islands in the deep.\nWhat are the causes that bring these things to pass? That is a subject\nwell worthy our discussion. What, you say, will be the reward of our\nlabour? That reward, I say, which surpasses all others, the knowledge\nof nature. Among the many serviceable lessons to be derived from 3\nsuch researches, no feature is more commendable than this, that man is\nthereby made to dwell upon the sight of his own grandeur[79]; the study\nis pursued, not in hope of gain, but from the wonder it excites. Let us\ninquire, therefore, what it is that brings about all this. The inquiry\nis so fascinating to me that although long ago in my youth I published\na volume on earthquakes, I am anxious to make another trial of my\npowers, and to see whether age has added anything to my knowledge, or,\nat any rate, to my industry.\n\n [79] The meaning may rather be--the grandeur of the subject.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nThe cause of earthquakes has been assigned variously by different 1\nauthorities to water, fire, air, and to the earth itself; some assign\nit to a combination of several of the causes, others, to a union of\nthem all. Certain writers have stated that it was plain to them that\nsome one of these causes produced the earthquake, but it was not plain\nwhich. Let us look at the various opinions in detail. First of all, I\nfeel bound to say in general terms that the old views are crude and\ninexact. As yet men were groping their way round truth. Everything was\nnew to those who made the first attempt to grasp it; only later were\nthe subjects accurately investigated. But all subsequent discoveries\nmust nonetheless be set down to the credit of those early thinkers.\nIt was a task demanding great courage to remove the veil that hid 2\nnature, and, not satisfied with a superficial view, to look beneath the\nsurface and dive into the secrets of the gods. A great contribution\nto discovery was made by the man who first conceived the hope of its\npossibility. We must, therefore, listen indulgently to the ancients.\nNo subject is perfected while it is but beginning. The truth holds\nnot merely of the subject we are dealing with, the greatest and most\ncomplicated of all, in which, however much may be accomplished, every\nsucceeding age will still find something fresh to accomplish. It holds\nalike in every other concern; the first principles have always been a\nlong way off from the completed science.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nWater is the first cause alleged: more authors than one adopt this 1\nview, but it is not stated by all in the same terms. Thales of Miletus\nis convinced that the whole earth floats, and is upborne by moisture\nlying beneath it, which you may call either Ocean or the great sea, or\nstill mere elemental water of a different character from the sea, the\nsimple ingredient, moisture. In these waves, in his opinion, the globe\nis supported like some huge lumbering vessel in the water which bears\nit. It is unnecessary for me to reproduce his reasons for supposing 2\nthat the heaviest part of the world cannot be sustained in such a rare\nand nimble element as air: for the earth\u2019s position is not the question\nhere but its movement. By way of argument, to prove that water is the\ncause, he adduces the fact that in every considerable earthquake, as a\nrule, new springs burst out. So if a boat leans over to one side away\nfrom the straight, the result is that it ships water. And, generally\nspeaking, in the case of all objects which water supports, if they are\nunduly sunk, the water either pours over them or at any rate rises to\nright and left above its ordinary height.\n\nNow, no lengthened consideration is needed to prove the falsity of 3\nthis view. Why, if the earth were supported by water, and from time to\ntime shaken by it, it would be in perpetual shock; the wonder would be\nnot that it was tossed about sometimes, but that it was ever at rest.\nThen, again, it would be shaken all over and not at a single point:\nwe never find only half the ship tossed by the waves. But, according\nto present experience, a shock never occurs over the whole earth\nsimultaneously, but is always felt at some particular spot. How, then,\ncan it be that what is carried as a whole is not shaken as a whole, if\nthe shock comes from the body by which it is carried?\n\nBut, it may be urged, why do waters burst out at the time of earth- 4\nquakes? Well, in the first place, there has often been earthquake\nwithout any fresh supply of water appearing. Secondly, if the supposed\ncause of the water rushing forth were the true one, it would pour\nall round the sides of the earth, as we see happening under similar\ncircumstances in sea and rivers: when boats sink, the increase of water\nshows itself chiefly over the sides. Finally, the outburst of waters\nwhich Thales describes would not be so small as he says, nor would it\nooze in like bilge-water through a chink, but from the exhaustless\nreservoir that upbears all creation, a mighty deluge would ensue.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nSome, who, like Thales, attribute earthquake to the effects of water, 1\ngive a different explanation of its operation. There are, they say,\nmany kinds of waters running over the whole earth. In one place there\nare constant rivers whose size renders them fit for navigation, even\nwithout the aid of rains. There is the Nile, rolling down its huge\nvolume all summer long: here are the Danube and the Rhine separating\nwith their streams the peaceful from the hostile, the former checking\nattacks from the Sarmatians and forming the boundary between Europe\nand Asia, the latter keeping back the Germans, a nation ever keen for\nwar. Then there are lakes of very wide extent, great pools surrounded 2\nby tribes mutually ignorant of each other, marshes that no boat can\nstruggle through, that cannot be passed even by the people that dwell\non their borders. Add, then, the multitude of fountains, and of river\nsources that belch out of their recesses full-grown streams. Besides,\nthere are many rushing torrents that gather only for a time, whose\nforce is as shortlived as it is sudden. Now there are waters, in all\nthis variety of form and character, within as well as above the 3\nearth. Away there below some are borne along in vast bulk, and tumble\ntheir whole volume down the steep: others more sluggish are dammed back\nin shallows, and flow with gentle, quiet stream. And can any one deny\nthat within those vast underground hollows waters are formed, and lie\nsluggish and inactive in many places? It needs no long proof to show\nthat there must be many waters in the place where all waters are. The\nearth would not be able to produce so many rivers unless it poured them\nfrom a copious reserve.\n\nThis being so, sometimes below the earth a river must become swollen, 4\nand leaving its banks assail with violence all obstacles that meet\nit. So there will be a movement of some point on which the river has\nmade an onset, and which it will keep lashing until its waters fall.\nOr it may happen that the constant wear of a stream may eat away some\nquarter, dragging down thereby some mass above, by whose fall, in turn,\nthe surface which rested on it is shaken. Now surely a man trusts too 5\nmuch to the sight of the eyes and cannot launch out his imagination\nbeyond, if he does not believe that the depths of earth contain a\nvast sea with winding shores. I see nothing to prevent or oppose the\nexistence of a beach down there in the obscurity, or a sea finding its\nway through the hidden entrances to its appointed place. There, too,\nit occupies as much space as here, perhaps more, since the regions up\non earth have had to be shared with so many living creatures; but the\nhidden regions being desert without inhabitant give freer scope to the\nwaves of the nether ocean. And who is there to hinder the sea from 6\nswelling there and being tossed by all the winds that every interstice\nof the earth, and every species of atmosphere can create? So, then,\nwhen a storm greater than ordinary has arisen, it may beat upon some\none side of the earth with too great vehemence and move it. For on the\nsurface likewise, many places which had been far from the sea have\nfelt the violence of its sudden approach: villas almost out of sight\nof it have been invaded by the waves which used only to be heard in\nthe distance. The nether sea, too, can approach and retire; neither of\nwhich movements can take place without shock to the earth that stands\nabove it.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nI do not, indeed, suppose that you will long hesitate to believe that 1\nthere are underground rivers and a hidden sea. From what other cause\ncould the rivers burst out and come to the surface unless the source\nof the moisture were shut up within the earth? For instance, when one\nsees the Tigris interrupted and dried up in the middle of its course,\nnot diverted as a whole, but gradually with imperceptible losses first\nlessen and then waste away, where do you suppose it goes to if not to\nthe depths of the earth, especially as you see it emerge again not less\nin volume than its former stream? And what are you to say when you 2\nsee the Alpheus, so celebrated by the poets, sink in Achaia and, having\ncrossed beneath the sea, pour forth in Sicily the pleasant fountain\nArethuse? And don\u2019t you know that among the explanations given of the\noccurrence of the inundation of the Nile in summer, one is that it\nbursts forth from the ground, and is swollen not by rain from above but\nby water given out from within the earth?\n\nI have myself heard from their own lips the story told by the two 3\nnon-commissioned officers sent to investigate the sources of the Nile\nby our good Emperor Nero, a monarch devoted to virtue in every form,\nbut especially solicitous for the interests of truth. The King of\nEthiopia had supplied them with assistance and furnished letters of\nintroduction to the neighbouring kings, and so they had penetrated\ninto the heart of Africa and accomplished a long journey. \u201cWe came 4\nindeed,\u201d I give their own words, \u201cto huge marshes, the limit of which\neven the natives did not know, and no one else could hope to know;\nso completely was the river entangled with vegetable growth,[80]\nso impassable the waters by foot, or even by boat, since the muddy\novergrown marsh would bear only a small boat containing one person.\nThere,\u201d my informants went on, \u201cwe saw with our eyes two rocks from\nwhich an immense quantity of water issued.\u201d Now whether that is the\nreal source or only an addition to the river; whether it rises there 5\nor merely returns to the surface after its previous course underground;\ndon\u2019t you think that, whatever it is, that water comes up from a\ngreat lake in the earth? The earth must contain moisture scattered in\nnumerous places and collected at depth in order to be able to belch it\nout with such violence.\n\n [80] The so-called \u201csudd.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nFire is the cause assigned by some for earthquakes, but they are not 1\nagreed as to its method of action. First among them is Anaxagoras,\nwho is of opinion that pretty much the same cause produces concussion\nin the earth as in the atmosphere. In the nether parts of earth, air\n(gas) causes explosions of thick atmosphere massed in clouds with the\nsame violence as on earth clouds are wont to be burst. Fire is struck\nout by this collision of clouds and by the rush of the atmosphere that\nis forced out. This fire in seeking an exit meets obstructions and 2\nbursts through all obstacles, until it has either found a way of escape\nto the light through the narrow passages, or has made one for itself\nby violence and destruction. Other writers who still believe the cause\nto lie in fire do not suppose that this is its method of action: they\nthink the fire presents itself in more than one place and burns away\neverything in the vicinity. Then if the parts eaten away fall in at\nany time, a shock follows in the portions which are deprived of their\nsupports; they first totter and then collapse; nothing encounters them\nto support their weight. Then chasms and vast gulfs are opened up, or 3\nit may be, after hanging a long time in the balance, the ground settles\ndown over what is still left standing. We see the same thing happen\nordinarily as often as a part of the city suffers from a fire. The\njoists are burnt through, or what gave support to the upper part of the\nbuildings is undermined. Then the roofs after tossing about for a long\ntime fall in; their swaying and oscillating continue until they find a\nresting-place on solid ground.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nAnaximenes affirms that the earth is itself the cause of the earth- 1\nquake, and that nothing encounters it from without to give it a\nshock. Within it, he thinks, certain parts of its substance fall of\nthemselves, either loosened by moisture, or eaten away by fire, or\nshaken off by the violence of air. But even in absence of such active\ncause there is not wanting sufficient to account for the loss or\nremoval of some portion of the earth. In the first place, all things\nfall through age, for nothing is safe from the ravages of time, which\nwaste even the solidest and strongest edifice. In old buildings parts\nfall without being knocked off, merely because they have more weight\nthan strength. So in the earth\u2019s body as a whole it comes to pass 2\nthat portions are loosened by age, and being loosened, fall, causing\nshock to the things above them. This they do primarily while they are\nleaving their place; for nothing, especially if it is large, can be\nwrenched off without movement of that to which it adhered. But further,\nwhen the objects have fallen, they meet the solid earth and rebound\nlike a ball. When a ball falls, it jumps up and bounces repeatedly,\njust as often, in fact, as it recoils from the ground for a new flight.\nIf the loosened objects within the earth are carried down into stagnant\nwaters, this accident of itself causes a shock to the vicinity through\nthe wave cast up by the weight of the objects shot suddenly down from a\ngreat height.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nSome attribute these earthquakes to fire, but give different\nexplanations of its action. When fire causes intense heat at various\npoints beneath the earth, it must roll up a great cloud of vapour,\nwhich can find no exit, and which dilates the air by its high\ntemperature. If the pressure of the vapour is excessive, it scatters\nall obstructions; but if it is comparatively moderate, it merely causes\nmovement of the earth. We observe water smoke when fire is applied.\nWhat the fire does to this water in a narrow pot, one may suppose is\ndone on a much greater scale when a violent and wide-spreading fire\ncauses immense extents of water to boil. It then by evaporation from\nthe overflowing waters shakes violently whatever it strikes.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nMany of the greatest authorities are persuaded that earthquakes are 1\nto be attributed to air. Archelaus, who is well versed in the records\nof antiquity, speaks thus: Winds are carried down into the earth\u2019s\nhollows and recesses. When they are all full, and the atmosphere is\ncondensed to the utmost extent, the air, which continues to come in,\nforces and thrusts the former air, and with frequent blows first\ncompresses and then dislodges it. The air in its endeavour to find 2\nroom forces all the narrow passages and tries to burst its barriers.\nThrough the struggle of the air as it seeks for an escape it comes\nto pass that the earth is moved. This explains why the approach of\nan earthquake is preceded by still and quiet of the atmosphere; the\nforce of the air which is wont to rouse the winds is held in check in\nits nether abode. Even on the present occasion of the earthquake in 3\nCampania, although the season was winter, the atmosphere was perfectly\nstill and calm for several days before it.[81] Well, then, did an\nearthquake never take place when there was a wind blowing? On very rare\noccasions have there been two winds blowing simultaneously. Still, such\na thing is possible, and is wont to occur. But if we admit it as an\nestablished fact that two winds can be in activity at one and the same\ntime, why shouldn\u2019t it happen that [at times] one of them agitates the\nupper air, the other the nether?[82]\n\n [81] The text is uncertain, and the argument down to the end of the\n chapter rather obscure.\n\n [82] The argument seems to be: Two winds can blow simultaneously. One\n may be beneath the earth (causing or during earthquake), one above.\n Therefore, stillness of the upper atmosphere is not a necessary\n concomitant of earthquake. The fact has at times been otherwise.\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\n\nIn this category you may rank Aristotle and his disciple Theo- 1\nphrastus, a man of pleasant though not of superhuman eloquence, as\nthe Greeks considered him, and of easy, polished style. Let me unfold\nin more detail what they hold in common: There is always evaporation\nof some kind going on from the earth, which is at one time dry, at\nanother has an admixture of moisture. When this, rising from the lowest\nparts of earth, has been raised to the utmost extent, and has no place\nbeyond into which to issue, it is borne back and returns upon itself.\nThe struggle of the air in its ebb and flow tosses to and fro all\nobstructions it meets, and, whether its egress is stopped or whether\nit escapes through the narrow openings, it causes movement of the\nearth and uproar. To the same school of opinion belongs Strato, who 2\nmade a special study of this department of science, and was a diligent\nstudent of natural philosophy. His verdict on the matter is this: Cold\nand heat always move away from one another in opposite directions, and\ncannot remain in the same place. Cold flows into the spot whence the\ninfluence of heat has departed; and, conversely, there is heat in the\nplace whence cold has been banished. The statement is beyond doubt, but\nthe contrariety of the two may become plain to you from the following:\nIn the winter season, when there is cold on the earth\u2019s surface, the 3\nwells are warm, and caves and all underground retreats equally so. The\nheat, yielding possession of the upper regions to the cold, retreats\ndown there. When it reaches the lower regions, and is accumulated there\nto the utmost, the denser it is, the more powerful is it. To this a\nfurther supply is added, to which what has already gathered, and is\ncompressed into a narrow space, of necessity gives way. The same thing\nhappens from the opposite cause when a greater quantity of cold is\nborne down to these recesses. All the heat that lurks there gives way 4\nto the cold, and retires to the narrow passages, and is driven onward\nwith great impetuosity. The nature of the two, as I have said, does not\nallow agreement, or abode in the same place. In its flight, then, and\neager haste to escape at all hazards the air pushes back and tosses\nabout all that lies near it. This is why, previous to an earthquake,\na roaring is usually heard, through the tumult of the winds in the\nearth\u2019s bowels. For not otherwise, as our poet Virgil says, could 5\n\n The earth bellow beneath our feet and the lofty peaks be moved,\n\nwere not this the work of the winds. In this contest again there are\nups and downs. There are cessations in the massing of the heat and, in\nturn, in its emission. Then the cold, too, is restrained and gives way,\nbut some day soon it will be more powerful again. While, therefore,\nthe alternating forces rush to and fro, and the air moves hither and\nthither, the earth is shaken.\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\n\nThere are some who think that, while air and no other cause produces 1\nearthquake, it operates in a different way from that which Aristotle\nsupposed. Listen to what they say: Our body is irrigated with blood,\nand with air which courses everywhere along its own routes. We have\nsome comparatively narrow vessels through which they cannot do more\nthan pass; some wider, in which they accumulate, and from which they\nare distributed to the members. So this whole body of the earth at 2\nlarge has passages alike for water, which performs the function of\nblood, and for wind, which might be called simply the breath of its\nlife. These two encounter each other at some points, at some points\nthey are stationary. While in our bodies good health is enjoyed,\nthe movement of the veins preserves its rate undisturbed; but when\nthere is malady the pulse beats more rapidly, the deep breathing and\npanting betoken laboured, wearied effort. In like manner the earth\nremains unshaken while it maintains its natural position. But if any 3\nflaw occur in it, there is a shaking, just as of a body suffering\nfrom disease; for the air which flowed through it with regularity is\nviolently smitten, and causes its veins to quiver; but not, let me add,\nin the way, described a little above,[83] imagined by those who will\nhave it that the earth is a living creature. In that case the earth,\njust as an animal does, would feel the agitation equally all over. When\na fever seizes any of us, it does not delay for a time its attack upon\nsome parts, but with uniform regularity spreads over them all.\n\n [83] There seems a slight lapse of memory here. Cf. pp.\u00a0126, 196.\n\nPerhaps you had better assume, therefore, that air from the surround- 4\ning atmosphere enters the earth. As long as it has free egress, it\nglides through it without doing harm; but if it meet some obstacle to\nblock its way, then it is, to begin with, weighted with the atmosphere\nthat pours in on the rear; by and by it escapes with difficulty\nthrough some chink, and makes its way with the greater violence the\nnarrower the opening is. That cannot take place without a struggle,\nand a struggle involves shaking of the earth. But if the confined\nair cannot find even a chink by which to issue, it is massed and 5\nbecomes furious, and is driven round in this direction and in that,\noverthrowing or bursting one thing after another. It is excessively\nsubtle, and at the same time exceedingly powerful; it can worm its way\ninto obstructions however great, splitting and scattering whatever it\nenters. When this occurs, then there is a regular tossing of the earth.\nFor the earth either opens to give room to the wind, or, after giving\nroom, is deprived of its foundation and subsides into the very cavern\nfrom which it allowed the wind to issue.\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\n\nSome entertain the following opinion: The earth is porous at many\npoints, possessing not merely those first shafts which it received\nas ventilators at its creation, but many subsequently opened up by\nvarious changes. In some places water has washed away the soil that\nwas on the surface; part has been eaten away by torrents, while parts\nhave been exposed by the disruptive action of great tides. Through the\ninterstices thus produced air enters. If it so happen now that the sea\nhas shut it in and driven it deeper, and the waves prevent its escape\nby the same road, egress and regress being alike closed, the air rolls\nabout within the earth. Its natural tendency is to hurry straight\nforward, but as that path is closed, it presses upward and lashes the\nearth, whose weight lies heavy upon it.\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\n\nI must further mention a view held by the majority of writers, which 1\nprobably I shall myself support. The earth does not lack air within;\nthat everybody knows. I do not mean merely the air which holds it\ntogether and unites its parts, which exists even in stones and dead\nbodies; but I mean that fresh vital air which supports all life. Unless\nthe earth possessed this store of air, how could she infuse it into so\nmany trees and crops, which derive their life from this and no other\nsource? How could she nourish all the different roots that sink into 2\nthe soil in one place and another, some merely attached to the surface,\nothers sunk deeper, had she not an abundant supply of the breath of\nlife, which produces so many varied growths and rears them with its\nnourishing draught? These are the slighter arguments that I hitherto\nurge. Why, all the heaven we see, which is shut in by fiery ether, the\nhighest portion of the universe, all these stars, whose number cannot\nbe conceived, all this concourse of heavenly bodies, and, to mention\nonly one more, this sun, that urges his course so close to us, many\ntimes larger than the whole circuit of the earth--all these draw their\nnourishment from materials of earth which they share among them, and\nare sustained, of course, by nothing else than the breath of the 3\nearth. This is their nourishment, this their pasturage. Now the earth\nwould be unable to nourish so many bodies of such size, larger even\nthan itself, unless it were full of breath, which it exhales from every\npart of it day and night. For there must be a large reserve of that\nfrom which so much is sought and taken; in fact, the supply to be drawn\nfrom it is created for the occasion. The earth would not possess a 4\nperennial supply of air sufficient for the wants of so many heavenly\nbodies, unless the elements issued and returned alternately and were\ntransmutable into one another. But apart from this, it is necessary\nthat the earth be abundantly filled with it, and be able to draw it\nforth from her hidden store. There is no doubt then that a great\nquantity of air lurks in the interstices of the earth, and a widely\ndiffused atmosphere occupies the hidden spaces underground. If that is\ntrue, of necessity the earth must often be moved, since it is full of\na most movable substance. No one, I suppose, can doubt that there is\nnothing so restless, so capricious, so fond of disturbance as air.\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\n\nIt follows, therefore, that air should obey the law of its being; 1\nwhat is wont to be moved will sometimes move other things. And when?\nWhenever its free course is checked. As long as it is not hindered\nit flows quietly along. When it is opposed and held back it becomes\nfurious, bursting all obstacles just like that\n\n Araxes that ever spurned a bridge.\n\nAs long as the river has a free easy channel it rolls down its waters 2\nin due and regular succession. But if through chance or by human agency\nrocks are placed in its way to check its course, then it gathers fresh\nstrength from the barrier, and the more numerous the obstacles opposed\nto it, the greater the force that it musters to overcome them. For all\nthe water that accumulates behind, constantly increases, and being at\nlast unable to bear its own weight manifests its violence through the\nhavoc it works in its descent, and escapes headlong down its channel,\nbearing the very obstacles that blocked its path. The same thing\noccurs with air, only that, in proportion to its greater strength 3\nand mobility, it is the more rapidly carried onward, and bursts the\nmore violently all that encloses it. From this, of course, there is\na disturbance in the part of the ground under which the struggle\nhas occurred. The truth of this assertion may be proved from the\nconsideration that often when an earthquake has taken place, involving\na breach of only some part of the earth, wind has issued from it for\nseveral days. This is recorded to have taken place in the earthquake 4\nin which Chalcis suffered, as you will find in Asclepiodotus,\nPosidonius\u2019 pupil, in his discussion of my own topic of Physical\nInquiries. In other authors, too, you will find it stated that after a\nchasm had opened up at one spot, in no long time wind issued from it,\nhaving no doubt made for itself the way along which it travelled.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII\n\n\nThe chief cause of earthquake, therefore, is air, an element 1\nnaturally swift and shifting from place to place. As long as it is not\nstirred, but lurks in a vacant space, it reposes innocently, giving\nno trouble to objects round it. But when any cause coming upon it\nfrom without rouses it, or compresses it, and drives it into a narrow\nspace, in the first instance, to be sure, it merely retires and roams\nabout its enclosure. But when opportunity of escape is cut off, and\nresistance meets it on all hands, then\n\n ... With deep murmur of the mountain\n It roars around the barriers;...\n\nwhich, after long battering, it dislodges and tosses on high, growing\nthe more fierce, the stronger the obstacle with which it has 2\ncontended. By and by, when it has traversed the whole space in which\nit was enclosed, and has failed to find a way of escape, it recoils\nfrom the side on which its impact was greatest. It is then either\ndistributed through the secret openings which the earthquake of itself\ncauses here and there, or escapes through a new rent. So uncontrollable\nis this mighty power. No bolt can imprison wind; it loosens every bond,\nbears with it every weight, and insinuating itself into the smallest\ncrannies wins its release; for by the invincible power of nature it is\nfree, especially when roused, and asserts its right for itself. Air is 3\na thing no man can tame; nothing will be found which,\n\n When the winds struggle and the tempests roar,\n Can restrain them by its sway and rein them by bonds and prison.\n\nDoubtless the poets wished the place in which the winds lay pent up\nunderground to be considered a prison. But they did not perceive either\nthat what was shut up is no longer wind, or that what is wind can no\nlonger be shut up. What is shut up is at rest, and the atmosphere is at\na standstill; whereas all wind is in flight. Besides these arguments,\nthere is a consideration by which it becomes manifest that motion 4\nis brought about by air, namely, that our bodies never tremble except\nwhen some cause produces disturbance of the internal air,[84] which\nis contracted by fear, grows sluggish in old age, languishes when the\nveins are numbed, is checked with cold, or after some attack of fever\nis quite driven from its wonted course. As long as it flows unimpeded,\nand moves in its wonted fashion, there is no quivering of the body.\nWhen anything intervenes to prevent its functioning, then being no\nlonger able to maintain what it upheld by its vigour, it fails, causing\na collapse of everything that it had sustained when unimpaired.\n\n [84] Or spirit: there is almost a play upon the ambiguous meaning of\n the term.\n\n\n\n\nXIX\n\n\nWe must now hear what Metrodorus of Chios desires to urge by way of 1\nopinion. I do not allow myself the liberty of passing over unnoticed\neven opinions that I disapprove; it is better to have the largest\npossible variety of views, and to condemn rather than omit what we do\nnot approve. Well, then, what has Metrodorus to say? He compares the 2\nsubterranean disturbances to the voice of a person who puts his head\ninto a barrel and begins to sing out. In that case there is a kind of\nquavering as the voice extends and resounds through the whole hollow\nspace; slight as the movement is, it passes all round the vessel in\nwhich it is enclosed, grazing its sides and causing disturbance all\nthrough. In the same way the vast empty caverns that stretch down\nbeneath the earth have atmosphere of their own, on which other air\ncoming from above falls with violence. The agitation produced differs\nin no wise from that of the empty vessels which I have just mentioned,\nwhen they resound through shouting into them.\n\n\n\n\nXX\n\n\nLet us now go on to consider the authors who have alleged as causes 1\nall the different factors mentioned, or, at any rate, several of them.\nDemocritus is one of those who think that several are concerned. He\nasserts that the earthquake is produced sometimes by air, sometimes\nby water, sometimes by both. He pursues the argument in the following\nway: Some portion of the earth is hollow, in which a large quantity of\nwater has gathered. Part of this water is thinner and less dense than\nthe rest. When it is driven back by a heavy mass descending upon it\nfrom above, it comes violently against the earth, causing a commotion\nof it. The fluctuating movement of the water cannot take place without\ncorresponding movement of the body on which it impinges. Besides, what\nwe said a little above regarding air must be repeated in regard 2\nwater. When it is accumulated at one place, which becomes too small\nto contain it, it inclines in some particular direction, and opens up\na passage for itself, at first by its mere weight, afterwards by the\ngathering force of its current. Being long shut up it cannot escape\nexcept down an incline, and it cannot drop straight down with any\ngentleness, or without violent shaking of the parts through which\nand on which it falls. Now, if after it has begun its rapid downward 3\nmovement it is checked at any point, and the force of the current\nis thrown back upon itself, it is driven back on the earth which\nencounters it, and attacks the earth at the point where it is most\ninsecure. Moreover, the ground is sometimes so saturated with the\nmoisture it has received into its heart that it subsides to a lower\nlevel and its very foundation is destroyed. The pressure is then\nexerted on the part toward which the weight of the descending waters\nmost inclines. Air, too, sometimes urges the water. If it presses with\nsome degree of violence, it naturally moves the part of the earth\ntoward which it has urged the gathering of the waters. Sometimes,\nagain, the air is driven into passages through the earth, and in its 4\nsearch for a way of escape causes a general movement. The earth, as\nwe know, is pervious to wind; air is too subtle to be excluded, too\nviolent to be resisted when excited to rapid movement.\n\nTurning from Democritus to Epicurus, we find the latter to assert\nthat all the foregoing may be causes of earthquake, but he tries\nto introduce some additional ones. He criticises other authors for\naffirming too positively that some particular one of the causes is\nresponsible, as it is difficult to pronounce anything as certain in\nmatters in which conjecture must be resorted to. As he says, then, 5\nwater is capable of producing earthquake by washing and rubbing off\ncertain portions, the weakening of which removes the support of what\nwas upborne by them when unimpaired. The force of air is also capable\nof moving the earth. Perhaps the air within the earth is set in violent\nagitation by other air entering from without. Or, perchance, it may\nbe that the earth receives an internal blow from the sudden fall of\nsome portion of it, and derives thence the shock. Or, perchance,\nsome portion of the earth is upheld, as it were, by certain pillars\nand stakes, the injury or withdrawal of which causes a tremor to run\nthrough the mass they support. Or, perchance, a quantity of hot air 6\nturning to fire and assuming the character of lightning courses along\nto the widespread destruction of all obstacles it encounters. Or,\nperchance, some wind stirs the sluggish marshy waters, whose stroke in\nconsequence shakes the earth; or the tossing of the air, increasing to\nviolence through the mere movement, is carried from the lowest depths\nright up to the surface of the earth. Still, Epicurus is satisfied that\nthere is no more potent cause of earthquake than air.\n\n\n\n\nXXI\n\n\nWe Stoics also are convinced that it is only air that can attempt 1\nsuch a feat as the production of an earthquake, for than it nothing in\nthe whole realm of nature is more powerful, more energetic; in absence\nof it even the elements that are most violent lose their force. It is\nby air that fire is kindled; if you withdraw wind, water is sluggish.\nWater becomes impetuous only when the blast tosses it with violence.\nThis force it is that has power to scatter vast spaces of earth, to\nraise from the depths new mountains, and to set in mid-ocean islands\nhitherto unseen. Can any one doubt that There and Therasia and this 2\nisland which in our days under our very eyes rose out of the Aegean\nSea, were carried up to the light by the force of air?\n\nPosidonius will have it that there are two different varieties in the\nmovements of the earth, each with its distinctive name. The one is a\nquaking when the earth is shaken and moves up and down; the other is\na tilting when, like a ship, it leans over to one or other side. I\nam of opinion that there is still a third variety, which we have a 3\nspecial term to denote. Our forefathers had good reason for speaking of\na trembling of the earth, for it is unlike either of the other kinds\nof movement. On such an occasion things are neither all shaken nor\nall tilted, but they quiver. In a case of this kind no great damage\nis usually done; while, on the other hand, a tilting is far more\ndestructive than a shock; for unless a contrary movement set in very\nquickly from the other side to restore the level, downfall follows of\nnecessity.\n\n\n\n\nXXII\n\n\nThese movements being dissimilar, their causes are likewise 1\ndifferent. Let us deal first with the shaking movement. If great loads\nare being conveyed by a row of many waggons, and the wheels, under\nthe unusual strain, fall into the ruts of the road, one feels the\nearth shaken. Asclepiodotus has put it on record that on one occasion\nthe fall of a rock that was torn off from the mountain-side caused by\nthe tremor the collapse of some houses in its vicinity. Just the same\nthing may occur beneath the earth; parts of the overhanging crags may\nbe loosened and fall with great weight and noise upon the floor of the\ncavern beneath, and with a violence proportionate to the weight of the\nmass and the height of the fall. The whole roof of the subterranean\nvalley is disturbed by an occurrence of this kind. It is conceivable,\ntoo, that rocks are not always wrenched off by their own weight; 2\nwhen rivers roll over them, the constant moisture weakens the joints\nof the stone, and day by day bears away part of its fastening, causing\nabrasion, so to speak, of the skin in which the stone is enclosed.\nThe long waste of ages, through constant daily rubbing, by and by so\nweakens the fastenings that they cease to be able to sustain their\nburden. Then blocks of vast size fall down, then the crag hurled 3\nheadlong will not suffer anything to stand that it strikes in the\nrebound from its fall, but\n\n Comes away with a roar; and all things seem suddenly to rush headlong,\n\nas our countryman Virgil says. Such must be the cause of the earthquake\nthat shakes the ground beneath. Now I must pass on to the second kind.\n\n\n\n\nXXIII\n\n\nThe earth is naturally full of cavities, containing much empty 1\nspace. Through these cavities air roams. When an excessive quantity\nhas entered and cannot escape it shakes the earth. This explanation\nis approved by others, too, as mentioned a little above. Perhaps the\ncrowd of witnesses will impress you. The view has the adhesion of\nCallisthenes, and he is a man not lightly to be set aside. He was\nendowed with a lofty intellect, and he dared to brave the wrath of a\nking. His death is an eternal blot on the memory of Alexander, which\nno valour and no success in war can ever remove. As often as it is\nsaid, Alexander slew many thousands of the Persians, the retort will 2\nbe, And Callisthenes too. As often as it is said, He slew Darius,\nin whose hands there was then a mighty kingdom, the retort will be,\nYes, and Callisthenes too. As often as it is said, He conquered all\nlands right up to the Ocean, the Ocean likewise he essayed with fleets\nstrange to its waters, from a corner of Thrace he extended his empire\nto the bounds of the East; it will also be said, Yes, but he slew\nCallisthenes. Granted that he surpassed all former precedents of 3\ngenerals and kings, yet of all that he did, nothing will match his\nguilt in slaying Callisthenes.\n\nWell, this Callisthenes, in the treatise in which he gives details\nof the sinking of Helice and Buris, and discusses the disaster which\nsent them into the sea, or the sea into them, says what I have said at\na previous point. Air, he says, enters the earth by hidden openings\nunder the sea, just as everywhere else. By and by, when the path is 4\nblocked by which it had descended, and the resistance of the water in\nthe rear has cut off its retreat, it is borne hither and thither, and\nencountering itself in its course it undermines the earth. That is the\nreason why land over against the sea is most frequently harassed by\nearthquakes; and hence it is that Neptune has been assigned this power\nof moving the earth.[85] Any one who has learned the elements of Greek\nknows that he is called among the Greeks Earthshaker (\u1f18\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c7\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n [85] The usual reading, _maris_ = sea, contradicts the argument; it\n cannot surely be right.\n\n\n\n\nXXIV\n\n\nI shall be ready to allow that air is the cause of this form of 1\ndestructive earthquake. But I shall have some criticism to offer as\nto the method by which it enters the ground. Does it enter by fine\nopenings that the eye cannot detect, or by larger and more evident\nones? Does it come from the depths of the earth, or does it pass\nthrough the surface too? The last-mentioned view seems inconceivable.\nIn our bodies the skin keeps out air, which finds no entrance except\nthat through which it is inhaled. And even when taken in by us, it\ncannot settle except in the looser portion of the body. It does not\nremain among the sinews or muscle, but in the bowels and the open 2\nvessels of our internal organs. The same arrangement may be suspected\nin regard to the earth\u2019s interior from the very fact that the movement\nin an earthquake is not on the surface of the earth or about the\nsurface, but beneath in the lowest parts. A proof of this is that seas\nof immense depth are tossed up, no doubt from the movement of the\nground over which they spread. It is therefore probable that the earth 3\nis moved in its depths, and that the air is formed there in the\nimmense caverns. Nay, says some critic, but just as when we shiver from\ncold a trembling follows, so, too, the earth is shaken by air affecting\nit from without. This I deny can by any possibility occur. Why, the\nearth must get a chill in order to have the same happen to it as to\nus, whom an external affection drives into a shuddering fit. I should\nquite allow that the earth shows symptoms of much the same kind as 4\nwe do, but the cause is wholly different. An injury of a deeper kind,\nmore toward its centre, must affect it, the very strongest proof of\nwhich may be found in the fact that when through violent earthquake the\nsoil is laid open in wide destruction, the chasm sometimes takes in and\nburies whole cities. Thucydides tells us that, about the time of the 5\nPeloponnesian War, the island of Atalanta, either wholly, or, at any\nrate, for the most part, was swallowed up. You may take Posidonius for\nwitness that the same thing happened to Sidon. But we do not require\nevidence of this. Within our own memory the earth has been torn by\ninternal movement, adjoining places have been rent asunder, whole\nplains have disappeared. I will now explain how I suppose this sort of\nthing to occur.\n\n\n\n\nXXV\n\n\nWhen air has completely filled a large vacant space within the earth, 1\nand has begun to struggle and meditate escape, it lashes again and\nagain the sides of the enclosure within which it lurks, and right over\nwhich, as it happens, cities are sometimes situated. The shaking is at\ntimes so violent that buildings standing above the area of disturbance\nare thrown down. Sometimes it goes to such lengths that the walls\nby which the whole roof of the cavern is supported fall right down\ninto that vacant underground space, and cities sink entire into the\nunfathomed depths. Long ago, if one may believe the story, Ossa and 2\nOlympus were united; subsequently they were separated by an earthquake,\nand the one great mountain was split into two. Then the Peneus made its\nescape, draining the marshes with which Thessaly was overspread, and\ndrawing off the waters, which from want of exit had hitherto formed a\nlake. It was an earthquake that let loose Ladon, the river which flows\nbetween Elis and Magalenopolis. What, it is asked, do these facts go\nto prove? Simply that air gathers in the spacious caves--for what 3\nother name can I apply to the empty places under the earth? Were this\nnot so,[86] great spaces of the earth would be convulsed, and many of\nthem would totter to ruin at one and the same time. As it is, only\nsmall portions suffer, nor does a shock ever extend as much as two\nhundred miles. Look at the recent one, the marvellous tales of which\nhave filled the whole world; it did not pass beyond Campania. Need I\nsay that when Chalcis felt the earthquake shock Thebes did not fall? 4\nwhen Aegium suffered, Patras, which is quite close by, only learned by\nreport about the earthquake? That mighty shock, which swallowed up the\ntwo cities Helice and Buris, stopped short of Aegium. Plainly, then,\nthe movement extends only such distance as the empty space underground\nstretches.\n\n [86] _I.e._ were the air distributed all through the earth.\n\n\n\n\nXXVI\n\n\nTo prove my point I might have used, somewhat unfairly perhaps, the 1\nauthority of the great writers who relate that Egypt never experienced\nan earthquake shock, the reason they allege for it being that it is\nall composed of mud. If one may believe Homer, Pharos used to be as\nfar from the mainland as a ship under full sail could reach in a day\u2019s\nvoyage; but it has now become attached to the mainland. The Nile\u2019s\nswollen stream brings down great quantities of mud, and by adding it\nfrom time to time to the existing land it has by an annual increase\nconstantly carried forward the coast of Egypt. The country thus is 2\ncomposed of rich loamy soil without interstices, as it has become\nsolid just by the drying up of the mud. The composition of the mud was\nclose and firm, the particles of it being stuck together; no vacant\nspace could intervene, since the solid was always being added to by the\nliquid and soft slime. But Egypt is, as a matter of fact, subject to\nearthquake; and Delos, too, though Virgil bade it stand fast,\n\n And granted that it should be a settled land of tillage, and should\n laugh the winds to scorn.\n\nThe philosophers, too, a credulous set of people, relying on Pindar\u2019s\nauthority, said that it did not experience movement. Thucydides asserts\nthat in former times it was unshaken, but sustained a shock about the\ntime of the Peloponnesian War. Callisthenes asserts that the same thing\nhappened on another occasion also. Among the numerous portents--these 3\nare his words--by which warning was given of the overthrow of the two\ncities Helice and Buris, the most remarkable were the appearance of\na huge pillar of fire and the earthquake shock in Delos. Yet he will\nhave it that the island is comparatively firm for the reason that it is\nplaced on the sea and has hollow crags and porous rocks, which afford a\nway of escape to air imprisoned in them. For this reason, too, islands\nhave, he thinks, a firmer soil, and cities are safer in proportion 4\nto their proximity to the sea. The falsity of such an opinion surely\nPompeii and Herculaneum learned to their cost. Add now the fact that\nevery sea-coast is particularly subject to earthquakes. Paphos, for\ninstance, was more than once ruined, and the famous Nicopolis is\nalready intimately acquainted with this mischief. Cyprus is surrounded\nby a deep sea, but is subject to shocks. Tyre is as regularly shaken by\nearthquake as it is washed by the waves. Such, then, are for the most\npart the explanations that have been suggested for the trembling of the\nearth.\n\n\n\n\nXXVII\n\n\nWe must now essay an explanation of certain peculiar features which 1\nare said to have occurred in the recent Campanian earthquake. A flock\nof six hundred sheep is asserted to have been killed in the district\nnear Pompeii, and there is no reason to suppose that this happened to\nthe sheep through fright. We have said that after great earthquakes it\nis usual for a pestilence to occur. And no wonder, since in the depths\nof earth many deadly poisons lurk. In fact, the very atmosphere there, 2\nbeing stagnant through some fault in the earth or the sluggish\nmovement and the everlasting darkness that prevails, is dangerous to\nbreathe. Or being poisoned by the fumes of the internal fires, when\nit is released from its long inactivity, it taints and pollutes this\npure clear air above, and brings new forms of disease to those who\ninhale the unwonted draught. You remember, too, that we found the water\nlurking in the secret depths to be useless and even pestilential, since\nactivity never stirs it, and the free breath of heaven never ruffles\nit. Being therefore thick and covered beneath gross eternal darkness 3\nit contains only elements that are pestilential and injurious to our\nbodies. So, too, the atmosphere, which mingles with it and lies amid\nthese marshes, scatters far and wide its poison when it issues out,\nand kills those who breathe it. The flocks, which the pestilence is\nwont to attack, feel the poisonous effects more readily, because they\nare more greedy in feeding. They live for the most part in the open,\nand they drink a great deal of water, which is chiefly responsible for\nthe pestilence. Sheep are of rather delicate constitution, and, as 4\nthey keep their heads close to the earth, I am not surprised at their\nbeing attacked by the infection; they receive the blasts of tainted air\njust as it issues from the ground. If it had issued in greater volume,\nit would have injured man too. But the abundant supply of pure air\ncounteracted it before it could rise high enough to be breathed by any\nhuman being.\n\n\n\n\nXXVIII\n\n\nNow you may infer that the earth contains many deadly elements from 1\nthe mere fact that so many poisons grow of themselves without being\nsown; the soil no doubt contains seeds of evil as well as of good. Is\nit not the case that, earthquakes apart, in several places in Italy a\npestilential steam is emitted through certain openings, which it is\nnot safe for either man or beast to breathe? Even birds, if they meet\nit before it is neutralised by the purer breath of heaven, fall in\nmid-flight; their bodies become livid, and their jaws swell just as\nif they had been strangled. As long as this air is contained in the 2\nearth and escapes by a narrow opening, it has no greater power than to\nkill creatures that look down into, or voluntarily approach too near,\nit. But when for centuries darkness has brooded over it, and the gloom\nof the place has increased the infection, it becomes more dangerous\nthrough mere lapse of time; the more sluggish it is, all the more\ndeadly does it become. Then when it has gained an exit it lets loose\nall that mischief conceived in the cold shades through endless ages\nof nether darkness, tainting with it the atmosphere of our realms of\nearth. The better is ever conquered by the worse. Even that purer 3\nair of heaven then changes to pestilential. Thence come sudden and\ncontinuous deaths, and portentous forms of disease that spring from\nunexampled causes. The disaster is long or short lived, according\nto the strength of the sources of infection. Nor does the plague\ncease until the freedom of heaven and the tossing of the winds have\nbanished[87] that fatal air.\n\n [87] Or purified.\n\n\n\n\nXXIX\n\n\nThrough fear some people have run about as if distracted or mad. For 1\nfear, even when in moderation and confined to individuals, shatters\nthe mind\u2019s powers. But when there is public alarm through fall of\ncities, burying of whole nations, and shaking of earth\u2019s foundations,\nwhat wonder that minds in the distraction of suffering and terror\nshould have wandered forth bereft of sense? It is no easy matter in\nthe midst of overmastering evils not to lose one\u2019s reason. So it is,\nas a rule, the feeblest souls that reach such a pitch of dread as to\nbecome unhinged. No one, indeed, has suffered extreme terror without 2\nsome loss of sanity; one who is afraid is much like a madman. But some\nquickly recovering from the alarm regain self-possession. Others it\nmore violently disturbs and reduces to sheer madness. Hence during\ntimes of war lunatics are to be met wandering about. On no occasion\nwill one find more instances of raving prophets than when mingled\nterror and superstition have struck men\u2019s hearts.\n\nI am not surprised that a statue is split by an earthquake, after I\nhave recounted that mountains have been separated from mountains and\nthe ground itself burst asunder down to its depths.\n\n These places, once convulsed by the force of vast ruin-- 3\n Such the power of change in the lapse of lengthened ages!\n Leaped asunder, they tell us, whereas hitherto both lands\n Were one; into their midst rushed the deep with its mighty billows,\n Cutting off the Italian from the Sicilian side; fields and cities\n Were parted in sea-line and washed by the narrow tide that flowed\n between.\n\nOne sees whole regions torn from their place, and what was once\ncontiguous, now lying beyond the sea. One sees a separation of cities\nand nations when a part of nature is roused by internal motion, or\nthe sea or fire or air has assailed some point; for their force is\nmarvellous, since it has a boundless reserve from which to draw. Though\nits rage is vented at but one point, yet it has the world\u2019s whole 4\nstrength to reinforce its wrath. Thus it was that the sea tore away\nSpain from the mainland of Africa. Thus it was by the flood, which the\ngreatest of poets have celebrated, that Sicily was cut away from Italy.\nThe movements that proceed from depth have much more force. They are\nmore energetic, as their effort is concentrated upon a narrow area.\nEnough has now been said to show what mighty deeds these earthquakes\nhave wrought and what wondrous sights they have displayed.\n\n\n\n\nXXX\n\n\nWhy, then, should one be amazed that the bronze of a single statue 1\nis burst, and that, not even solid, but hollow and thin? as likely as\nnot air in seeking an escape has got enclosed in it. And does not every\none know that buildings are sometimes observed in time of earthquake to\nsplit at the corners and be united again? Other things badly set upon\ntheir base, and loosely and carelessly put together by the workmen,\nhave been known to be welded firmly together by the repeated shaking of\nthe earthquake. If it splits whole walls and whole houses, and rends 2\nthe sides of great towers, which are constructed of solid masonry, and\nscatters the piles that support the foundations of great works, why\nshould one think it worthy of remark that a statue had been cut equally\ninto two from base to summit? But why, it may be asked, did the shock\nlast for several days? For Campania went on trembling continuously, 3\nmore gently it is true, but still causing great damage, because what it\nshook was already shaken and crushed. Things stood so insecurely as to\nrequire only a slight shake, but not a push, to bring them down. The\nexplanation of the prolonged shaking is no doubt that all the air had\nnot yet escaped, but though the greater part was discharged, a remnant\nwas still roaming about here and there.\n\n\n\n\nXXXI\n\n\nThere is yet a further proof that you may unhesitatingly add to the 1\nothers that go to show that all these phenomena are the outcome of air.\nAfter the most violent shock that cities and provinces can experience\nhas spent itself, another of like violence cannot immediately follow;\nafter the crisis there are only slight shocks, just because the most\nviolent one has opened a way of escape for the struggling winds. The\nremains of the air that is left have not the same power, nor do they\nrequire to struggle; they have now found a way of escape, and follow\nthe path by which the first and greatest shock issued.\n\nI am of opinion, too, that the observations of a certain learned and 2\ngrave philosopher of my acquaintance deserve to be put on record; he\nhappened to be taking a bath when the earthquake occurred. He asserted\nthat he saw the tiles with which the floor of the bathroom was paved,\nseparate one from another and unite again. At one moment, when the\npavement opened, the water was taken in through the joints, the next,\nwhen the pavement closed, it was forced out all bubbling. I have heard\nthe same learned man relate that he had seen soft materials undergo\nmore frequent but more gentle shocks than materials naturally hard.\n\n\n\n\nXXXII\n\n\nSo much, my esteemed Lucilius, with respect to the mere causes of 1\nearthquakes. Now we must adduce some considerations that will tend\nto reassure us in face of the perils of earthquakes. After all, it\nconcerns us more closely to acquire resolution of mind than erudition,\nand yet the former cannot be had without the latter. Assurance comes to\nthe mind from no source but elevating studies and the contemplation of\nnature. Is there any one, I say, that reflects upon causes, who will\nnot be reassured and emboldened by this late catastrophe in Campania to\nface disasters of all kinds? Why should I fear man or beast, bow or 2\nlance? Far greater perils are ever lurking for me. Lightning and earth\nshock, and all the great forces of nature, aim their blows at us. Death\nmust therefore be resolutely[88] challenged whether its attack be with\nvast[88] overpowering onset or by ordinary means of daily occurrence.\nIt is of no moment how threatening its approach, or how great the\nengine it brings up against us. The life it asks of us is a very little\nthing. It will be taken from us by old age, or by a little pain in 3\nthe ear, or by a superabundance of tainted moisture within, by food\nthat the stomach cannot assimilate, or by a slight injury to one\u2019s\ntoe. Man\u2019s life is a paltry affair, but a mighty affair is the contempt\nof life. He who can despise life may look unmoved upon the tossing of\nthe sea, even though all the winds have roused it, even though by some\nupheaval of the world the tide has turned the whole Ocean bodily upon\nthe land. Unmoved he will behold the fierce forbidding aspect of the 4\nthundering heavens, yes, though heaven itself be crushed and unite\nits fires for the destruction of mankind and of itself first of all.\nUnmoved he will behold earth\u2019s framework rent and earth\u2019s foundations\nyawning beneath. Though the realms of the nether world be uncovered, he\nwill stand over the abyss still dauntless, and into the pit into which\nhe is doomed to fall he will perhaps leap. What is it to me how great\nthe powers by which I perish? To perish is itself no great matter.\n\n [88] It would seem that _ingenti_ and _aequo_ have by some means got\n transposed in the ordinary texts. Gercke reads _saevo_ for _aequo_.\n\nWherefore, if we desire to be happy, to be harassed by no fear 5\neither of men, or gods, or circumstance, to despise fortune with her\nsuperfluous promises and her contemptible threats, if we desire to live\nthe peaceful life, and to vie with the very gods in happiness, then\nwe must carry our life in our right hand. Whether snares or diseases\nattack it, the swords of foes or the crash of falling tenements, or the\ndownfall of earth itself, or the violence of widespread fire enveloping\ncity and field in common disaster, let who will take it. What more do\nI owe life than to encourage it on its journey, and to despatch it 6\nwith good wishes? _Go resolutely, go prosperously!_ There must be no\nhesitation in rendering back life. It is merely a question of time, not\nof fact. What you are doing must be done some day. Beseech not nor\nfear, nor draw back as if starting to face some peril. Nature, who bore\nyou, waits your coming to a place better and safer than earth. There\nis no earthquake there, friend, no winds clashing with loud noise of 7\ncloudy sky, no fires to waste province and city, no fear of shipwreck\nswallowing up whole fleets, no armies arrayed with opposing banners,\nor common fury of hosts prepared for mutual destruction, no plague,\nno pyres lit up around the promiscuous resting-place of slaughtered\nnations. If death is a light affair, why fear it? If it is heavy, then\nrather let it fall once for all than be always hanging over us. Should\n_I_ fear to perish when earth must perish before me, when the powers 8\nthat shake are shaken, when they hasten to our destruction only through\ntheir own? The sea received Helice and Buris entire; shall I fear for\none poor body? Ships sail over the site of two towns, aye, towns that\nwe know well, that the record preserved by letters has brought to our\nintimate knowledge. How many others have been sunk in other places? how\nmany nations has either earth or sea engulfed? Shall I rebel against my\nend when I know that I am not endless? nay, when I am fully assured 9\nthat all things come to an end, shall I fear my latest sigh?\n\nWherefore steel yourself, Lucilius, with all your might against fear of\ndeath. This fear it is that drags us down; this it is that torments and\ndestroys the life it tries to preserve. It magnifies all those dangers,\nearthquakes and lightnings, and the rest. You will be able to bear them\nall resolutely if you but reflect that short and long in life make\nno difference. It is but hours we lose. But suppose it is days, 10\nor months, or years, what we lose is, surely, bound to perish. What\ndifference, pray, is it whether I manage to reach them or not? Time\nflows on; it leaves behind those most eager to seize it. Neither what\nis to be is mine, nor what was. I am poised upon a point of fleeting\ntime; it is a great thing to have been moderate in one\u2019s ambitions.\nLaelius the Wise made a neat retort once to a person who said, I\nam sixty years old: you mean, said he, the sixty you no longer 11\n_are_.[89] We show our failure to grasp the terms of this elusive life\nof ours, and the conditions of time that is never our own, in reckoning\nup as ours years that are now lost. Let us fix this in our minds, and\nconstantly remind ourselves, I must die. When? What matter is that to\nyou? Death is a law of nature; death is a tribute and a duty imposed\non mortals; it is the remedy of all ills. Whoever now fears it will\none day long for it. Giving up all else, Lucilius, make this your one\nmeditation, not to dread the name death. By long reflection make death\nan intimate friend, that, if so required, you may be able even to go\nforth to welcome it.\n\n [89] It is almost impossible to express in English the play on\n _habeo_ = have; French is more amenable. \u201cJ\u2019ai soixante ans!\n Parlez-vous des soixante ans que vous n\u2019avez plus?\u201d--NISARD.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VII\n\nWHICH TREATS OF COMETS\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nNo man is so utterly dull and obtuse, with head so bent on earth, 1\nas never to lift himself up and rise with all his soul to the\ncontemplation of the starry heavens, especially when some fresh\nwonder shows a beacon-light in the sky. As long as the ordinary\ncourse of heaven runs on, custom robs it of its real size. Such is\nour constitution that objects of daily occurrence pass us unnoticed\neven when most worthy of our admiration. On the other hand, the sight\neven of trifling things is attractive if their appearance is unusual.\nSo this concourse of stars, which paints with beauty the spacious 2\nfirmament on high, gathers no concourse of the nation. But when there\nis any change in the wonted order, then all eyes are turned to the\nsky. The sun has no observer unless he is in eclipse. No one watches\nthe moon unless she suffer obscuration. But then whole cities cry out,\ngroundless superstition drives every one into panic. And yet how much\ngreater are the ordinary movements of the sun! He takes, so to speak, 3\nas many steps as there are days, completing the year in his circuit.\nFrom the summer solstice he turns back to the lessening days, from the\nsolstice he slopes his rays,[90] and gives more room to the nights; he\noccults the planets; though so much larger than the earth he does not\nburn it up, but cheers it by his heat, which he so regulates as to make\nit alternately more intense and more subdued. He never fills up with\nlight, nor yet obscures, the moon, except when she is right opposite 4\nto him. All this we allow to pass unnoticed as long as the usual order\nis preserved. But if there is any disturbance or any extraordinary\nlight displayed in the sky, we gaze at it, ask questions, and point\nit out to our neighbours. So natural is it to admire what is strange\nrather than what is great.\n\n [90] There is some corruption in the text, but no probable\n restoration has been suggested. From the Latin words it would appear\n that this clause is merely an explanation of the previous one,\n inserted by some officious copyist and therefore spurious.\n\nThe same thing holds in regard to comets. If one of these infrequent\nfires of unusual shape have made its appearance, everybody is eager to\nknow what it is. Blind to all the other celestial bodies, each asks\nabout the newcomer; one is not quite sure whether to admire or to 5\nfear it. Persons there are who seek to inspire terror by forecasting\nits grave import. And so people keep asking and wishing to know whether\nit is a portent or a star. But, by my honour, no one could embark on a\nmore exalted study, or master a more useful branch of knowledge than\nthat which treats of the nature of the stars and planets. Are they a\nconcentration of flame as our vision avers, and as the very light that\nstreams from them,[91] and the heat that descends from them suggest? 6\nOr are their orbs not of flame, but, as it were, solid bodies of earth\nthat glide through tracts of fire, and having no light of their own\ndraw thence their brightness and heat? That is an opinion that has been\nheld by great men who have believed the stars to be compact of hard\nmaterial, and to be nourished by fire that is not their own. Flame by\nitself, they argue, would be dissipated and would have nothing to hold\nor to be held by. If it were merely massed and not attached to a solid\nbody, the universe would assuredly long since have scattered it in its\nimpetuous whirl.\n\n [91] The common reading, _aliis_ = others, seems an error for _illis_\n = them.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nIn view of this inquiry it will be well to ask whether comets are 1\nwholly analogous to stars and planets. They seem to have certain\nelements in common with them--for example, rising and setting--as well\nas their general form, although comets are more scattered, and end in\na longer tail. They are alike, too, in their fiery bright appearance.\nSo, if all the stars are earthy bodies, comets must share the same\nlot. But if the stars are pure fire and nothing else, remaining for 2\nsix months at a time unbroken by the rapid whirl of the universe, then\ncomets, too, may consist of some rarefied material, which is not broken\nup by the constant revolution of the sky. It will also tend to clear up\nthis point if we endeavour to ascertain whether the earth stands still\nwhile the universe revolves round it, or whether the converse is the\ntruth, the universe standing still while the earth revolves. There have\nbeen persons who made bold to say that it is we that all unwitting are\nborne round by the frame of things, that risings and settings are not\nproduced by a movement of the heavens, but that we ourselves rise and\nset. The subject well deserves our study, if we are to know where we 3\nreally stand, whether the abode we have obtained as ours is the most\nsluggish or the swiftest of motion, whether God causes all things to\nrevolve round us or causes us to revolve. Now, for this it is essential\nthat we have a record of all the appearances of comets in former times.\nFor, on account of their infrequency, their orbit cannot as yet be\ndiscovered or examined in detail, to see whether they observe periodic\nlaws, and whether some fixed order causes their reappearance at the\nappointed day. Such a development of astronomy is recent, having been\nlately introduced into Greece.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nDemocritus, the most acute of all the ancient philosophers, says he 1\nsuspects there are several stars whose orbits are erratic. But he has\ngiven neither their number nor their names, as the motions of the five\nplanets were not in his time understood. Eudoxus was, in fact, the\nfirst to import from Egypt into Greece the knowledge of these motions,\nthough he says nothing about comets. From this it becomes plain\nthat, even among the Egyptians, the people that bestowed most care\non observation of the sky, the portion of astronomy that relates to\ncomets had not been worked out. Subsequently Conon, who was himself a 2\ncareful investigator, made a record of the sun\u2019s eclipses that had been\nobserved by the Egyptians; but he made no mention of comets, though he\nwould certainly not have omitted anything definite on the subject that\nhe had learned in Egypt. So much is certain; two authors, Epigenes and\nApollonius of Myndus, the latter highly skilled in casting horoscopes,\nwho say that they studied among the Chaldaeans, are at variance in\ntheir accounts. The latter asserts that comets are placed by the 3\nChaldaeans among the number of the wandering stars (_i.e._ planets),\nand that their orbits have been determined. Epigenes, on the contrary,\nasserts that the Chaldaeans have ascertained nothing regarding comets,\nwhich are thought by them to be fires produced by a kind of eddy of\nviolently rotating air.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nIn the first place, if it like you, let us set down the views of the 1\nlast-mentioned author and refute them. He supposes that the planet\nSaturn has most influence in determining all motions of the heavenly\nbodies. When it presses upon the constellations next Mars, or crosses\nto the neighbourhood of the moon, or encounters the rays of the sun,\nbeing naturally cold and windy, it contracts and masses the atmosphere\nat more than one place. By and by, if Saturn absorb all the sun\u2019s rays,\nthere is thunder and lightning. If he has Mars in agreement, the 2\nlightning is forked. Moreover, he continues, forked and sheet lightning\ncontain different materials. Evaporation from water or other moisture\nproduces only gleams that threaten but stop short of striking. The\nhotter and drier exhalation of the earth forges the bolts of forked\nlightning. Beam meteors and torches, which differ from one another 3\nonly in size, are produced in this same way. When any ball of air--what\nwe call a whirlwind--encloses moist earthy matter, wherever it rushes\nit presents the appearance of an extended line of fire, which lasts\njust so long as the mass of air remains, which carries within it the\nsupply of moist earthy matter.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nThis account of Epigenes is a tissue of falsehoods. To begin with the 1\nnearest one, the last, it is not true that torch and beam meteors are\ndue to the violent action of a whirlwind. The whirlwind is formed in\nthe neighbourhood of the earth, and there it runs its course. This is\nthe reason why it tears up trees by the roots, and wherever it swoops\ndown it lays bare the soil, carrying off in the meanwhile woods and\nroofs of houses; as a rule, it is lower than the clouds, and assuredly\nnever higher. But, on the contrary, it is the more exalted part of\nheaven that displays beam meteors, and so they never intervene between\nus and the clouds. Besides, a whirlwind is borne along more swiftly\nthan any cloud, and rotates as on a pivot. And in addition to this, it 2\nceases all of a sudden, bursting by its own force. \u201cBeams,\u201d on the\ncontrary, do not run or fly across, like torches, but remain shining\nfor some time in the same quarter of the sky. Charimander, too, in the\nbook he wrote on comets, asserts that a great and unusual light in\nthe sky of the size of a large beam was once seen by Anaxagoras, and\ncontinued to shine for a long period. Callisthenes puts it on record\nthat a similar appearance of a trail of fire was observed before the\nsea swallowed up Buris and Helice. Aristotle says it was not a \u201cbeam,\u201d 3\nbut a comet; the characteristic dispersion of the fire was not seen\nat first on account of its excessive brightness, but, in process of\ntime, when the glare began to die down, it recovered the distinctive\nappearance of a comet. In this fiery phenomenon there were many points\nworthy of remark, none more so than this, that, immediately it shone in\nthe sky, the sea came over Buris and Helice. Did Aristotle, then, one 4\nmay ask, believe that not merely that beam but all beams are comets?\nSurely not, for there is this difference, that beams have their fire\ncontinuous, while in the other bodies it is dispersed. Beams have a\nregular flame, not interrupted or dull at any point, while in the end\nparts it is condensed, just like what Callisthenes describes the one to\nhave been, to which I referred a moment ago.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nThere are, Epigenes goes on to say, two classes of comets. One kind 1\nsheds its light on all sides without changing its position; the other\nextends a loose kind of fire in one direction, after the fashion of\nhair, and passes through among the stars; of the latter kind were the\ntwo seen in our own days. The former variety, with hair on all sides,\nthat do not move, are usually low down, and arise from the same causes\nas beams and torches, that is, from a distempered thick atmosphere that\ncarries in it many of the earth\u2019s exhalations, both dry and moist. Air\ndriven out through narrow apertures is capable of setting on fire 2\nthe atmosphere situated over it, which is full of elements suitable\nfor feeding a fire; and it is able after that to drive it forward from\nthe clear space, lest from any cause it should fall back and relax its\nforce. After that, it can rise again on the next and following days\nand set fire to the same spot. As presumptive proof of this, we see\nwinds return during several days at their set time. Rain, too, and\nstorms in other forms recur according to appointment. His opinion may\nbe briefly expressed by saying that he supposes comets to be formed 3\npretty much in the same way as fires excited by whirlwind. There is\nthis one difference, that those whirlwinds are pressed down to earth\nfrom a higher region, while these others are raised from earth to the\nupper regions.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nA great deal can be urged against this view. First of all, if wind 1\nwere responsible, a comet would never make its appearance without wind.\nAs a matter of fact, it appears when the air is perfectly still. In the\nnext place, if it were due to wind, it would fall with the wind; and\nif it began through wind, would increase with increase of wind, and\nwould be the brighter the more furious the wind was. This point, too,\nhas to be added to the foregoing: while the wind impels many parts of\nthe atmosphere, a comet appears in one spot. The wind does not mount\nup high, but comets are seen higher up than the winds are permitted\nto go. Epigenes afterwards goes on to speak of the comets that, he 2\nsays, have a more definite resemblance to stars, traversing an orbit\nand passing through the zodiacal signs. He attributes their origin to\nthe same causes as produce those that he called lower comets, the only\ndifference being that the earth\u2019s exhalations in this case contain many\ndry elements, and therefore seek the higher region, and are driven by\nthe north wind toward the more exalted portions of the heavens. But,\nsurely, if the north wind urged them, they would always be borne toward\nthe south, whither this wind urges its course. And yet, as a fact, they 3\nhave had different movements, some to east, others to west, all in\na curved path, a direction which the wind could not impart. Besides,\nif the impulse which produced the comet carried up on high those north\nwinds from the earth, comets would not arise when other winds blew; yet\nthey do arise.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nLet us now refute this other explanation of Epigenes, for he employs 1\ntwo. He believes that when all the moist and dry exhalations of the\nearth unite, the mere discord of the different bodies turns the air\ninto whirlwind. Then the force of that wind as it revolves sets fire by\nits rapid motion to all that it embraces in itself, and raises it on\nhigh. The gleam of the fire that is thus extracted remains as long as\nthere is sufficient nutriment; when the fuel fails, the fire subsides\ntoo. Now, one who talks thus pays no attention to the nature of the 2\ncourse of whirlwinds as compared with that of comets. The career of\nthe former is swift and violent, more rapid than the winds themselves.\nBut a comet\u2019s movement is so gradual as to render imperceptible the\nspace traversed during a day and a night. Besides, whirlwinds have\nan erratic, disorderly, and, to use a word of Sallust\u2019s, eddying,\nmotion. Comets have a regular course, which observes the appointed\ntrack. Surely none of us will believe that either the moon or the\nfive planets are carried by the wind or spun round by the whirlwind.\nI trow not. And why? Just because they have not an irregular and 3\nunrestrained motion. Let us apply the principle to comets. They do not\nmove in confusion or irregularity so as to justify the belief that they\nare impelled by unruly and fickle forces. Besides, even if those eddies\ncould enclose moist earthy elements, and had power to raise them from\nthe depths to the heights, still they could not carry them up higher\nthan the moon. All their force is spent when they reach the region of\nclouds. But as for the comets, we see them sailing through the upper\nregions, mingling with the very stars. It is, therefore, improbable\nthat a whirlwind could persist over such a long distance, for the\ngreater it is, the more rapidly is it spent.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nLet Epigenes, therefore, make his choice of the two alternatives: 1\nif the force is small, it cannot reach so high; if it is great and\nviolent, it will the more quickly break up. But further, according to\nthe opinion of people like Epigenes, these lower comets do not mount\nhigher because they have too much earthiness in them. Their weight\nkeeps them in the neighbourhood of earth. And yet these other comets,\nwhich are higher and last longer, must have a more abundant material.\nFor they could not last so long were their supplies not replenished\nfrom a larger stock. I said a moment ago that the whirlwind\u2019s eddy 2\ncould not long endure, nor could it mount higher than the moon, or as\nfar as the place of stars. Of course, the whirlwind is caused by the\nmutual struggle of several winds, and the contest cannot be kept up\nfor any long time. When the wandering uncertain air assumes a rotatory\nform, in the last instance the force of all the winds yields to the\nsingle strongest one. No hurricane lasts long. The more strength 3\nsqualls have, the shorter their duration. When winds reach their\nmaximum, they quickly abate all their violence. By that headlong speed\nthey must needs hasten to their own destruction. So no one has ever\nseen a whirlwind last a whole day, or even an hour. Its velocity is\nastonishing, its brevity no less astonishing. Moreover, on the earth\nand near it, its rotation is swifter and more violent; the higher it 4\nis, the less condensed and compact is it, and that is the reason of\nits more rapid dissipation. Add the fact, too, that even if it reached\nthe highest region where the stars\u2019 path lies, it would most certainly\nbe broken up by the motion which causes the universe to revolve. For\nwhat can compare in rapidity with the revolution of the world? Thereby\nthe strength of all the winds combined in one would be shattered, aye,\nand the strong solid chain that binds the earth, not to say a wisp of\nwhirling air.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nAgain, a fire carried along by a whirlwind cannot remain on high 1\nunless the whirlwind also remain. But then what is so inconceivable as\nany prolonged duration in a whirlwind? Above all, the whirlwind motion\nis neutralised by the opposite motion of the heavens. That region on\nhigh to which it is alleged to mount has an eddying motion of its own,\nwhich carries onward the sky,\n\n And drags the lofty stars, and turns them in rapid whirl.\n\nAnd even though one grant some duration to whirlwinds, which is quite\ncontrary to the fact, yet what is to be said of the comets that have\ncontinued in sight for six months? Then, as hinted above, there 2\nmust be two motions in the same spot--one that constant motion of\nthe heaven, accomplishing its task without intermission, the other a\nstrange new motion conveyed by the whirlwind. The one must inevitably\nobstruct the other. And yet that motion we see of the moon in her\norbit, and of the other heavenly bodies that pass above the moon, is\nirrevocable. It nowhere falters or stops, nor does it convey to us\nthe slightest suggestion of an obstacle being ever placed in its way.\nIt is utterly beyond belief that a whirlwind, the most violent and 3\nunruly species of storm, should reach the very centre of the ranks of\nthe stars, and should find a sphere for its boisterous activity in that\nordered peace of heaven. Supposing that the revolution of a whirlwind\nkindles fire, which is shot up to the heights, furnishing apparent\nground for the belief that what we see is a trail of fire; yet surely\nthe shape of the fire ought to be something like that which produces\nit. Now a whirlwind is round in appearance; it remains in the same 4\ntrack, and revolves after the fashion of a rotating pillar. The fire,\ntherefore, that is enclosed ought to resemble it in shape. But in\nreality it is a trail of scattered fire, and resembles anything rather\nthan fire gathered into a ball.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nLet us now say good-bye to Epigenes, and proceed to examine the 1\nopinions of other writers. But before beginning to set them forth, I\nmust first, by way of preface, remark that comets are not observed only\nin one part of the sky, nor merely in the zodiac, but in the east as\nwell as in the west, more frequently, however, toward the north. Nor is 2\ntheir shape uniform. The Greeks, indeed, distinguished three classes\nof them: those from which the flame hangs down, after the fashion of\na beard; those that shoot out what looks like hair round them on all\nsides; and those which have a scattered kind of fire, which, however,\nstretches toward an apex.[92] But all the classes have a common\ncharacteristic, and are rightly called comets (_i.e._ long-haired). As\nthe different shapes present themselves only at long intervals, it is\ndifficult to compare them with one another. Even at the time of their\nappearance spectators are not agreed as to their shape. According 3\nas one\u2019s eyesight is keener or duller, one asserts that the comet is\nbrighter or redder, and that its hair is compressed toward the interior\nof the star, or spread out toward its sides. But whether or not there\nare any differences in comets, they must all be produced by the same\nmethod. The one fact about which there ought to be agreement is, that 4\na star of strange unwonted appearance is beheld which drags along with\nit scattered fire. Some of the ancients are convinced of the truth of\nthis explanation: When one of the planets has come into conjunction\nwith another, the light of the two blends in one, producing the\nappearance of a more elongated star. This happens not merely when star\ntouches star, but even when one approaches another. The space between\nthe two is in that case lit up by both, and seems aflame, producing the\ntrail of fire.\n\n [92] _I.e._ are cone-shaped.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nOur first answer to this theory is that the number of moving stars 1\n(planets) is fixed. It is quite usual for them and comets to appear\nat the same time; whence it is manifest that the comet is not due to\nthe conjunction of planets, but is a distinctive independent star.\nBesides, it is a matter of frequent occurrence for a star to come under\nthe orbit of a more elevated star. Saturn, for example, is sometimes\nabove Jupiter; Mars looks down in a straight line on Venus or Mercury.\nBut yet no comet is formed from this movement whereby the one planet 2\napproaches the other. Were it otherwise, there would be a comet every\nyear, for every year there are planets in the same constellation.\nAgain, if the approach of star to star produced a comet, the latter\nwould cease to be in a moment. The transit of stars takes place with\nthe utmost rapidity, thence all eclipse of heavenly bodies is of brief\nduration; by the same motion they are as swiftly separated as they\nwere brought together. The sun and the moon, as we see, part company 3\nwithin a brief space after the eclipse has begun. How much swifter\nmust be the separation of stars, which are so much smaller? Yet comets\nlast for six months at a time, which would not happen if they sprang\nfrom the union of two stars. The stars cannot stick to one another\nfor any long time, and the law of their swift motion must ever drive\nthem asunder. Besides, those stars appear to us to be close to one 4\nanother, but in reality are separated by immense distances. How, then,\ncould the one star transmit fire to the other so that the two should\nseem in union, when they are thus parted by an immense tract? The light\nof the two stars, it is replied, mixes, furnishing the appearance of\none. I suppose this means that the phenomenon is much the same as when\na cloud takes a ruddy colouring from the rays of the sun striking on\nit, or as when there is the golden glow of evening or morning, or as\nwhen the bow is painted in its varied hues, but only in sunshine.\n\nWell, my first criticism is that all the instances mentioned are the 5\nresult of great force. It is the sun that lights them up. The stars do\nnot possess anything like the same power. My second remark is that none\nof the phenomena arises except below the moon in the vicinity of the\nearth. The upper regions are pure and spotless, always retaining their\nown colour. I remark further, that if anything of the kind did occur,\nit would not last but would speedily disappear, as halos which surround\nthe sun or moon fade in a very brief space of time. Even the rainbow 6\ndoes not long remain. If there was anything of the kind supposed, to\nunite the space between the two stars, it would disappear with equal\nrapidity. In any case it would not remain as long as comets are in the\nhabit of doing. The planets have their orbits within the zodiac, they\nlie near this circle; but comets are seen in all parts of the sky.\nTheir time of appearance is no more certain than the limits of the\nspace which they may not exceed.\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\n\nIn reply to arguments like mine it is urged by Artemidorus that the 1\nfive planets are not the only stars with erratic courses, but merely\nthe only ones of the class that have been observed. But innumerable\nothers revolve in secret, unknown to us either by reason of the\nfaintness of their light, or the situation of their orbit being such\nthat they become visible only when they reach its extremities. It is\nthus, he says, that certain new stars enter our field of vision, 2\nmingling their light with the fixed stars, but displaying a brightness\ngreater than is usual in stars. This is the least serious of his lies:\nhis account of the universe is from end to end a shameless tissue of\nlies. For instance, if we are to believe him, the upper regions of\nheaven are perfectly solid--a lofty thick vault, as hard as the roof\nof a house, formed by the accumulation of masses of atoms. The surface\nimmediately above it is of fire so compact that it cannot be broken\nup or altered. Nevertheless, it has certain ventilators, and, as 3\nit were, windows through which portions of the fire stream from the\nouter part of the universe, but not so large as to cause commotion\nin the inner; and again the fires pass from the world back into the\nouter spaces. These extraordinary appearances, therefore, Artemidorus\nsupposes, have streamed in from that mass of matter which lies outside\nthe world. To set about disproving such a theory is nothing short of\nbeating the air for the sake of exercising the muscles!\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\n\nStill, I will descend to the task. Let the man who has placed such a 1\nsolid roof on the world tell me what reason there is for believing his\nstatement that the heavens have such a thickness. What was it that took\nall these solid bodies up there and kept them there? Then, a firmament\nof such thickness must necessarily be of immense weight too. How is\nit that heavy bodies remain aloft? How is it that the huge mass does\nnot come down and smash itself by its own weight? It is, I imagine, a 2\nphysical impossibility that such a vast weight as Artemidorus has\nbrought to the support of the heavens should hang suspended, or be\nsupported by a slight foundation. Nor can it be alleged that there are\nstays[93] of some kind outside by which it is prevented from falling.\nNor again can there be any support in the centre[94] to receive and\nprop up the threatening mass. And again, no one will venture to\nassert that the universe is being constantly carried down through the\nimmensities of space, falling all the time, though it is not evident\nthat it falls, because its headlong course is to all eternity, having\nno final obstacle with which to collide. This is indeed a statement\npeople have made about the earth, when they could discover no 3\nexplanation for a mass standing poised in air. It is borne down, say\nthey, for ever; but it is not evident that it falls because the space\ninto which it falls is endless.\n\n [93] The word is usually applied to a flexible fastening, hawser,\n cable, or the like.\n\n [94] Or, between the earth and it.\n\nWell, what argument[95] then justifies the assertion that it is not\nmerely the five planets that move, but that there are many such in many\nquarters of the universe? Or if there is no probable proof of this,\none may rejoin: What is there to prevent one from saying either that\nall the stars move or that none of them does? Besides, your argument 4\nis in no way helped by that crowd of stars which you assume to be\neverywhere roaming about! For the more there are of them, the oftener\nwill they meet with others; whereas comets are rare, and for that\nreason marvellous. And will not every age give evidence against you by\nnoting and recording for the use of posterity the emergence of such\nstars?\n\n [95] The argument is resumed from the beginning of XIII. after the\n digression about the \u201cfirmament.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\n\nAfter the death of Demetrius, king of Syria, whose kingdom was 1\ndivided by his sons Demetrius and Antiochus, a little before the\nAchaean War, a comet blazed forth not inferior to the sun in size.\nIts orb was at first fiery red, and emitted a bright light sufficient\nto dispel the darkness of night. By and by its size was gradually\nreduced and its brightness waned. Finally it went completely out. How\nmany stars, suppose you, would require to combine to make up such a\nhuge mass? You might collect in one a thousand of them without ever 2\nmatching the size of the sun. In the reign of Attalus a comet appeared,\nmoderately small in size to begin with. By and by it mounted up and\nspread out and moved as far as the equator, equalling in the extent of\nits immense length the whole quarter of the sky which we call the Milky\nWay. How many planets must have combined to occupy with an unbroken\nline of fire such a long tract of the sky?\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\n\nI have refuted the argument; I must now discredit its authors. It 1\nrequires no great effort to strip Ephorus of his authority; he is a\nmere chronicler. Some of his class seek to recommend their narrative by\nincredible stories, and by their marvels try to interest the reader,\nwho would probably soon find some other occupation if he were called\non to wade through their tedious narrative of ordinary events. Some,\nagain, are too credulous, some too careless, some are deluded, some\ndelighted, by falsehood. The former do not shun it, the latter go in\nquest of it. The whole clan of them have this in common; they fancy 2\ntheir work cannot merit approval, and become popular unless they freely\ninterlard it with lies. Ephorus is not a person of any scrupulous\nhonour; he is often duped, often he tries to dupe. For example, he\nasserts that the great comet which, by its rising, sank Helice and\nBuris, which was carefully watched by the eyes of the whole world since\nit drew issues of great moment in its train, split up into two stars;\nbut nobody besides him has recorded it. Who, I wonder, could observe\nthe moment at which the comet broke up and was resolved into two 3\nparts? And if there is any one who saw it split up into two, how is it\nthat no one saw it first formed out of the two? And why did Ephorus not\nadd the names of the two stars into which it was broken up, since they\nmust have been some of the five planets?\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\n\nApollonius of Myndus differs in his view from Epigenes. He asserts 1\nthat a comet is not one star made up of many planets, but that\nmany comets are planetary. A comet, he goes on, is not an illusion\nnor a trail of fire produced on the borders of two stars, but is a\ndistinctive heavenly body, just as the sun or the moon is. Its shape\nis not limited to the round, but is somewhat extended and produced\nlengthwise. On the other hand its orbit is not visible. It cuts 2\n(\u200d=\u200dintersects) the upper part of the universe, but only emerges when\nat length it reaches the lowest portion of its course. There is no\nreason to suppose that the same comet reappears; for instance that the\none seen in the reign of Claudius was the same as the one we saw in\nthe reign of Augustus; or that the recent one which appeared during\nthe reign of Nero Caesar--which has redeemed comets from their bad\ncharacter--was similar to the one which burst out after the death of\nthe late Emperor Julius Caesar, about sunset on the day of the games to\nVenus Genetrix. Comets are as varied as they are numerous. They are 3\nunequal in size, unlike in colour. Some are ruddy without any light;\nothers are bright with a pure clear light; others are flame-coloured,\nbut the flame is not a pure thin flame, but is enveloped in a mass\nof smoky fire. Some are blood-stained and threatening, bringing\nprognostication of bloodshed to follow in their train. They wax and\nwane like other planets. They are brighter when they come down toward\nus, and show larger from a nearer point, smaller when they depart from\nus, and dimmer when they retire to a greater distance.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII\n\n\nThe reply is ready to this last statement, that the same thing does 1\n_not_ happen in comets as in the other stars. Some comets attain their\nmaximum on the very first day of their appearance. But, according to\nthe argument, they ought to increase the nearer they approach. As it\nis, their first aspect remains until they begin to fade. Besides, what\nhas been said in reply to former authorities applies here too: If the\ncomet had an erratic orbit, and were a true planet, it would move\nwithin the limits of the zodiac, within which all the planets confine\ntheir orbits. Again, a star is never seen through another star. 2\nOur sight cannot pierce through the centre of a planet so as to view\nthrough it what lies beyond. But through a comet the further regions\nare discerned as through a cloud. Whence it is evident that it is no\nplanet but an insubstantial, irregular fire.\n\n\n\n\nXIX\n\n\nThe following is the opinion of our Stoic sage Zeno. He is convinced 1\nthat the stars act in concert, and unite their rays with one another--a\npartnership in light which creates the image of a more elongated star.\nTherefore some persons suppose that comets have no real existence, and\nthat it is only the appearance of them that is reproduced through the\nreflection of neighbouring stars or the union of stars that stick 2\ntogether. Some, again, say that comets are true stars, but with orbits\nof their own, and that after certain periods they come out into the\nview of mankind. Some allow their existence but refuse them the title\nof stars, because they glide out of sight without long duration, and\nwithin a brief space are scattered to the winds.\n\n\n\n\nXX\n\n\nMost of our Stoic brethren entertain another view, which they do not 1\nregard as inconsistent with fact. Let me explain it. We observe many\nspecies of fire engendered on high, now the heavens ablaze, now\n\n Long glistening trains of flame behind,\n\nnow huge torches of fire being hurried along. The lightning itself,\nwhose velocity is so marvellous that it at once blinds, and at the\nsame instant restores, the sight, is fire arising from the friction\nof air that suffers more violent internal pressure than usual. That\nis why it does not remain long, but glides off once it issues from 2\nthe cloud, forthwith perishing. But other fiery appearances remain for\na considerable time, and do not break up until all the fuel on which\nthey fed has been used up. Here belong the strange sights recorded\nby Posidonius--pillars and shields all ablaze, and other flames of\nmarvellous strangeness. They would attract no attention if they ran\ntheir course after customary laws; but now the sight of them sends all\nmen agape. They bring down sudden fire from the heights of heaven, 3\nsometimes producing a flash which is gone in a moment, sometimes\ncompressing the air, which is forced into a glow; it is a miracle all\nthe same. Yes, and is not sometimes a gulf opened in the ether, which\nseems to retire on all sides, with a great glare of light in the hollow\ncentre? You are ready to cry out. What is this?\n\n ... I see the very centre of heaven open,\n And the stars wandering in the sky....\n\nThese stars sometimes do not wait for night to show their light, but\nburst out in the full light of day. The reason, however, for the stars\nshowing at a time not their own is different from that alleged; it 4\nis well known that they are there all the time, though hidden. Many\ncomets, too, we cannot see because they are obscured by the sun\u2019s rays.\nPosidonius, in fact, tells us that during an eclipse of the sun a comet\nonce appeared which the sun\u2019s proximity had hitherto concealed. Often,\nwhen the sun has just set, straggling fires[96] are seen close to him.\nNo doubt the nucleus of the comet is bathed in sunlight, and therefore\ncannot be discerned; but the tail escapes the effect of the sun\u2019s rays.\n\n [96] _I.e._ the tail of a comet.\n\n\n\n\nXXI\n\n\nOur Stoic friends, therefore, are satisfied that, like trumpet meteors 1\nand beams, and other portents of the sky, comets are formed by dense\nair. They appear in greatest number toward the north, because there\nis most of the sluggish air there. Why, then, you naturally ask,\ndoes the comet not remain stationary, but advance in the sky from\nday to day? Let me explain. The comet, according to this account,\npursues its fuel just as fires do. Although its tendency is to rise\nto the upper regions, still, if material fail it, it retrogrades and\nsinks. In the air, too, it does not pursue a direct path to right or\nleft. It has no particular route assigned to it; wherever the supply 2\nof its fuel leads it, thither it crawls; it does not advance in its\norbit as a star, but feeds as a fire. Why, then, does it appear for a\nlong period, and why is it not quickly extinguished? For the recent\none which we saw during this joyous reign of Nero displayed itself to\nview for six months, revolving in the opposite direction to the former\none in Claudius\u2019 time. That one rising from the north up toward the\nzenith made for the east, always growing dimmer. This one began in the\nsame quarter, but making toward the west, turned finally toward the\nsouth, where it withdrew from view. No doubt the former found moister\nelements, more suitable for its fire, and pursued them; the latter 3\nin turn chose a richer and more substantial district. So they descend\ntoward the direction in which they are invited by their material, and\nnot by a definite path, which in the two we have seen was different,\nsince the one moved off toward the right and the other toward the left.\nNow all stars[97] have their orbit in one direction, namely, contrary\nto the motion of the universe. The latter moves from east to west,\nthe stars go from west to east. For this reason they have a double\nmotion,--one, their own proper motion; the other, which carries them\nround along with the heavens.\n\n [97] Planets may be specially referred to; the Latin word is the\n generic one, _stella_.\n\n\n\n\nXXII\n\n\nI do not agree with my school here, for I cannot think a comet is a 1\nsudden fire, but I rank it among Nature\u2019s permanent creations. First of\nall, everything that the atmosphere creates is short-lived; such things\narise in an element that is fugitive and changeable. How can anything\ncontinue the same for long in the air, which itself never remains the\nsame? It is always in a state of flux, and its quiet is short-lived. It\nchanges within a brief moment to another condition from that in which\nit had been. It is now rainy, now clear, now alternates from one to 2\nthe other. The clouds, so intimately connected with it, into which it\ncollects and from which it is released again, now gather, now disperse,\nbut never remain at rest. Fire cannot possibly abide securely in a\nvolatile body, nor can it keep its place so persistently as does a fire\nthat Nature has fixed never to be dislodged. Further, if the fire stuck\nclose to its fuel, it would always sink. For the air is the thicker, 3\nthe nearer it is to the earth. But a comet is never depressed to the\nlowest strata of the atmosphere, nor does it ever approach the ground.\nBesides, fire either goes in the direction its nature prompts, that is,\nupwards, or else in the direction in which it is drawn by the material\non which it has fastened, and on which it feeds.\n\n\n\n\nXXIII\n\n\nIn none of the ordinary fires in the sky is the route curved; it 1\nis distinctive of a star (planet) that it describes a curve in its\norbit. Whether other comets had this circular orbit I cannot say.\nThe two in our own age at any rate had. Again, everything kindled by\na temporary cause quickly gives out. Thus torches gleam only while\nthey flit across the sky; thus lightning has strength for just one\nstroke; thus so-called shooting and falling stars fly past, cutting\nthrough the air. No fires have any considerable duration unless 2\ntheir strength is inherent. I mean the divine fires which the universe\nmaintains eternally, because they are its parts and works. These, I\nsay, are always active; they have an orbit the even tenor of which they\npreserve, and they are uniform. They would on alternate days be larger\nor smaller if the fire was merely casual, the sudden outcome of some\naccidental cause. Such a fire would be greater or less according as it\nwas fed more abundantly or more scantily. I said a moment ago that no\nfire could be lasting which arose from some defect in the atmosphere. I\nhave now to add further, that it can by no means be fixed and steady. 3\nBoth torch and lightning and shooting star, and any other kind of fire\nforced out of the air by pressure, are in flight; none of them is\nvisible save in the course of its fall. But a comet has its own settled\nposition. For that reason it is not expelled in haste, but steadily\ntraverses its course; it is not snuffed out, but takes its departure.\nIf it were a wandering star (_i.e._ planet), says some one, it would\nbe in the zodiac. Who, say I, ever thinks of placing a single bound to\nthe stars? or of cooping up the divine into narrow space? These very 4\nstars, which you suppose to be the only ones that move, have, as every\none knows, orbits differing one from another. Why, then, should there\nnot be some stars that have a separate distinctive orbit far removed\nfrom them? What reason is there why there should not be passages into\nthe heavens at some part of them?[98] But if you are convinced that\nevery star (planet) cannot but touch the zodiac, then I say the comet\nmight have such a wide orbit that at some point it may coincide with\nthe zodiac. This is not necessary, but it is possible.\n\n [98] The meaning seems to be, there may be passages--inlets and\n outlets--by which occasional visitants like comets may temporarily\n enter the heavens as we know them, and subsequently pass out of them.\n The text is doubtful.\n\n\n\n\nXXIV\n\n\nConsider whether it is not more in keeping with the size of the 1\nuniverse that it be supposed to be divided into many routes, and do not\nkeep this one beaten track while every other portion is a waste. Do\nyou suppose that in this great and fair creation, among the countless\nstars that adorn the night with varied beauty, never suffering the\natmosphere to become empty and sluggish, there are only five stars that\nare allowed to move freely, while all the rest stand still, a fixed,\nimmovable crowd? Should any one here ask me: Why, then, has their 2\ncourse not been observed like that of the five planets? my answer to\nhim shall be: There are many things whose existence we allow, but whose\ncharacter we are still in ignorance of. We shall all admit that we have\na mind, by whose behest we are urged forward and called back; but what\nthat mind is which directs and rules us, no one can explain any more\nthan he can tell where it resides. One will say that it is breath;\nanother, a kind of harmony; another, a divine force and part of God;\nanother, subtlest air; another, disembodied power. Some will even be\nfound to call it blood, or heat. So far is the mind from being clear on\nall other subjects that it is still in search of itself.\n\n\n\n\nXXV\n\n\nWhy should we be surprised, then, that comets, so rare a sight in the 1\nuniverse, are not embraced under definite laws, or that their beginning\nand end are not known, seeing that their return is at long intervals?\nIt is not yet fifteen hundred years since Greece\n\n Counted the number of the stars and named them every one.\n\nAnd there are many nations at the present hour who merely know the 2\nface of the sky and do not yet understand why the moon is obscured in\nan eclipse. It is but recently indeed that science brought home to\nourselves certain knowledge on the subject. The day will yet come when\nthe progress of research through long ages will reveal to sight the\nmysteries of nature that are now concealed. A single lifetime, though\nit were wholly devoted to the study of the sky, does not suffice for\nthe investigation of problems of such complexity. And then we never\nmake a fair division of the few brief years of life as between study\nand vice. It must, therefore, require long successive ages to unfold\nall. The day will yet come when posterity will be amazed that we 3\nremained ignorant of things that will to them seem so plain. The five\nplanets are constantly thrusting themselves on our notice; they meet us\nin all the different quarters of the sky with a positive challenge to\nour curiosity. Yet it is but lately we have begun to understand their\nmotions, to realise what their morning and evening settings mean, what\ntheir turnings when they move straight toward us, why they are driven\nback from us. We have learned but a few years ago whether Jupiter would\nrise or set, or whether he would retrograde--the term that has been\napplied to his retirement from us. People have been found bold enough 4\nto say to us: You are mistaken in thinking that any star ever stops or\nwheels in its course. The heavenly bodies may not stand or turn away.\nAll advance; once the signal is given they start on their race. Their\ncareer will end only with their existence. This eternal creation has\nmotions that suffer no recall. Should they once be arrested, they will\nencounter obstacles in front which are meantime held in place by the\nordered, regular march of the universe.\n\n\n\n\nXXVI\n\n\nWhat then is the reason, you may ask, for the apparent retrogression 1\nof some heavenly bodies? The appearance of slowness in their motion\nis caused by their encountering the sun, as well as by the character\nof their paths and the position of their orbits, which are at certain\nperiods calculated to deceive the eye. Ships in the same way moving\nunder full sail seem withal to be stationary. Men will some day be\nable to demonstrate in what regions comets have their paths, why their\ncourse is so far removed from the other stars, what is their size and\nconstitution. Let us be satisfied with what we have discovered, and\nleave a little truth for our descendants to find out.\n\nWe cannot, Apollonius says, see through the stars what is beyond, but\nsight passes easily through the comets. Well, in the first place, if 2\nthat is the case, it is not so in the part of the body which consists\nof dense solid fire, but only where the dispersed glow extends as it\nbreaks up into the appearance of hair. One can see through the gaps in\nthe fire and not through the fire itself. Stars again, it is said, are\nall round, comets extended; whence it is plain that they are not true\nstars. But who, pray, will allow that comets are long? Their tendency\nlike that of other stars is to a globe shape, only the light from them\nis prolonged. The sun shoots out his rays far and wide, but has himself\na shape different from that of the light that streams from him. So\nin comets, the body is rounded, but the glow from them presents the\nappearance of being longer than that of the other stars.\n\n\n\n\nXXVII\n\n\nWhy is this so, you ask. Do you tell me first why the light the 1\nmoon receives is wholly unlike the sun although she receives it from\nthe sun. Why is it now ruddy, now pale? why is her colour ashen or\nblack when she is cut off from the sun\u2019s view? Or tell me why all the\nstars have aspects to some extent dissimilar to one another and all as\ndifferent as possible from the sun. It is no hindrance to their being\ntrue stars that they are not all alike; so there is nothing to prevent\ncomets from being permanent through all time, sharing the same destiny\nas the other stars, even though they have not an appearance like\ntheirs. Besides, is not the universe, if you will only examine it 2\ncarefully, made up of contrarieties? Why is it that the sun should be\nalways blazing hot in Leo, scorching the ground with his fierce glow,\nwhile in Aquarius he brings winter\u2019s chain and closes the rivers with\nice? The one constellation is subject to the same law as the other,\nthough its characteristics and influence are so different. Aries again\nrises in a moment, Libra lifts its scales very slowly; yet the one\nsign is of the same nature as the other, though that one mounts in a\nbrief space, this comes forth very deliberately. Do you not see, too,\nhow contrary the elements are to one another? They are heavy and 3\nlight, cold and hot, moist and dry. The whole concord of the universe\nis a harmony of discords. You say a comet is not a star, because its\nform does not correspond to the type, but is unlike other stars. You\ncan see, no doubt, how very like that star that returns to its place\nafter thirty years is to this which revisits its haunt within the\nyear! Nature does not turn out her work according to a single pattern;\nshe prides herself upon her power of variation. She has made some 4\nthings larger, some swifter than others; some stronger, some more\nlimited in power; some she has separated from the crowd, that their\nsplendid isolation might render their progress conspicuous; some she\nhas consigned to a place in the common herd. He has little conception\nof nature\u2019s power who thinks that she may not do exceptionally what\nshe does not do repeatedly. She does not often display comets; she\nhas assigned them a different place, different periods from the other\nstars, and motions unlike theirs. She wished to enhance the greatness\nof her work by these strange visitants whose form is too beautiful to\nbe thought accidental, whether you consider their vastness or their\nbrightness that surpasses in size and brilliance all other stars. Their\nappearance has, in truth, an exceptional distinction; they are not\ncribbed and cabined within narrow bonds, but let loose to roam freely,\nto range over the region of many stars.\n\n\n\n\nXXVIII\n\n\nAccording to Aristotle, comets give indications of storm and disturb- 1\nances that bring wind and rain. Well, then, are you of opinion it is\nnot a star because it foretells what is coming? True the comet is not\na sign of storm in the same way as it is a sign of coming rain when\n\n The oil splutters, and rotten fungus covers the wick;\n\nor in the same way as it is a forecast of a raging sea--if\n\n the sea\n Coots[99] sport on land; her haunts in the marshes\n Are deserted by the heron, and she soars above the heights of cloud:\n\n [99] Perhaps cormorants: the identity of the bird is difficult to\n determine.\n\nbut in the same way as the equinox is a sign of the turn of the year 2\ntoward cold or heat, or as the predictions of the Chaldaean soothsayers\nwho tell what sorrow or joy is determined at birth by the natal star,\nare indications of coming events. To convince you of the truth of this,\nI must warn you that the rising of a comet does not convey a threat of\nwind and rain in the immediate future, as Aristotle says, but casts\nsuspicion over the whole year. Hence it is plain that the comet has not\nderived prognostications from its immediate surroundings to reveal for\nthe immediate future, but that it has them stored up and buried deep\nwithin by the laws of the universe. The comet which appeared in the\nconsulship of Paterculus and Vopiscus fulfilled the anticipations of\nthis kind entertained by Aristotle, and for that matter by\n\nTheophrastus; for there were everywhere severe and prolonged storms, 3\nwhile in Achaia and Macedonia cities were overturned by earthquakes.\nThe slowness of the comets\u2019 motion, Aristotle says, is a proof that\nthey are rather heavy, containing much earthy matter. So are their\norbits too, for they are usually confined to the neighbourhood of the\npoles.\n\n\n\n\nXXIX\n\n\nBoth statements are false. Let me take them in their order. Well, it 1\nis asserted, is it, that all bodies are heavy that move more slowly?\nWhat! is the planet Saturn, which accomplishes its circuit most slowly\nof all the planets, heavy? It has, in fact, a proof of lightness\nin being higher than all the rest. But, you say, it takes a wider\nsweep, and does not go more slowly than the others, but only a longer\ndistance. Let me suggest that I can make the same statement of the\ncomets; even if their course is more sluggish, they have farther to go.\nBut it is a falsehood to assert that they move more slowly. For this 2\nlast comet traversed within six months half the span of heaven; the\nprevious one withdrew from sight in a shorter period. But again, it is\nurged, on account of their weight, they are borne down lower. Well, in\nthe first place, a comet is not borne down, but round. In the second,\nthis recent one began its motion in the north, and passing by way of\nthe west, reached the southern quarters, and was elevating its orbit\nwhen it faded from sight. That other one, in Claudius\u2019 reign, also 3\nfirst appeared in the north, and continued without intermission to rise\nstraight up to a higher elevation until it disappeared. Such are the\nmatters relating to comets which have had weight with others and with\nmyself. Whether they are true or not, those who attain knowledge of the\ntruth must decide. We are permitted only to conjecture and grope in the\ndark, with no assurance of discovery, and yet not without hope.\n\n\n\n\nXXX\n\n\nAristotle has finely said that we should never be more reverent 1\nthan when we are treating of the gods. We enter a temple with all\ndue gravity, we lower our eyes, draw up our toga, and assume every\ntoken of modesty when we approach the sacrifice. How much more is all\nthis due when we discuss the heavenly bodies, the stars, the nature\nof the gods, lest in ignorance we make any assertion regarding them\nthat is hasty, or disrespectful; or lest we wittingly lie. Let us not 2\nbe surprised that what is buried so deeply should be unearthed so\nslowly. Panaetius and others, who will have it that a comet is not an\nordinary star but the mere counterfeit of a star, have bestowed careful\ntreatment on the question whether all seasons of the year are equally\nfitted to produce comets, and whether all quarters of the sky are\nequally suitable for their creation. They have inquired, too, whether\nthey can be formed in all regions through which they can pass, and\nhave discussed other points of a like kind. But all these questions\nare foreclosed by my statement that they are not accidental fires, but\ninwoven in the texture of the universe, directed by it in secret, but\nnot often revealed. And how many bodies besides revolve in secret, 3\nnever dawning upon human eyes? Nor is it for man that God has made all\nthings.[100] How small a portion of His mighty work is entrusted to us?\nBut He who directs them all, who established and laid the foundations\nof all this world, who has clothed Himself with creation, and is the\ngreater and better part of His work, He is hidden from our eyes, He can\nbe perceived only by thought.\n\n [100] Another reading runs: Nor has God revealed all things to man.\n\n\n\n\nXXXI\n\n\nMany things, moreover, akin to highest deity or holding power near 1\nit, are still obscure. Or, perhaps, one may be still more surprised to\nfind that they at once fill and elude our sight. Either their subtlety\nis too great for human vision to grasp, or such exalted majesty\nconceals itself in the holier sanctuary, and rules its kingdom, which\nis itself, without permitting access to any power except the spirit.\nWhat that is, without which nothing is, we cannot know: and when God,\nthe greatest part of the universe, is an unknown God, we are surprised,\nare we, that there are some specks of fire we do not fully understand?\nHow many animals we have come to know for the first time in our own 2\ndays! Many, too, that are unknown to us, the people of a coming day\nwill know. Many discoveries are reserved for the ages still to be,\nwhen our memory shall have perished. The world is a poor affair if it\ndo not contain matter for investigation for the whole world in every\nage. Some of the sacred rites are not revealed to worshippers all at\nonce. Eleusis retains some of its mysteries to show to votaries on\ntheir second visit. Nature does not reveal all _her_ secrets at once.\nWe imagine we are initiated in her mysteries: we are, as yet, but\nhanging around her outer courts. Those secrets of hers are not opened 3\nto all indiscriminately. They are withdrawn and shut up in the inner\nshrine. Of one of them this age will catch a glimpse, of another, the\nage that will come after.\n\nWhen, then, it may be asked, will all these things come to our full\nknowledge? Great schemes mature slowly, especially if effort is\nrelaxed. There is one object we are bent on, heart and soul,--to be\nas wicked as possible--and we have not yet attained perfection. Vice\nis still making progress. Luxury is constantly discovering some new 4\noutlet for its madness, indecency some new form of insult on itself.\nDissolute effeminacy and corruption are constantly discovering some\nmore refined and delicate means of self-destruction. We have not yet\nwholly cast off our vigour. We are still doing our best to extinguish\nany spark of virtue that is left. By the smoothness and polish of our\nbodies we men have outdone the refinements of women; we have adopted\nthe colours of harlots, that even an honest woman would not put on.\nWith delicate mincing step we check our gait; we do not walk, with 5\nmeasured pace we go. We adorn our fingers with rings. A precious stone\nsparkles on every joint. Day by day we devise means of wronging and\ndegrading our manhood, vexed that we cannot strip it off. One becomes\na eunuch, another assumes the scandalous part of a gladiator, and,\nhired for death, arms for disgrace. The very pauper selects a victim on\nwhom to sate his morbid lust.\n\n\n\n\nXXXII\n\n\nDo you wonder that wisdom has not yet attained her perfect work? Why, 1\nvice has not wholly revealed itself. It is still in its infancy, and\nyet on it we bestow all our efforts; our eyes and our hands are its\nslaves. Who attends the school of wisdom now? Who thinks it worth while\nto have more than a bowing acquaintance with her? Who has regard for\nphilosophy or any liberal pursuit, except when a rainy day comes round\nto interrupt the games, and it may be wasted without loss? And so the\nmany sects of philosophers are all dying out for lack of successors. 2\nThe Academy, both old and new, has left no disciple. Who is there to\nhand down the precepts of Pyrrho? That famous school of Pythagoras,\ndespised of the rabble, can find no master. The new sect of the Sextii,\nwhich contained the vigour of Rome, started with great enthusiasm, but\non the very threshold of its career is also dead.\n\nBut what anxious care we bestow that the name of no actor may be 3\nlost! The house of Pylades and Bathyllus stands in a long line of\nsuccessors. For arts of that kind there are plenty of pupils and\nplenty of teachers. The actor\u2019s platform resounds in every private\nhouse in the whole city. On it men and women alike practise the ballet\nstep. Husbands and wives vie in paying court to actors. By and by,\nwhen the brow is rubbed smooth by long wearing of the mask, the\ntransition to the brothel is easy and natural. Philosophy gets never 4\na thought. And so it comes to pass that, far from advance being made\ntoward the discovery of what the older generations left insufficiently\ninvestigated, many of their discoveries are being lost. But yet, on my\nsoul of honour, if we urged on this task with all our powers, if our\nyouth in sobriety braced themselves to it, if the elder taught it and\nthe younger learned it, even then scarce should we reach the bottom\nof the well in which truth lies. As it is, we search for her on the\nsurface, and with a slack hand.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON SENECA\u2019S \u201cQUAESTIONES NATURALES\u201d\n\nBy Sir ARCHIBALD GEIKIE, K.C.B., Pres.R.S.\n\n\nThe treatise of which the present volume is a translation possesses\na twofold interest. In the first place, it is probably the last\nliterary work of a man who filled a large space in the Roman world of\nhis day. After a varied career as philosopher, barrister, politician,\nstatesman, courtier, and man of letters, he at last incurred the\nimplacable enmity of Nero, to whom he had been tutor. Having in his\nyouth paid some attention to physical inquiries, he had then been\nled to prepare and publish a book on earthquakes. But in subsequent\nyears the absorbing cares of State probably left him little leisure to\ncontinue these studies, for which, however, he had retained his taste.\nHence, when in his last days he sought in retirement to devote himself\nto philosophical pursuits, he naturally turned to some of the physical\nproblems that had interested him in earlier life. The earthquake\nwhich on 5th February A.D. 63 had done much damage to the towns of\nCampania, revived his youthful enthusiasm for the investigation of\nsuch phenomena, and may possibly have suggested to him the preparation\nof another volume dealing with this and other scientific matter. We\nknow at least from the book itself that he wrote a part, if not the\nwhole, of it after that date (221, 230),[101] and that he took pains\nto collect information about the catastrophe. As he was in the habit\nof sojourning on the shores of the Bay of Naples, he probably visited\nthe scene of destruction himself for the purpose of his book. We learn\nfrom Tacitus that it was immediately after his return from Campania\nto his villa near Rome, bringing with him, we may suppose, his nearly\ncompleted manuscript, that Seneca received the Emperor\u2019s order to\ncommit suicide.\n\n [101] The numbers within parentheses throughout these Notes refer to\n the pages of the Translation.\n\nIn the second place, Seneca\u2019s work on _Natural Questions_ stands out as\none of the few treatises on physical science which have come down to us\nfrom antiquity. It is interesting alike for the quotations it contains\nfrom the works of previous authors, some of which have not survived,\nand for the criticisms and opinions which he himself expresses on\nthe various subjects of which he treats. It can hardly, however, be\nregarded as an original contribution to science. Its author\u2019s life had\nbeen spent in other and widely different pursuits, which led him far\naway from scientific inquiry. But as a summary of the general state\nof knowledge in his day, made by a man of strong intellect, who had\nbeen trained in the legal and philosophical schools of the time, and\nhad read widely and reflected much on these matters, the book may be\ntaken to afford a fair presentation of the manner in which a number\nof questions in astronomy, meteorology, and physical geography were\nregarded by thoughtful minds in the first century of our era.\n\nIn judging of the intrinsic merit of such a work as the present, the\nmodern reader finds a difficulty in realising from the broad platform\nof natural knowledge which, after the labours of the intervening\ncenturies, has now been laid, how exceedingly narrow was the circle\nof ascertained fact available to the student two thousand years ago.\nThe spirit of scientific observation and experiment had not then been\ndeveloped, yet the familiar phenomena of everyday life pressed, as\nthey still do, for explanation. Man\u2019s knowledge of nature was then too\nlimited to furnish a basis for distinguishing what was fact from what\nwas mere guesswork. In the infancy of our race, as in the childhood\nof the individual, the tendency of the human mind is to perceive\nresemblances rather than differences. Analogies are readily observed\nand, in default of knowledge of the facts involved, are mistaken for\nidentical sequences of cause and effect. Throughout the interpretations\nof natural phenomena given by the philosophers of antiquity, it is\nremarkable to what a large extent the meaning of one appearance is\nexplained by comparing it with another to which in reality it may bear\nno resemblance. Seneca\u2019s volume abounds in examples of this use of\nanalogy.\n\nThe authority of great names exercised a wonderful fascination on the\nminds of the early investigators of nature. Generation after generation\nof writers were led to accept with little or no modification the dicta\nof eminent philosophers who had preceded them. An observer might\nsometimes recognise the erroneousness of the opinion of a predecessor,\nand yet lack the means of detecting the falsity of his own, which\nnevertheless he propounded with full assurance of its truth. In such\ncircumstances criticism had no secure foundation, while credulity,\nrampant in the world outside, could hardly fail to show itself in\nphilosophic circles. Even the most cautious and truth-seeking inquirer\nmight easily and almost inevitably be led to accept statements which\ndid not seem to him unreasonable, and which no previous experience of\nhis own or others warranted him to disbelieve or even to suspect.\n\nIt behoves us, therefore, to be on our guard lest, from our much higher\nstandard of knowledge, we may be tempted to look with amused contempt\non the puerile conceptions of nature to be met with in the writings of\nthe ancients--the grave assertion of absurdities as actual facts, the\ninept analogies, the confident explanations which are no explanations\nat all, and the complete absence of any attempt to test by examination\nor experiment the validity of statements which with but little trouble\ncould have been disproved.\n\nThese evidences of the exceedingly imperfect knowledge of his time\nare fully illustrated in Seneca\u2019s chapters. He quotes some two dozen\nof previous writers who had dealt with the same or cognate subjects.\nIt is needless to say that they were Greeks, no place having yet\nbeen found in Latin literature for treatises on Science. The author\nmost frequently cited by him is Aristotle, whose _Meteorologica_\nhe had evidently studied with care. He gives frequent quotations\nfrom that work, but even where he does not specifically quote, his\nviews generally accord with those of the great philosopher and\nnaturalist.[102] Almost the only quotations from the works of his own\ncountrymen are verses from some of the poets, especially from Virgil\nand Ovid. It is remarkable that he makes only one quotation from\nLucretius, although he would have found in that poet\u2019s noble work many\npassages more apposite to his subject than those which he has taken\nfrom the _Aeneid_, the _Georgics_, and the _Metamorphoses_. We may\nsuppose that these works were favourites with him, and that he knew\nmuch of them by heart, but that he was less familiar with the _De Rerum\nNatura_.\n\n [102] Seneca\u2019s indebtedness to Aristotle is emphatically expressed\n by Barth\u00e9lemy Saint-Hilaire in the Dissertation prefixed to his\n translation of the _Meteorologica_ (_M\u00e9t\u00e9orologie d\u2019Aristote_, 1863,\n pp. lxix-lxx).\n\nIt is manifest from the present volume that its author, like Lucretius\nbefore him, had a lofty conception of the dignity and moral influence\nof the study of nature. This pursuit seemed to him to raise us above\nthe sordid things of life and to withdraw the mind from the body--a\ndissociation so eminently beneficial to our higher aspirations. He\nbelieved that in the study of the hidden phenomena of the universe a\nmental alacrity is developed which will be found to be not without\npractical utility in the conduct of affairs that lie nearer the surface\n(113).\n\nWith this clear recognition of the importance of his theme he resolved\nin his old age to enter upon a task which other less worthy pursuits\nhad hindered him from pursuing. He would now attempt to survey the\nuniverse, unravel its secrets, and give the results of his studies to\nthe world (109). It was not, however, his aim to compose a systematic\ntreatise on Natural Philosophy, but rather to take up some special\nsubjects and deal with them in the light of what had already been\nwritten upon them, and of what his own reflections suggested. His\nundertaking assumed the form of a series of epistolary essays addressed\nto his friend Lucilius Junior, procurator of Sicily. The literary shape\nthus selected allowed the use of an unconstrained, almost colloquial,\nstyle which would not have been suitable to a more ambitious work.\n\nHad Seneca designed to prepare a formal or methodical treatise, he\nwould doubtless have planned it to include the three sections which he\nregarded as comprising every inquiry that can arise as to the nature\nand constitution of the Universe (_Universum_)--celestial, atmospheric,\nand terrestrial (_Caelestia, Sublimia, Terrena_, 51). The world\n(_Mundus_) in his view comprehends all things that come or can come\nwithin our cognisance (54). Instead of entering upon a full discussion\nof any one of his three sections, he selected from them a few topics\nwhich had probably more particularly engaged his attention. Most of\nthese belong to the second or atmospheric division of his scheme of\narrangement, to which he devotes six of his seven books, the remaining\none being given to the discussion of some celestial phenomena. Certain\nsubjects which we should naturally range in the terrestrial series,\nsuch as the source and flow of rivers and the nature and origin of\nearthquakes, he explicitly includes among his atmospheric phenomena\n(51).\n\nIt appears to be probable that Seneca had neither finished nor revised\nhis manuscript at the time of his death. Parts of the work are\nobviously incomplete, though some of these gaps may be due to defects\nof transcription or to the subsequent loss of parts of the text. The\nobscurities of language, which are not infrequent, may likewise have\npartly arisen from lack of the author\u2019s revision of his original copy.\nHis discussion of the problem of the rise of the Nile suddenly breaks\noff in such an abrupt manner as to suggest the loss of a portion of the\noriginal volume. One of the most important omissions is the absence of\nany account of the phenomena of volcanoes. The author does indeed refer\nin several places to this subject, but with Aetna before him, of which\nso many Greek and Latin poets had sung, and which had so often been\nreferred to in the writings of the philosophers, he could hardly have\nmeant to offer no commentary on so notable a feature in the geography\nand history of his own country. We know indeed that he was keenly\ninterested in this mountain, and that he wrote to Lucilius to ascend\nthe volcano and send him particulars about it. In the letter conveying\nthis request he alludes to some of the Roman poets who had sung of its\nwonders, and urges that a description of Aetna should form part of a\npoem on which his correspondent appears to have been then engaged.[103]\nAnother important subject in physical geography finds no place in\nSeneca\u2019s volume--the Sea. Of the outer ocean it was not to be expected\nthat he could have had much to say, but we can hardly suppose that he\nwould have considered his essay complete without some discussion of the\nvarious phenomena presented by the Mediterranean Sea.\n\n [103] Seneca, _Epist._ lxxix.\n\nA century before Seneca\u2019s prime, the immortal _De Rerum Natura_ of\nLucretius had appeared at Rome, wherein the origin and constitution\nof the world were sung with the intense earnestness, brilliant\nimagination, and resounding cadence of a great poet and with the grasp\nand penetration of a great philosopher. In this splendid work some of\nthe problems discussed by Seneca were considered, and explanations\nwere given of them with the usual undoubting confidence of olden\ntime. In literary quality the two writers stand far apart, yet it is\nnot uninteresting to compare their respective views of nature. The\nvivid and often majestic diction of the one is not more diverse from\nthe somewhat familiar and conversational tone of the other than are\ntheir respective creeds. Lucretius was a convinced and enthusiastic\nEpicurean, and in accordance with the teachings of his master denied\nthe existence of any divine co-operation in the plan and government of\nthe Universe,\n\n nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam\n naturam rerum,[104]\n\n [104] _De Rerum Natura_, v. 198.\n\nalthough no writer either of ancient or modern time has had a more\noverpowering sense of the beauty, majesty, and order of this world. It\nwas his earnest purpose to show men how, by a contemplation of the face\nand ordered scheme of nature, they could free themselves from the bond\nof religious superstition and the fear of death.[105]\n\n [105]\n\n rursus in antiquas referuntur religiones\n et dominos acres adsciscunt, omnia posse\n quos miseri credunt, ignari quid queat esse,\n quid nequeat, finita potestas denique cuique\n quanam sit ratione atque alte terminus haerens.--_Op. cit._ v. 86.\n\n hunc igitur terrorem animi tenebrasque necessest\n non radii solis neque lucida tela diei\n discutiant, sed naturae species ratioque.--i. 146.\n\n\nSeneca, on the other hand, held the Stoic belief in an all-wise and\nomnipotent Creator. In an eloquent exordium to his volume, and in a\nperoration near its end, he affirms his conviction that this Divine\nBeing is all in all, at once within and without his works; He has\nclothed himself with creation, but is hidden from our eyes and can\nbe perceived only by thought (3, 7, 305). Our philosopher could not\nconceive of anything more beautiful, more orderly, and more consistent\neverywhere in plan than the world around us. That such a world should\nhave resulted from the tumult of chaos, by the mere chance collocation\nof atoms, appeared to him the madness of vulgar error. Yet it was\nonly too true, though it might be thought hardly credible, that even\nphilosophers had been tainted with this pernicious doctrine. Hence it\nwould be in the author\u2019s judgment a profitable task to inquire into the\ntruth concerning these matters. To explore this world, he remarks, is\nfar more than enough for a single lifetime. Whether what we may be led\nto believe regarding it shall be true must be decided by those who may\nattain the knowledge of the truth; we can but examine and conjecture,\nwith no certain assurance of discovery, yet not without hope (304).\nIt behoves us to be ever watchful against forming conclusions rashly,\ndisrespectfully, or ignorantly, and of being knowingly untrue. In this\nquest after knowledge, while much may be found out which will be of\npractical usefulness, we are encouraged to advance, not by any hope\nof gain, but by the wonder with which the inquiry fills the soul. To\nobtain a knowledge of Nature is the highest reward to which the mind of\nman can aspire (230, 304). Seneca\u2019s practical conclusion was thus much\nthe same as that of Lucretius. He does not, however, attempt in this\nvolume to enforce it with the solemn earnestness shown by the poet,\nthough he loses no opportunity of inveighing against the follies and\nvices of his time. In discussing natural phenomena his first desire is\nto explain them, and in so doing to animadvert on the explanations of\nprevious writers, with perhaps a not unnatural wish to show his own\nability as a critic and expositor.\n\nIt was in due accordance with the principles of his school, as well as\nwith his own natural temperament, that Seneca should continually be led\nto draw ethical lessons from the physical phenomena which he discussed.\nThe interpolation of some of these reflections may occasionally seem\nto a modern reader rather irrelevant and far-fetched, but there can be\nno question as to the spirit of reverence with which he approached his\nsubject. Like other philosophers who had preceded him, he maintained\nthis spirit, while at the same time he had discarded the crowded and\nconfused polytheism of the prevalent mythology. But he here keeps\nthis antagonism in due restraint, only occasionally expressing his\ndissent from the popular creed. He would not admit that even the old\nphilosophers could have been so foolish as to credit the gods with some\nof the acts which had been popularly attributed to them. He refused to\nbelieve that the guardian and ruler of the Universe hurled thunderbolts\nwith his own hand. Still less could he suppose that the gods had\nlighter bolts with which they amused themselves in play. His expression\n(fulminibus lusoriis, 91) recalls the bitter irony of Lucretius and the\nsarcasm of his question whether, when the gods aim at lonely places or\nat the sea, they are only at practice to strengthen their arms.[106]\nBut Seneca held with Lucretius that in the contemplation of nature we\nobtain the courage and elevation of mind which fit us for the trials\nof life and the coming of death (113).\n\n [106] an tum bracchia consuescunt firmantque lacertos?--vi. 397.\n\nIn the treatment of scientific problems Seneca displays the same\nunhesitating assurance of the truth of his opinions, which was\ncharacteristic of the philosophers of antiquity. These writers had\nhardly a glimmering conception of nature\u2019s infinite complexity, of\nthe extreme diversity and intricacy of natural processes, of the\nunbroken and endlessly ramifying relations of cause and effect, of\nthe long and patient investigation by which alone these relations\ncould be unravelled, and of the caution and diffidence with which\nconclusions regarding them should at least for a time be formulated.\nSeneca frequently passes caustic criticisms on the views expressed by\nhis predecessors. He styles the philosophers, as a body, \u201ca credulous\nfolk.\u201d Some of them he even goes so far as to accuse of perpetrating\ndeliberate falsehoods (276, 286, 289). Nor does he hesitate to banter\nhis brethren of the Stoic School, whose \u201cabsurdities,\u201d as he calls\nthem, he cannot refrain from quoting.\n\nYet when his own opinions are examined in the light of the present\nday, they are found to be in many cases no nearer the truth than those\nwhich he rejected with contempt. It is, indeed, sometimes difficult to\nrealise the mental position of a man who could adopt and propound them.\nIn many cases he accounts for a phenomenon by the analogy of another\nto which it has no real affinity, as where he explains halos by the\ncircular undulations produced on a surface of water into which a stone\nis thrown (13). He sometimes suggests an experiment to prove the truth\nof his assertion, but if he had made the experiment he would have found\nhow completely it failed to support him, as, for instance, when he\nstates that a large pond of water reflects only one image of the sun,\nbut that, if it is divided into several smaller ponds by the insertion\nof partitions, it will show as many images as there are divisions\n(18). Striking also and numerous are the examples of his credulous\nacceptance of statements which, had it occurred to him to test them\nby actual examination, he could easily have found to be erroneous.\nHe affirms, for instance, more than once, that while lightning melts\nmetals, it freezes wine, and he gravely alleges that when the wine is\nthawed and imbibed, it either kills or drives mad those who partake\nof it (79, 97). He asserts that the waters of certain rivers have the\npower of dyeing whole flocks of sheep, black fleeces being changed\ninto white, and white into black (137), that some waters are so dense\nthat even the heaviest objects will not sink in them (138); that the\nheat of the sun in the Nile valley is so great as to melt silver and\nthe joints of statues (173). When he proceeds to explain the reason of\nsuch abnormalities he expresses no hesitation, but delivers his opinion\nwith the assurance of a professor who has obtained the experimental\ndemonstration in his laboratory.\n\nIt is remarkable that although some progress had been made in\nastronomy, especially by Greek philosophers, before the beginning\nof the Christian era, the conclusions arrived at by these observers\nregarding the relations of the earth to the other heavenly bodies met\nwith but little acceptance for many centuries, even among reflecting\nminds. Lucretius, for example, still believed the earth to be the\ncentre of the Universe to which all the heavier materials had\nconverged, while the fire-laden ether escaped to the outer boundaries\nof space, sun, moon, and stars occupying an intermediate place. He did\nnot think that the sun can be much larger than it looks to be to our\nsenses, nor was he quite sure whether it is the same sun which, passing\nunder the earth, reappears in the morning, or if at the close of each\nday the sun is extinguished and a new collection of fires makes a\nfresh sun in the morning. He was quite aware of the different views of\nChaldaean sages and astronomers, but in such questions he could see no\nreason why one theory should be better than another.[107]\n\n [107] _De Rer. Nat._ v. 564, 650, 680, 727.\n\nSeneca, however, had, on the whole, a more advanced appreciation of\nthe relations of the earth to the heavenly bodies. He believed the sun\nto be larger than our globe, and that a thousand stars might be put\ntogether without equalling his mass (284, 288). He thought the heavens\nto be so vast as to afford space for the swiftest of the planets to\nrush along with uninterrupted speed during full thirty years (7). He\nshowed his enlightened outlook upon astronomical possibilities when he\nsurmised that comets may have orbits that carry them far beyond the\nZodiac, and when he conjectured that other planets than those then\nknown remained to be discovered (296\u2013299). And yet, sharing these more\nenlarged conceptions, he clung with curious pertinacity to some of the\nold childish faith which was natural in the infancy of mankind. He\nknew that some philosophers held that it is the earth which revolves\nand not the heavens, and though he does not deliberately reject this\nopinion, it is evident that he still held that the heavens circle\nround the earth.[108] Again and again he expresses his conviction that\nthe force which sustains the energy of the sun and the stars consists\nof the exhalations that arise from the surface of the earth. These\nexhalations, he says, are the pasturage of the heavenly bodies, the\nbreath of the world. It would be impossible, he asserts, for the earth\nto furnish so ample a store of nourishment to bodies larger than itself\nunless it were full of breath which is passing off from every part of\nits surface both by day and night. To the obvious objection that the\nsupply of this energy would soon become exhausted, he has the reply\nthat this exhaustion would certainly take place were it not that the\nelements are in a condition of continual transformation, issuing in\none form, passing into each other, and returning to their original\npositions, thence to begin their cycle anew (55, 198, 244\u20135). In this\nuniversal transmutation water passes into air, air into water; air\nlikewise is changed into fire, fire into air, while earth is formed\nfrom water, and water from earth (120).\n\n [108] See _postea_, Notes on Book VII.\n\nIn his general conception of the universe, Seneca, as a Stoic\nphilosopher, recognised a principle of evolution. He believed that the\nworld embraces in its constitution everything that it is destined to\nexperience from its beginning to its end. As a human embryo contains\nthe germ of the future man, so at the first creation of the universe,\nsun and moon, the changes of the stars, and the birth of living things\nwere all embraced. And there were likewise included the forces whereby\nthe earth is affected, and which will ultimately lead to the final\ndestruction of the globe (151).[109]\n\n [109] Lucretius, too, had his views on evolution, which are well\n expressed in four lines of verse:\n\n mutat enim mundi naturam totius aetas,\n ex alioque alius status excipere omnia debet,\n nec manet ulla sui similis res: omnia migrant,\n omnia commutat natura et vertere cogit.\n --_De Rer. Nat._ v. 828.\n\nWith regard to the earth itself, whether it is to be regarded as a\nsoul or as an organised body, Seneca announced his conviction that it\nhas been constructed much after the plan of our human bodies. As in\nthese bodies, veins and arteries are provided for the reception of\nblood and breath, so in the earth there are passages, some for the\ntransport of water, others for the flow of air (126). He was sure,\nalso, that everything on the surface of the earth has its counterpart\nbeneath--caves, mountains, lakes, and rivers.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I\n\n\nIn this part of his Essay the author has grouped together a variety of\nphenomena, some of which are meteorological (in the modern sense of\nthat word), and belong therefore to his class of Sublimia, while others\nare astronomical, and would be properly placed among his Caelestia.\nThey all have reference to light in some form, and doubtless for that\nreason were considered as a series. Seneca, largely swayed by the\nopinions expressed in Aristotle\u2019s _Meteorologica_, agrees with that\nphilosopher in the belief that the earth gives forth various kinds of\nexhalations, among which some contain the seeds of fire. He thought\nthat high up in the air, among dry and hot elements, these fires may\nbe kindled by the sun\u2019s rays, and further, that when the atmosphere\nbecomes violently disturbed its friction may give rise to fires (9, 10,\n39).\n\nWith these ideas, which he held as established truths, it is easy\nto understand that he should have regarded as extremely foolish the\nnotion that any of the lights which move rapidly across the sky are of\ncelestial origin. Had such been their source, he felt sure that by this\ntime there would have been none left in the firmament; yet although\nno night passes when some of them may not be seen, each star in the\nsky is found to maintain its place and its size. Hence he confidently\nconcluded that the meteors, which are seen at night, and sometimes even\nby day, have their birth far below the stars, and are soon extinguished\nin their course because they have no solid and abiding resting-place.\nSingle aerolites and even showers of stones had been recorded in Roman\nliterature as having fallen from heaven, but it had not yet occurred to\nany observer to connect them with the shooting stars which gleam across\nthe nocturnal sky, and are now recognised to be due to meteorites of\ndifferent sizes, entering our atmosphere with planetary velocity, there\nbreaking up with varying luminosity, and remaining visible for shorter\nor longer intervals of time.\n\nThe author appears to have regarded as akin to these meteors the\nstar-like balls of light, which in stormy weather are sometimes seen\non the masts of vessels at sea, and which before his time had been\nobserved on the points of the spears of an army in the field. This\nluminous appearance, regarded by the Romans as a sign of the friendly\npresence of Castor and Pollux, is entirely atmospheric, and has no\nconnection with shooting stars. It is now known as St. Elmo\u2019s Fire, and\nhas been shown to be a gentle continuous electric discharge from the\nearth towards a cloud.\n\nSeneca next describes in some detail a series of optical appearances\nconnected with the sun and moon. Until the laws of the reflection and\nrefraction of light had been discovered, it was obviously impossible\nto account for these phenomena. There is, therefore, much interest in\nfollowing the lines of thought by which the old philosophers attempted\nto explain them. Seneca clearly perceived that the halos and coronae\nseen round the sun and moon in certain states of the atmosphere do\nnot belong to these luminaries, but to our own air, and may furnish\nindications of coming weather. He remarks shrewdly enough that\nappearances akin to those seen in the sky may sometimes be observed in\nthe thick moist air of a bathroom. But when he confidently proceeds to\nexplain the meteorological phenomena he betakes himself to analogy, as\nhe is so fond of doing. He remarks that when a stone is thrown into a\npond a succession of circles is produced on the surface of the water,\nwhich continually widen from the point of impact until they lessen and\ndisappear. In like manner he believes that when the light of the sun or\nmoon strikes the cloudy air it produces a similar effect, for as every\nkind of light is round in shape, the air is thus driven into a circular\nform. His love of analogy generally, as in this instance, leads him far\naway from the truth, and prevents him from seeing the palpable flaws in\nhis reasoning. But the apparent similarity of appearances, which are in\nreality entirely dissimilar, contents him with his explanations.\n\nHis discussion of the rainbow (16\u201333) is one of the most detailed\nand vivacious in the whole volume. It takes the form of a sustained\nargument, in which the author cites various authorities, and replies\nto objections brought by a supposed opponent to his thesis, which is\nthat the rainbow is unquestionably an image of the sun received in a\nvery moist cloud which has the shape of a round concave mirror (20,\n27). He quotes with apparent approbation the opinion that in a shower\nof rain each falling drop is a mirror reflecting an image of the sun,\nand that when an observer stands directly between the sun and the\nshower he sees the reflections of the countless drops blended into one\ncontinuous semicircle. But as the discussion proceeds the writer denies\nthat the cloud consists of separate rain-drops, and he maintains\nthat even if it did they would not unite to give one unbroken image.\nIn proof of his contention he urges the fallacious assertion that if\na number of mirrors are joined together and a man is placed before\nthem, each gives its own reflection, and thus a single man becomes\nmultiplied into a crowd. If he had ever tried the experiment or had\nvisited the shop of a mender of mirrors, he would have seen that the\nseparate pieces, if strictly arranged on the same plane, reflect a\nsingle image. His imaginary antagonist asks for an explanation of the\nrainbow-like colours displayed by the spray from a burst water-pipe,\nor the splash from an oar, which are, of course, cases strictly\nparallel to the falling shower of rain (24). The resemblance is at\nonce granted, but is explained away on the ground that the drops fall\nso quickly that they cannot form reflections of the sun, and that to\nproduce such reflections the medium must be at rest. The objector once\nmore strikes in with a reference to the rainbow colours to be seen in\na glass rod which is placed obliquely in the path of the sun\u2019s rays\n(30). These prismatic tints, as has long been known, are due to the\nsame decomposition of white light, as in the rainbow. But Seneca claims\nthe illustration as furnishing additional arguments in his favour. He\nmaintains that no colour is really produced in the rod, but only a\nfalse appearance of colour, his idea being apparently that unless the\ncolour is inherent in an object apart from direct sunlight, it is only\napparent and not real. The glass, he says, tries to reproduce the sun\u2019s\nimage, but fails because of its unsymmetrical form, the reflections\nbeing crowded together and confused into the appearance of a single\nband of colour. In regard to the falling drops of rain in a shower he\ncontends that they receive the colour but not the image of the sun, and\nhe is led away by the false analogy of the varying tints of a peacock\u2019s\nneck as the bird tosses its head (25). At one part of the discussion\nhe affirms that the colours of the rainbow come partly from the sun\nand partly from the moist cloud (21). Further on, however, he agrees\nthat they proceed from the sun, but are only apparent, for if another\ncloud comes across the face of the luminary they at once vanish (29).\nThe greater diameter of the rainbow compared with that of the sun as\nseen by us he accounts for by the analogy of a concave mirror, which\ngreatly enlarges the objects reflected from it. At the conclusion of\nthe discussion he repeats his belief that the rainbow and the corona\nor halo have no definite material inherent in them, but are like a\nmirror which reveals only a deception, the mere phantoms and empty\nimitations of real bodies, which certainly do not exist in the mirror,\nand therefore cannot come out of it (41).\n\nIn Chapters XVI. and XVII. the author indulges in one of his favourite\nmoralising episodes, suggested by the topics he has been discussing\nin the previous pages. He takes the existence of reflecting surfaces\nas his text, and from the calm surface of still water passes on to\nartificial mirrors, contrasting the manners and morals of early\nmankind, who had only pools and lakes in which to see their faces, with\nthe luxury and vice of later ages, when the use of metals led to the\ninvention of metallic mirrors. In this retrospect, however, he places\nthe discovery of the use of iron before that of the other metals. The\npriority of bronze and the reason for it are accurately stated by\nLucretius:\n\n et prior aeris erat quam ferri cognitus usus,\n quo facilis magis est natura et copia maior.[110]\n\n [110] _De Rer. Nat._ v. 1287.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II\n\n\nIn this division of his work the author discusses various aspects of\nthe atmosphere and offers an explanation of the phenomena which he\ndescribes. He distinguishes between the very bright ether on high,\nand the moist, denser atmosphere which underlies it, but thinks that\nthey must pass insensibly into each other (66). The atmosphere he\nregards as a continuous non-composite body, capable of great range in\ntension, and forming the vehicle through which the exhalations from\nthe earth pass outwards to the sky. It does not everywhere possess\nthe same qualities. In its lower parts next the earth it is dense and\nmisty, owing to the terrestrial exhalations, and is there warmed by the\nearth\u2019s breath, by the reflection of the sun\u2019s rays from the ground,\nand from the fires, artificial and subterranean, as well as from the\nwarmth communicated by living animals and plants, for life cannot exist\nwithout heat. The highest portions of the atmosphere are exceedingly\ndry, hot, and attenuated, owing to their nearness to the eternal fires\nand the heat of the heavenly bodies. The middle parts, on the contrary,\nare intermediate in character, but colder than what lies above and\nbelow them (60, 61). It is the lower portions that are subject to the\ngreatest changes, for they receive the earthly elements which involve\nsuch constant turmoil. The instability of the air arises also in part\nfrom the motions of the earth and from those of the sun, moon, and\nstars, to which cold, rain, and other atmospheric disturbances are due\n(56, 61).\n\nSeneca, in passing on to discuss the nature and origin of thunder and\nlightning, divides the phenomena into three kinds--lightning-flashes,\nthunderbolts, and thunderings (62). After citing and commenting on the\nopinions of various philosophers he proceeds to give his own views\nregarding these appearances. The lightning flash (_fulguratio_) he\nlooks upon as fire widely spread out, the thunderbolt (_fulmen_) as\nfire condensed and hurled with violence (66). The difference between\nthe two is in force rather than character; a flash is a bolt without\nstrength enough to reach the earth, while a thunderbolt is lightning\nin its most intense form (69). With regard to the origin of the fire\nhe points out that fire may be artificially produced in two ways:\neither by percussion, as when stones are struck; or by friction, as\nwhen two bits of wood are rubbed against each other. He thinks that\nprobably in both of these ways clouds may emit fire, and that in the\nviolence of storms a source of energy is supplied whereby the warm or\nsmoky exhalations from the earth may be kindled and fall with a fierce\nglow to the earth (70, 101). These exhalations contain dry and moist\nbodies, to which heavier elements may be added. A combination of such\nmaterials will form a thicker and more solid cloud than one of pure\nair, and such a cloud may burst with a loud report (78). There can be\nno peal of thunder unless the hollow clouds are broken up with great\nviolence (76). The characteristic path of the thunderbolt is determined\nby the oblique current of air in which, while the natural tendency of\nthe fire is upward, the violence of its discharge presses it downwards\nand compels it to take up a zig-zag course. The peculiar ozone odour\nnoticed during thunderstorms, and long popularly known as the smell of\nsulphur, is alluded to by Seneca (69, 97) and by Lucretius.[111]\n\n [111] Similar views on thunder and lightning are expressed in the _De\n Rerum Natura_:\n\n semina quod nubes ipsas permulta necessust\n ignis habere.--vi. 206.\n\n post ubi conminuit vis eius et impetus acer,\n tum perterricrepo sonitu dat scissa fragorem.--_Ibid._ 128.\n\n ... notaeque gravis halantis sulpuris auras.--_Ibid._ 221.\n\n\nThe discussion of these subjects leads on to a disquisition on the\nportents that may be drawn from different kinds of thunder and various\nforms of lightning. Seneca infers from the effects produced by it that\nlightning possesses an inherent divine power. Among these effects he\nenumerates some in which he seems to have thoroughly believed, such,\nfor instance, as the smashing of a wine jar already quoted, and the\nfreezing of the wine for the space of three days thereafter. He is\nthus disposed to attach credit to the opinion that future events are\nforetold by both lightning and thunder. Yet he cannot change his Stoic\nfaith that fate, that is, the necessity for the happening of all things\nand all actions, can be set aside by no force, can be altered by no\nportents, nor averted by any prayer or sacrifice. Though he admits that\nvows and supplications may be useful to the worshippers, he knows that\neven these also are included in the decrees of fate.\n\nThese reflections lead the philosopher to a characteristic peroration\non the moral lessons to be derived from the subjects he has been\ndiscussing. From the dangers incident to thunderstorms he passes to\nthe enforcement of the Stoic doctrine that death must be despised, and\neverything which leads to death will then cease to have any terror.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III\n\n\nThe subjects comprised in this section of the treatise have reference\nchiefly to the springs and rivers which appear on the surface of the\nearth or flow underneath it. The Book begins with a preface, which\nmay have been originally designed to stand at the beginning of the\nvolume. It bears internal evidence of having probably been written at\nthe time of the author\u2019s resolve to take up the discussion of physical\nproblems, as it speaks of old age pressing upon him and leaving him but\na short while to cover the immense field which he wished to survey. The\nyears lost among vain pursuits must be repaired by diligence in the\ntask now undertaken; night must be added to day, and every social or\nbusiness care which can possibly be set aside must be abandoned. The\ncontemplation of the work before him then leads the philosopher into\nhis moralising mood, wherein he inquires what should be the principal\nobject of human life, concluding with the reflection that the best\nthing a man can set before himself, among the ups and downs of this\nworld, is courage to accept them calmly and to be ready to meet death\nboldly whenever summoned. To the acquisition of such a courage a\ncontemplation of nature will greatly conduce.\n\nSeneca begins his discussion of the various forms of water by grouping\nthem into two chief classes, standing in collected sheets, as in lakes,\nor running in channels, as rivers above ground and springs underneath.\nAfter a brief enumeration of various qualities of water, he inquires\nwhence the vast volume of water comes that is carried down by rivers\nto the sea, and how it happens that neither is the earth sensible of\nthis daily loss, nor does the ocean show any perceptible gain. He\nmerely notices the opinion which some philosophers had expressed that\nthe sea does not get larger because it restores to the earth as much\nwater as it receives, allowing its own saline water to sink through\nendless subterranean winding passages wherein it is purged of its\nsaltness and rises on the land as pure fresh water.[112] Another view,\nthat most of the water supplied by rain eventually finds its way into\nthe rivers, is approximately that at which modern research has arrived,\nbut it meets with our philosopher\u2019s strong opposition. His first\nobjection is derived from his own observation. He tells us that, as a\ndiligent digger among his vines, he can confidently affirm that even\nthe heaviest rain does not penetrate to a depth of more than ten feet\nfrom the surface. What is not absorbed by the upper crust of the ground\nruns at once into river channels, and thence into the sea. He next\nasks how rain, which immediately flows off the surface of naked rocks,\ncan possibly be the source of the springs and rivers that issue from\nbare crags, or how springs that appear on the very summit of mountains\ncan be due to rain. Though he could not but be aware of the close\nconnection everywhere observable between evaporation, rainfall, and the\nvolume of springs and rivers, he does not seem to have reflected on\nits meaning--how in seasons of drought the surface waters fail first,\nhow by degrees the springs begin to lessen and even to cease, how the\nrivers dwindle until in many cases their beds become almost or quite\ndry, and yet how, when welcome rains set in, the springs and rivers\ngradually resume the bulk they had before the dry weather impoverished\nthem. He had made no study of the way in which rain percolates through\nthe soil, subsoil, and rocks underneath, though there are places, such\nas his vineyard may have been, where, from some impervious material,\nonly a feeble or inappreciable flow of moisture descends beyond a few\nfeet from the surface. Nor was he aware of the innumerable lines of\njoint by which the most solid rocks are traversed, and which serve\nas passages for the descent and ascent of water. Had he climbed many\nmountains, he would have failed to find a spring on the summit of any\none of them, unless there had been a sufficient area of higher ground\nat hand to serve for the supply of the water.\n\n [112] This is the view expressed by Lucretius:\n\n ... ut in mare de terris venit umor aquai,\n in terras itidem manare ex aequore salso;\n percolatur enim virus, retroque remanat\n materies umoris et ad caput amnibus omnis\n confluit, inde super terras redit agmine dulci.\n --_De Rer. Nat._ vi. 633.\n\n\nThe origin of underground water is regarded by Seneca as due to\nthree causes. The earth itself contains moisture which it forces out\nat the surface; it includes also air which in the darkness of the\nsubterranean wintry cold is condensed into moisture; by the principle\nof interchangeability, whereby one element passes into another, the\nearth in its interior resolves itself into moisture. If it be urged\nthat the rivers are too vast to draw their supplies from these sources,\nthe ready answer comes that the internal reservoir is quite spacious\nenough for the purpose, and that it might as well be matter of surprise\nthat, with all the winds that constantly blow, the supply of air does\nnot fail, or that a single wave of the sea should be left to follow\nso many breakers. If the questioner, still unsatisfied, should demand\nto know how water is produced, he is met with the query how air is\nproduced on earth. There are in nature four elements, and he is not\nentitled to ask where one of them comes from. Each is a fourth part of\nnature, and it is obvious that what has an element as its source cannot\nfail. Hence the philosopher in pronouncing water to be an element has\ngiven it enough, and more than enough, of strength. In short, rain may\ngive rise to a torrent, but not a river flowing steadily between its\nbanks. Heavy rains will swell such a river, but cannot produce it.\n\nHaving, as he believed, cleared the ground in this way, Seneca proceeds\nto consider the distribution of water within the earth. He opines that\nas in our body, so in the earth, there are channels by which both air\nand liquids flow. He states his conviction that the earth contains not\nonly veins of water, but also large streams, and in a later part of the\nvolume he speaks of both underground rivers, huge lakes, and a hidden\nsea from which rivers at the surface are supplied (154, 233, 235).\nHe is aware that some of these subterranean reservoirs contain fish,\nabout which he has some incredible tales to tell. He makes mention\nof rivers that sink underground and reappear, as if a matter for\ngreat astonishment. But examples of it may be found in many limestone\ndistricts, where the solution of the rock by underground water has\ngiven rise to tunnels, passages, and caverns into which, when their\nroofs give way, surface streams may be engulfed, to break out again\nfrom other openings at lower levels (141). The author concludes this\npart of his argument by asking if anybody is ignorant that there are\nsome standing waters which have no bottom, whence, he contends, it is\nshown that this water is the perpetual source of large rivers.\n\nThe various kinds of taste possessed by natural waters are then\ndiscussed, and some marvellous illustrations are given of their\neffects. Allusion is made to medicinal springs, to petrifying\nwaters, to some with extraordinary dyeing properties, and to others\nwith neither taste nor smell, but rapidly fatal to the drinker by\nimmediately hardening and binding the intestines. Reference is also\nincluded to certain kinds of springs, of which the volcanic tracts of\nItaly supply good examples. Such were those which killed visitors who\npeered down into the caverns where their waters lurk, and suffocated\nbirds that flew over them. Doubtless many tales were told of the\neffects of such emanations of carbonic acid gas, like that of the\nGrotto del Cane which, near Naples, still preserves their classic\nreputation (134, 261). Again, the same volcanic districts furnished\ninstances of warm, sometimes even boiling, springs, and in alluding to\nthem the author quotes the opinion of Empedocles, who was doubtless\nfamiliar with them in Sicily. To complete his record of marvels, the\nauthor cites some lakes on which islands float to and fro, of which\ngood illustrations, due to a matted growth of vegetation, were then\nwell known in the Vadimonian Lake (Lago di Bassano),[113] and he\nmentions other lakes in which he had equal faith, with water so heavy\nthat brickbats would float upon it, and nothing, however heavy, not\neven hard solid stones, would go to the bottom.\n\n [113] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ ii. 96. Pliny the Younger, _Epist._ viii.\n 20.\n\nSeneca is inclined to agree with some philosophers that certain rivers\nof peculiar and inexplicable character were created along with the\nworld, and he specially cites the Danube and Nile as examples, these\nvast streams being too remarkable to have had the same origin as other\nrivers. Accordingly he reserves the Nile for consideration in a later\npart of his volume (166). There is another kind of water which, with\nhis Stoic brethren, he places at the beginning of the world--the great\nocean and every sea that flows from it between the lands. Yet he found\nno place in any part of the treatise for a discussion of the phenomena\nof the ocean.\n\nThe Book closes with a vivid description of the probable catastrophe\nby which the end of the world will be brought about. That the present\ncondition of things will be swept away to make room for another and\nbetter race of men he assumes as a matter of certainty, and he tries\nto picture by what physical means the destruction will probably be\neffected. He is certain that it will be by no one agency, but that\nall the energies of the world will be called forth to compass the\ndestruction of the human race, nothing being difficult to nature,\nespecially when she is hurrying towards her end. The picture which\nis given of the progress of the great deluge forms by far the\nmost striking piece of writing in the volume. It ends somewhat\ninartistically in some gibing criticism of a quotation from Ovid. But\nthe poetic afflatus had not been quite quenched. The author immediately\nreturns to the subject in the succeeding and final chapters, and after\nenumerating the different agencies that may be called out to effect the\ndestruction of the world, he draws a lurid scene when a single day will\nsee the burial of the whole human race.[114] After this act of divine\nwrath has been accomplished, the waters will disappear below ground,\nthe sea will retire to its own abode, and on the renovated earth every\nanimal will be created afresh, and a new race of men will be installed,\nignorant of sin and born under better auspices.\n\n [114] So Lucretius:\n\n ... maria ac terras caelumque--\n una dies dabit exitio.\n --_De Rer. Nat._ v. 92, 94.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV\n\n\nThis section of the treatise begins with a denunciation of flattery\nand ends with another against luxury. Neither the preface nor the\nconcluding chapter have any obvious connection with the text between\nthem. It is curious to note that while Seneca here warns his friend\nLucilius against flatterers, and inculcates how their approaches are\nto be met, he himself in this very volume perpetrates four pieces of\nflattery to the despicable but all-powerful Nero. He quotes a prosaic\nline from a poem of the emperor\u2019s, which he characterises as \u201cmost\nelegant\u201d (_disertissime_, 25). He refers to Nero as most devoted to\ntruth as well as to the other virtues (235); he refers to the advent\nof a comet which appearing in Nero\u2019s reign had redeemed these heavenly\nbodies from their evil repute (290), and he describes that reign\nas \u201cmost joyous\u201d (_laetissimus_, 294). The old courtier, so long\nhabituated to the language of flattery, was perhaps hardly conscious\nthat he was here making use of it, or he may naturally have reflected\nthat at a time when the emperor had ceased to bear him any good will,\nthe absence of the customary adulation might cause as much offence as\nif a direct insult were intended.\n\nWhen from his ethical lecture he turns to resume his physical\ndisquisitions, it is the mysterious Nile to which he devotes attention.\nAfter a brief contradiction of the statement of some philosophers that\nthe Nile and the Danube are similar in their characters, he enumerates\nsome of the well-known peculiarities of the river of Egypt. A problem\nwhich greatly exercised the minds of the philosophers of antiquity, and\nwhich has only been finally solved in our own day, was the cause of\nthe annual rise of the Nile on which the fertility of Egypt depended.\nSeneca says with justice that if the point of the river could be\nascertained where the rise begins the question would be settled. He\ndoes not appear to have known much about the river, for he believed\nthat the water is for the first time collected into a single channel at\nPhilae. In his account of that place and of the cataract there (168,\n169), he speaks of the river\u2019s egress from Ethiopia, and of deserts\nwhich are crossed by the trade route to the Red Sea. In a subsequent\npart of the treatise he gives the interesting and important information\nthat he had himself seen and conversed with two centurions who had\nbeen despatched by Nero to discover the source of the Nile (235). From\nthem he learnt that they had penetrated far into the heart of Africa,\nand had reached a region of illimitable marshes where the river was so\ncovered and impeded with vegetation that neither on foot nor by boat\ncould it be ascended. There can be no doubt that these enterprising\nexplorers had come to the _sudd_, which in recent years has been found\nso serious an impediment to navigation. They informed Seneca that in\nthe marsh region they had seen with their own eyes \u201ctwo rocks from\nwhich an enormous body of the river came out.\u201d There are apparently no\nrocks along the course of the Nile in the present marsh region, which\nis a vast flat, and it is therefore difficult to conjecture to what\nthe two military surveyors allude. Possibly they saw the mouth of some\naffluent of the main stream such as the Khor Adar, or the _sudd_ may\nhave extended further north than it does now.\n\nSeneca\u2019s account of the Nile derived from travellers and previous\nwriters gives a clear summary of what was then known about the river,\nbut of more interest is his discussion of the opinions that had been\npropounded before his time as to the cause of the annual rise. He\nfirst quotes the view of Anaxagoras, shared by the Greek tragedians\nand widely accepted, that this rise was due to the melting of snow on\nthe uplands of Ethiopia. This idea he cogently combats by adducing\nvarious kinds of evidence of the great warmth of the climate in those\nsouthern regions. Some of these proofs, indeed, are exaggerations, as\nwhere he affirms that silver is unsoldered or melted. But one of his\nproofs, drawn from the habits of the animals of the country, is worthy\nof notice. He remarks that no hibernating creature is found there, and\nthat even in midwinter the serpent is seen above ground. He argues that\nin Africa, as in Europe, melting snow would swell the rivers in spring\nand early summer, whereas the Nile flood continues to rise later during\nfour months.\n\nIn a subsequent part of this treatise (235) allusion is made to an\nexplanation which had been given of the rise of the Nile, that it is\ndue not to the fall of rain from above but to the outflow of water\nfrom within the earth, and it is in connection with this opinion that\nhe cites the experience of Nero\u2019s two centurions above referred to, as\nif he were disposed to believe that what these explorers saw was really\na vast body of water issuing from underground.\n\nThe opinion of Thales is next criticised that the Etesian or northerly\nwinds drive the waters of the Mediterranean against the mouths of the\nNile and consequently pond back the waters of the river. This view was\nof course entirely erroneous, but though Seneca rejects it, he does not\nseem to have quite understood it, for he argues that, coming from the\nsame quarter as the winds, the Nile water should not have been turbid,\nbut clear and blue, like that of the sea. In commenting upon the futile\nsupport given by Euthymenes of Marseilles to the idea of Thales, Seneca\nthrows light on the wide extent to which the coasts of the outer sea\nhad then been made known by trading vessels.\n\nIn rejecting another explanation proposed by Oenopides of Chios, the\nauthor shows that he is aware of the fact that caves and wells are\nwarm in winter and cool in summer, and that he has partly divined the\nreason, when he states that in winter they are warm since they do not\nadmit the frosty air from without and in summer they feel cold because\nthe warm air from outside has not penetrated into their recesses. He\nreturns to this subject in Book VI. (241).[115]\n\n [115] The various ancient interpretations of the cause of the Nile\u2019s\n annual rise are succinctly given by Lucretius (_De Rer. Nat._ vi.\n 712\u201337), but he does not indicate a preference for any one in\n particular, though he devotes most space to the influence of the\n Etesian winds.\n\nAfter mentioning and dismissing a grotesque suggestion of Diogenes\nof Apollonia, Seneca suddenly drops the discussion of the Nile and\npasses on to the subject of hail. It is obvious that there is here a\nserious gap in the text. It is not probable that he meant to leave off\nhis examination into the probable sources of the Nile without stating\nhis own view of a matter which had been so long the subject of wonder\nand debate. Either, therefore, he never completed this section of his\ntreatise, or a portion of the work has been lost.\n\nThe remainder of Book IV. is taken up with a desultory discussion of\nthe subjects of hail and snow, written when the author must have been\nin a somewhat frivolous mood. He begins by telling Lucilius that if\nhe were to assert that hail is produced as ice is with us, a whole\ncloud being frozen, he would be rather audacious. So he will imitate\nthe chroniclers, who after they have told a great many lies, refuse\nto be responsible for some one statement, and refer for its truth\nto the authorities. If, therefore, his friend doubts his word, he\nwill call in Posidonius, who will tell him that hail is formed from a\nwatery cloud just turned into liquid. No teacher is needed to explain\nwhy pellets of hail are round, for all drops take that shape. Hail is\nnothing else than suspended ice, and snow is suspended hoar-frost.\nIn this light vein Seneca thinks he has finished the subject and\nmight dismiss it, but he cannot resist the temptation to continue the\npersiflage a little further. He quotes in a bantering style some of the\nopinions of his brother Stoics, and after this long preamble begins\nan inquiry into the distribution of density and temperature in the\natmosphere.\n\nIt would have been interesting had he seriously and fully stated what\nwas known or surmised on this last topic, but he dismisses it in three\nshort chapters. We learn from these that he regarded the air to be\ndensest next the earth, and that as all things retain heat better\nthe denser and more compact they are, so the air becomes less warm\nin proportion to its height (184).[116] The opinion of some persons,\nthat the air on mountain summits ought to be warmer because they are\nnearer the sun, is sagaciously controverted, and the insignificance\nof all inequalities on the surface of the earth in comparison with\nthe distance from the earth to the sun is forcibly expressed and\nillustrated.\n\n [116] This view hardly agrees with what is expressed in Book II. (60,\n 61), but it more accurately expresses the fact.\n\nThe subject of snow and hail is briefly reintroduced at the end of the\nBook, probably for the purpose of affording a convenient introduction\nto the invective against luxury which fills the concluding chapter. The\npreservation of snow in ice-houses, and its use in the reparation of\njaded appetites by cooling drinks, calls forth a denunciation of the\nyoung rakes of his day, which closes the discussion.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK V\n\n\nThe movements of the atmosphere form the subject of discussion in\nthis part of the treatise. In the first chapter the author seeks\nfor an exact definition of the term \u201cWind\u201d (_ventus_), and ends by\nadopting one which is obviously inaccurate--\u201cwind is air flowing in\none direction,\u201d--for as he afterwards speaks of whirlwinds he was\nwell aware that the movement may be in every direction, or vorticose.\nDismissing the opinion of Democritus as to the origin of wind, he\nstates that in his judgment wind may arise from four different causes.\nFirst; The earth itself breathes forth a vast amount of air from its\ninterior, where there are large rivers and lakes, and where the moist\nair naturally gives rise to blasts of wind. Second; Long-continued\nevaporation carries the terrestrial emanations aloft, where the\nintermingling of the breath results in wind. Third; Much more important\nis the fact that the air in its very constitution possesses an innate\npower of motion; we cannot imagine that while we ourselves are endowed\nwith a capacity of movement--and water has this power also--the\natmosphere should be left inert and immovable (197). Fourth; Sometimes\nthe sun is itself the cause of wind, when he loosens and expands the\nthick air (198).\n\nIn this enumeration allusion is made to one or two features of natural\nhistory which the author appears to accept as fact. He thinks there\nmust be some vital force in water, otherwise it could not bring forth\nanimals and plants, as we know it does. But not only water; fire, too,\nwhich devours everything, possesses this generative capacity, for,\nunlikely as it might be thought, it is nevertheless true that fire\ngives birth to some animals. The air, too, has some vital energy, as it\nalternately thickens, contracts, and expands, and rids itself of its\nimpurities. The portion of it contained within the earth is asserted\nin a later part of the volume to be the source of the life of the\nvegetation at the surface (244).\n\nThe local winds, now known as \u201cland and sea breezes,\u201d are next\ndiscussed (198). Instead of the simple explanation which in our own day\nhas shown these aerial currents to be beautiful examples of the results\nof diurnal variations of atmospheric pressure, the ancient theory\nrepresented that during the day the exhalations from the land are borne\non high to supply the sun with nourishment, while at night, as they are\nnot needed for that purpose, they accumulate until they have filled\nup a given space enclosed by mountains. When in such a space there is\nno more room, they move towards the quarter to which they can most\neasily escape; hence the wind. It is curious, however, to note that\nSeneca only describes the land breeze, which falls away as the morning\nadvances. He does not specially refer to the equally characteristic\nsea breeze, which springs up after the other dies down, and continues\nduring the day, until in the evening it is again replaced by the land\nbreeze.\n\nThe important Etesian or northerly winds, with all their important\nlocal modifications in the Mediterranean basin, must have been a\nsubject of constant observation to the Greeks and Romans. There was\na general belief that as these winds reappeared regularly in summer,\nthey were in some way connected with the position of the sun in the\nfirmament. Seneca, after briefly stating this opinion, dissents\nfrom it on the ground that, as the sun reduces the strength of the\nmorning or land breeze, it cannot be through his influence that the\nEtesian winds then begin to blow. But he does not explain how he would\nhimself account for their occurrence. They are now known to be further\nillustrations of the influence of atmospheric pressure. In summer, when\nthe hot region of the Sahara becomes a vast area of low pressure, the\nair streams into it from the north across the Mediterranean basin.\n\nThe account given of cloud winds (203) is an excellent illustration\nof the utter ignorance of the philosophers of antiquity of the very\nrudiments of meteorology, and, at the same time, of the confidence\nwith which they offered their explanations of the phenomena of the\natmosphere. Even now, after prolonged investigation, the laws that\nregulate the production of furious winds and gusts connected with\nclouds are far from being fully understood. The boldest meteorologist\nof to-day, with all his detailed experience, would hesitate to express\nhis opinion as dogmatically as is done in the text. The idea that air\naccumulating either above ground or below acquires a vast disruptive\nforce, obtained wide credence in early times. It was this pent-up\naccumulation which was supposed to burst clouds asunder and produce\nthunder-storms, while the same energy in caverns under ground led to\nearthquakes and the eruptions of volcanoes.\n\nThe occurrence of whirlwinds is explained by Seneca from the analogy\nof eddies in a river. As the water meets with impediments in its flow,\nit is driven back and made to whirl round before it can continue the\nonward current, so the wind, as long as it meets with no obstacle,\nsweeps on, but when it is thrown back by any projection in its course,\nor is collected together into a highly inclined narrow pipe, it whirls\nround upon itself like the eddies of a river. But the cause of the\nvorticose movement where there is no visible impediment is, of course,\nleft unaccounted for.\n\nIn the fifteenth chapter of this Book a story is told of Philip of\nMacedon, who sent down a party of miners to examine an old mine. The\nmen brought back to daylight a wonderful tale of vast caverns with high\nover-arching roofs, and filled with huge rivers and vast lakes. If the\nauthor\u2019s intention was to connect the spaciousness of these underground\nchambers with the operations of ancient miners, he was sadly mistaken,\nsince at no time has metal-mining led to the excavation of huge\ncaverns; on the contrary, it has always been pursued in narrow shafts\nand passages. If the report brought back to the king was veracious,\nhis emissaries had only come upon a series of natural grottos and\ntunnels, such as are of common occurrence in limestone districts, and\nwhich have no connection whatever with mining.[117] But the narrative\nserved Seneca\u2019s purpose, since it furnished him with the occasion\nfor a diatribe against the cursed love of gold, which had apparently\nbeen rampant in days long before those of Philip, and allowed him to\nsupply from his own imagination some additional lurid horrors of the\nunderground world.\n\n [117] It is possible that these ancient mines were driven in search\n of metal seams or veins traversing limestone, like those of lead\n among the caverned limestones of Derbyshire.\n\nWhen he gets back to his subject, he enters upon an enumeration of the\nvarious winds known to the ancients. He himself thinks that as the\nheavens are divided into twelve sections, so there are twelve distinct\nwinds, not all felt everywhere, but never exceeding that number. He\ndoes not attempt, however, to account for them. In his reference to\nthe names given to the various winds, he gives a quotation from Ovid\u2019s\n_Metamorphoses_, in which the more conspicuous winds from the different\nquarters are mentioned. To this quotation he adds a line from Virgil\u2019s\ngraphic picture of the storm in the first book of the _Aeneid_, where\nAeolus opens his cave and the south-east, south, and south-west winds\nrush out in fury upon the sea. Seneca remarks, in passing, that such a\ncollocation of winds as Virgil enumerates could never have happened in\na single tempest. The poet, however, has made no mistake. In a great\ncyclonic storm the wind veers round with the compass from south-east\nby south to south-west. And even if Virgil had added the north wind,\nwhich the philosopher says he left out, he would only have followed\nthe invariable course of the winds in the cyclones of the northern\nhemisphere, which circle round towards the north as the storm area is\npassing eastward.\n\nIn conclusion, the author points out the teleological significance\nof the winds, and is thence led to repeat the time-honoured reproach\nagainst human iniquity which turns the winds from their beneficent\nintention to purposes of war.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VI\n\n\nThis is, perhaps, the most valuable part of the volume, for it contains\nmore of the author\u2019s own observations than the rest of the work. It\ndeals more particularly with the great earthquake of 5th February\nA.D. 63, which occurred in his own country, and about which he could\ncollect information at first hand. As already mentioned, the subject\nof earthquakes had long fascinated him, and he had published, in his\nyouth, a volume about it. The calamity which brought so much injury\nto the towns of Campania was more especially likely to enlist his\nvivid interest, for the region that had been convulsed was with him a\nwell-known and favourite part of Italy, where he often came to spend,\non the shores of the Bay of Naples, such leisure as the life in Rome\nallowed him. Besides, it was the native district of Lucilius, to whom\nthe volume was addressed, and whose town of Pompeii had suffered\nfrom the shock.[118] Hence he here plunges at once into details of\nthe damage caused by this particular earthquake. As a prelude to his\ninquiry into the whole question of the origin of such catastrophes,\nhe indulges in reflections on their appalling nature. Some of the\nunfortunate residents in the convulsed district had fled from it,\nvowing never to return. But where, the writer asks, can they be sure\nof safety, seeing that no quarter of the world is exempt from this\nform of danger? He urges that it is at least some consolation to be\nassured that such calamities are not the work of angry gods, as was\npopularly believed, but are traceable to their own special causes in\nthe processes of nature (228).\n\n [118] In Seneca\u2019s letters, frequent reference is made to his visits\n to the district. He seems generally to have taken a villa at Baiae,\n or some adjacent place on that western part of the coast. He\n appears to have been a poor sailor, glad to make for the nearest\n landing-place between Baiae and Naples, so as to escape from the\n pangs of sea-sickness. On one of his excursions he revisited Pompeii,\n and was set into a reverie of his youth there. See his _Letters_, 49,\n 51, 53, 55, 57, 70, 77.\n\nHe then considers the various opinions entertained on this subject by\nearlier writers, which, on the whole, he regards as crude and inexact.\nThe cause of earthquakes had been found in water, fire, air, and the\nearth itself, or in a combination of several of these agencies, or even\nin the co-operation of the whole of them. As regards the action of\nwater, he dismisses the opinion of Thales (231), but in the statements\nof other authors, who maintain the power of internal water in causing\nearthquakes, he sees a greater probability of truth. He fully admits\nthe existence of large rivers and extensive lakes inside the earth, and\nthat in these dark uninhabited regions flooded rivers undermining their\nbanks, and a swollen sea lashed into fury by the subterranean winds,\nmay communicate shocks to the surface of the earth (234).\n\nThat fire is the origin of earthquakes had been held by various\nphilosophers, who, however, differed as to the manner in which the\nfire acts. Anaxagoras thought it was by explosions caused from the\ncollision of underground clouds (236); others held that the immense\nmass of vapour produced by the subterranean conflagrations as it\naccumulates may exert such a pressure as to disrupt all obstructions;\nor when the pressure is less may cause no more than a heaving of the\nsurface. The idea that the shock of an earthquake results from the\nremoval of material underneath, whereby the stability of the overlying\nportion is undermined, and a collapse of the ground ensues, was held in\nvarious forms. Some thought that this destruction arose from extensive\ncombustion within the earth. Anaximenes supposed that just as at the\nsurface, rocks and old buildings yield to the ravages of time and fall\ndown, so in the interior of the earth similar landslips may occur and\ncause shocks to the districts above them (237).[119]\n\n [119] The collapse of the roofs or sides of underground caverns may\n undoubtedly be in some instances the cause of local earthquakes. This\n origin is enforced by Lucretius:\n\n terra superne tremit magnis concussa ruinis,\n subter ubi ingentes speluncas subruit aetas.\n --_De Rer. Nat._ vi. 544.\n\nBut the favourite opinion of antiquity regarded earthquakes as\nprimarily due to the violent commotion of air. Seneca comments on the\nviews of various philosophers, and more especially Aristotle\u2019s, as to\nthe way in which the air acts, and he then proceeds to deliver his own\njudgment. He has no doubt that, though some of the other agencies may\nco-operate, the chief motive force in earthquakes is air. By no part\nof nature, he affirms, is such violent energy displayed as by air; it\nkindles fire, tosses the surface of the waters into waves, destroys\nlarge tracts of the earth, uplifts new mountains, and raises in the\nmidst of the sea islands never seen before. Not only does air exist\nabove ground, but it also fills the hollows and interstices of the\ninterior of the earth, into which it freely enters from the surface.\nNothing in nature is so restless as air, and the earth cannot but be\naffected by the movements of the air included in its inside. The author\nagrees with the general opinion that when the air begins to be agitated\nin a subterranean cavern which it has filled, pressed by that which is\nstill entering, it struggles to escape, and, when it does so, emerges\nwith a violence proportionate to the narrowness of the passage for\nits exit. But if unable to make its way out, it becomes furious, acts\nlike a swollen impetuous river, and that overthrows everything in its\npath.[120]\n\n [120] Lucretius gives a picturesque recital of these views (_De Rer.\n Nat._ vi. 535\u2013607).\n\nIt is not difficult to realise how this explanation should have been\naccepted in antiquity, and should have held its ground down even into\nmodern times. The violence of the commotions of the atmosphere was a\nfamiliar feature on the surface of the earth, although its physical\ncauses, variously guessed at, were utterly unknown. To minds that had\nno conception of the very rudiments of meteorology, there seemed to\nbe no reason why air inside the earth should not be affected by as\nviolent hurricanes as the air outside. And as such hurricanes were the\nmost powerful natural agencies known, their action was not unreasonably\ninvoked to account for the phenomena of earthquakes. Assuming that\nthe air in a large subterranean cavern would behave as the free open\natmosphere does, the old philosophers did not find themselves under the\nnecessity of explaining what was to set the air in motion within the\nsubterranean recesses and lash it into fury there, any more than they\nhad to account for tempests above ground.\n\nObviously, if the air found its way from the outside into the internal\nparts of the earth, it must have had equal facilities for egress. And\nin the convulsions of an earthquake it might be supposed to issue with\nviolence through some of the previous openings or from the rents made\nat the time. In corroboration of the truth of the prevalent opinion, it\nwas asserted that after an earthquake air was found to issue from the\nground, but no account appears to have been preserved of any violent\noutrush of air. As a further evidence that it is to the force of air\nthat all these internal disturbances are due, the author remarks that\nafter a violent earthquake another shock of equal violence cannot\noccur, because the first has opened a passage for the struggling winds.\n\nThe progress of investigation has, in modern times, thrown a flood of\nlight on the phenomena of earthquakes, though there still remain many\nproblems in the subject which await solution. It is needless to say\nthat no foundation whatever has been found for the ancient faith that\nthe air plays the chief part in these subterranean commotions.\n\nSeneca discusses the nature of earthquake motion. He recognises three\nkinds of movement--quaking (_succussio_), tilting (_inclinatio_),\nand trembling (_vibratio_)--and he gives illustrations of the kind\nof causes to which they may be referred (252). He believes that the\nextent of country convulsed by an earthquake depends upon the area of\nthe subterranean cavern in which the wind performs its exploits, and\nas these internal cavities do not continuously underlie vast tracts of\nthe earth\u2019s surface, no large spaces of that surface are simultaneously\nshaken. In his day there appears to have been no record of a shock\naffecting the whole basin of the Mediterranean Sea. He thinks that no\nearthquake ever extends as much as two hundred miles. He cites the\nrecent calamity in Campania, which did not pass beyond that district,\nthough marvellous tales about it had spread far and near, and he gives\nother examples of the markedly local character of the phenomena, so\nfar as then known. He affirms that maritime districts are those most\nfrequently shaken (255, 257), in proof of which he gives various\ninstances, including the late disaster to Pompeii and Herculaneum in a\nregion which had never been known to be shaken before.\n\nHe had received information about the Campanian shock, and the\nnarrative in which he embodies it has the interest of being the most\ndetailed account of an earthquake that has come down to us from\nantiquity. First of all, as already mentioned, he states that the\nmovement was confined to the district of Campania, no mention being\nmade of its having been felt even so near as Rome. He notices the\ninjury done to Herculaneum and to Naples by the damage of public and\nprivate buildings; bronze statues were split open and some people\nwere driven out of their minds. He records that Campania continued\nto tremble for some days after the great shock. He had heard that a\nflock of six hundred sheep was said to have been killed near Pompeii.\nAccepting the report as true, he sees no reason to suppose that the\nanimals died of fright, but thinks it not unlikely that they were\npoisoned by the ascent of pestilential vapours from the ground. This\nconjecture of his receives perhaps some support from the fact that\nin this volcanic district, after an eruption of Vesuvius, so much\ncarbonic acid gas has been said to escape from the ground as to\nsuffocate hundreds of hares, pheasants, and partridges. But the most\nvivid experience of the earthquake which he narrates is that of a grave\nphilosophic friend who, when in his bath, saw the tiles of the floor\nseparate from each other, allowing the water to sink through the opened\njoints, while the next moment, as the pavement closed again, the water\nwas forced out all bubbling. A better illustration of the transit of a\nwave of shock could not be desired.\n\nSeneca was prepared to believe that great changes had been wrought by\nearthquakes on the face of the land. He cites in support of this view\nsome remarkable examples which had occurred within the times of human\nhistory, such as the sinking of the towns of Buris and Helice, the\ndisappearance wholly or partially of the island of Atalanta, and the\nsubsidence of Sidon (256). He refers also to various striking features\nof landscape in different regions which had been popularly assigned to\nthe work of earthquakes, such as the separation of Ossa and Olympus,\nthe disruption of Sicily from the Italian shore, and the severance of\nSpain from the continent of Africa (263).\n\nThat the phenomena of earthquakes are closely connected with those of\nvolcanoes was the general belief in antiquity, and continued to be\naccepted up to the middle of last century. It was believed in early\ndays that just as the collision of clouds during storms produces the\nfire seen in lightning, so during the tempestuous agitation of the air\nwithin the earth, such heat is generated as to set fire to beds of\nsulphur or other combustible materials, and thus that rocks are melted\nand are forced up to the surface by the vast energy of the escaping\nair.[121] It is to be regretted that Seneca has not left an account of\nhis own opinions on this subject, but from the allusions in the present\ntreatise he may be inferred to have held the prevalent opinion. He\nalludes in various passages to volcanic eruptions that had taken place\nin his own time, or not long before, in the Mediterranean basin. An\neruption of Etna is briefly noticed, when the mountain was in violent\neruption, ejecting such a quantity of fine burning sand and dust as\nto turn day into night, accompanied with much thunder and lightning\n(77). This may have been the eruption alluded to in similar language by\nCicero, who adds that for two days nobody could see his neighbour.[122]\nSeneca further cites two eruptions in the Aegean Sea, one of which had\ntaken place in his own time, when a new island was upraised \u201cby the\nforce of air.\u201d He alludes to Thera and Therasia, and the interesting\naccount given by Posidonius of the uprise of an island in the same sea,\nwith attendant circumstances closely resembling those of the eruptions\nat Santorin in modern times (73, 252). According to Asclepiodotus, the\nfire, after overcoming the resistance of the thick mass of sea, shot up\nabove sea-level to a height of two hundred paces.\n\n [121] This view of the nature of volcanic energy is graphically\n expressed by Lucretius (_op. cit._ vi. 639\u2013702).\n\n [122] _De Nat. Deor._ ii. 38. See also Lucretius (_ib._ vi. 641), who\n describes the more conspicuous features of an eruption, and concludes\n with the line\n\n ne dubites quin haec animai turbida sit vis (693).\n\n\nFrom a consideration of the causes of earthquakes the author is led\nby his accustomed train of thought to draw the ethical lessons which\nthe subject suggested to him. He repeats his belief that against the\nperils of earthquakes, as against all the other dangers and fears of\nlife, the only assurance is to be obtained from elevating studies and\na contemplation of nature (265). It matters not when or in what form\nwe shall quit life, whether from some trifle or from a world-wide\ncatastrophe. To be happy without fear of anything that may befall us,\nwe must carry our life in our hands, steeling ourselves against fear,\nand prepared even to welcome death as the advent of a friend.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VII\n\n\nAfter a brief introduction, marked by no little elegance and literary\nskill, the author introduces the subject of the heavenly bodies, and\nmore especially of Comets which he is to discuss in this Book. He\nproposes at the outset to endeavour to ascertain whether the earth\nstands still while the universe revolves round it, or if it is the\nuniverse that remains at rest while the earth revolves. But he is led\non from one topic to another, without having arrived at a definite\nsolution of this problem when the volume comes to an end. From various\nexpressions, however, it may be inferred that he adhered to the\nprimitive belief that it is the universe which goes round the earth.\nThus in Chapter IX. he speaks of the movement that drags the universe\nalong and asks what is swifter than that revolution (281). The heavenly\nbodies may not stand or turn aside, they all move onward with the\nirrevocable movement of this eternal creation (299).\n\nThe opinions of various philosophers on comets are quoted and\ncriticised. He is especially severe in his comments on Epigenes, who\nthought that comets are produced somewhat as fires are excited by\nwhirlwinds. The Greek threefold classification of comets is cited, and\nthen Artemidorus comes in for his share of vituperation; to disprove\nhis theory of the firmament being a solid roof to the world would be,\nin the author\u2019s opinion, nothing but beating the air. Ephorus fares no\nbetter, being briefly dismissed as often deceiving and often deceived.\nApollonius of Myndus held that many comets are distinct planetary\nbodies, which wax and wane like the planets, being brightest when\nthey are nearest us and growing dimmer as they recede to a greater\ndistance. But Seneca refuses to admit that they have the character of\ntrue planets; in his view they are insubstantial irregular fire (291).\nBut he does not agree with his Stoic brethren in regarding them as\ngenerated in dense air and pursuing their course according to where\nthey can find fuel to sustain them (292\u20134). He conceives that they are\nnot mere sudden and transient fires, but belong to the eternal works\nof nature. They steadily traverse their course, and he can understand\nthat they may have such wide orbits as to carry them far beyond the\nlimits of the Zodiac (296). He can see no reason why the five planets\nthen known should be the only stars that move across the sky, though\nothers had not yet been discovered. Astronomy, he remarks, is in its\ninfancy, many mysteries of nature remain still to be discovered, and\nthe day will come when posterity will marvel at our ignorance of things\nwhich will then appear to be so evident. Some future observer will\ndemonstrate the paths of the comets, why they wander so far from the\nother stars, and what is their size and constitution. We may be content\nwith what we have found out, and leave something for posterity to\ndiscover.\n\nIn a tone of sad pessimism he brings his volume to a close. From a\ncontemplation of the glories that might be achieved by mankind in\nsearching out the marvels of creation he turns to his own age and his\nown country, only to see on every side proofs of decadence. No one now\ncared for the pursuit of wisdom. Philosophy and every liberal study\nwere neglected. The schools of philosophy were dying. If his countrymen\neven now would set themselves with all their energy to the task, if the\nyoung would give their sober attention and the elders would teach them,\nthey would scarcely succeed in reaching the bottom of the well in which\ntruth lies. Meanwhile they were searching merely on the surface of the\nground and with but a slack hand.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES BY TRANSLATOR\n\n\u201cAIR\u201d\n\n\nThe word \u201cair\u201d occurs in the text over 200 times, but not always as\na translation of the same Latin word. With a term so elastic and\nso ambiguous it would have been mere pedantry to attempt a uniform\nrendering; and indeed such uniform rendering would have been more\nmisleading than the course adopted of rendering according to the\ncontext, which the idiom of our language seemed to demand.\n\nSeneca has two main terms for air--_a\u00ebr_ and _spiritus_. _A\u00ebr_\nmeans, generally speaking, either air generically, or the atmosphere\nspecifically. _Spiritus_, on the other hand, denotes air under certain\nconditions of tension, or strain, or pressure, when it is capable\nof exerting force or violence; to its influence are attributed many\neffects due in reality to gases, or other causes. On p.\u00a052, l. 1, we\nhave the definition \u201cair (_spiritus_) is the atmosphere (_a\u00ebr_) in\nviolent motion\u201d; and on p.\u00a0205 the concluding words of V. xiii. are\n\u201cair differs from wind in degree alone. A more violent air is a wind;\nair in turn is gently flowing atmosphere,\u201d where again _spiritus_ is\n\u201cair\u201d and _a\u00ebr_ \u201catmosphere.\u201d\n\nAgain, in the _Aetna_, l. 212, we read, \u201cThe winds when inflated\nare called _spirit_; when in subsidence, _air_\u201d (Professor Ellis\u2019s\ntranslation), where the same terms _spiritus_ and _a\u00ebr_ are\nemployed.[123]\n\n [123] For a discussion of the meaning of the term _spiritus_ and the\n parallelisms in its use by Seneca and the author of the _Aetna_, see\n Professor Ellis\u2019s edition of that poem, Prolegomena, pp. xl-xliii.\n\nNow if our author had been consistent in the use of the words, there\nwould have been a strong case for a uniform adoption of \u201cair\u201d and\n\u201catmosphere,\u201d whenever they occurred. But numerous passages might be\ncited to show that he interchanges the words without apparent motive,\njust as we do \u201cair\u201d and \u201catmosphere.\u201d For example, on p.\u00a069, l. 2, \u201cSo\nfire will pass into air (_spiritus_),\u201d while on p.\u00a071, l. 9, \u201cthe air\n(_a\u00ebr_), which is interchangeable with fire.\u201d Again, on p.\u00a075, l. 6,\n\u201cWhen the clouds have enclosed air\u201d (_spiritus_); l. 26, \u201catmosphere\n(_a\u00ebr_) shut up in a hollow cloud.\u201d A still more conclusive case,\nthough the passage is probably in other respects corrupt, occurs in the\nlast sentence of c. xxix. p.\u00a077, where the first \u201cair\u201d is _spiritus_,\nthe second, a mere synonym or variant, is _a\u00ebr_. Cf. p.\u00a0187, l. 27, and\nthe passages cited below from pp.\u00a0245, 249, 251, 259, 260.\n\nThe translator has little choice. He must follow his author, and,\nwhere the latter makes a distinction, must endeavour to reproduce it;\notherwise he must, as the author did, observe the idiom of his own\nlanguage.\n\nIn accordance with this principle _a\u00ebr_ is usually translated\n\u201catmosphere,\u201d and _spiritus_ \u201cair\u201d; but circumstances have rendered\nunavoidable a considerable number of exceptions.\n\nThe discussion of phenomena in which air plays a part is contained\nchiefly in Books II. and VI., and here the distinction of terms in\nEnglish has been, so far as practicable, maintained. In Book II. \u201cair\u201d\nis a translation of _a\u00ebr_ about a dozen of times out of a total of over\nfifty times that \u201cair\u201d occurs, and in Book VI. about half a dozen out\nof a total of nearly seventy.\n\nThe following is a list of the places in which \u201cair\u201d translates _a\u00ebr_:--\n\nBook I. throughout.\n\nBook II. pp. 56, ll. 20, 21; 57, ll. 17, 22; 58, l. 3; 59, l. 26; 61,\nl. 18; 66, l. 12; 71, l. 9; 72, l. 22; 77, 1. 17; 98, l. 26; 101, l. 28.\n\nBook III. pp. 120, ll. 8, 9 (four times); 121, ll. 11\u201320 (five times);\n123, l. 28; 129, l. 3; 134, ll. 26, 28; 135, l. 1; 140, l. 29.\n\nBook IV. pp. 176, ll. 6, 9; 184, l. 2; 186, l. 16.\n\nBook V. pp. 195, l. 32; 196, l. 7; 198, l. 3; 199, l. 16; 202, l. 6;\n205, l. 11; 206, l. 3; 211, ll. 14, 20.\n\nBook VI. pp. 245, l. 28; 249, l. 10; 251, ll. 8, 9; 259, l. 7; 260, ll.\n26, 29.\n\nBook VII. throughout, with _three exceptions_, viz. pp.\u00a0277, l. 26;\n279, l. 16; 281, l. 4.\n\nIn a few cases \u201cair\u201d occurs as a more explicit representation of a\npronoun or an adjective which implies it: in these instances the\ncontext is generally a sufficient guide. _Spiritus_, too, has sometimes\nquite a different rendering, _e.g._ breath.\n\nOn pp. 111, 139, 152, \u201cair\u201d is used of a very slight breeze, the very\ngentlest breath of wind, and represents _aura_--a good illustration of\nthe ambiguity of language.\n\n\n\n\nQUOTATIONS\n\n\nSeneca is fond of illustrating his subject by passages from the\npoets. His favourites are Virgil and Ovid, and only once does he\nquote Lucretius, whose work was much more analogous to his own.\nThe quotations are apparently from memory and betray occasional\ninaccuracies, as even the best memories will.\n\nThe following is a list of the references:--\n\nBook I. Pref., 8 (p. 6). Virg. _Aen._ iv. 404.\n\n i. 4 (10). Virg. _Aen._ v. 528.\n\n iii, 4 (17). Ovid, _Metamorp._ vi. 65. 7.\n\n v. 6 (25). Nero in an unknown poem: one or two other tags of that\n versatile tyrant have been preserved.\n\n vi. 1 (28). Virg. _Georg._ i. 380. 1.\n\n xi. 2 (35). Virg. _Georg._ ii. 95. 6.\n\n xiv. 2 (38). Virg. _Georg._ i. 367. (cf. VII. xx. 1).\n\n xvii. 5 (45). Virg. _Eclog._ ii. 25. 6.\n\nBook II. i. 2 (51). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 55.\n\n xliv. 1 (91). Ovid, _Metamorp._ iii. 305\u20137.\n\nBook III. Pref., 3 (109). Origin unknown: a somewhat similar sentiment\n occurs in _Aetna_, 24.\n\n i. 1 (114). Ovid, _Metamorp._ iii. 407.\n\n i. 1 (114). Virg. _Aen._ i. 245. 6.\n\n i. 1 (114). Lucilius, to whom the _Q.N._ was addressed. If he was the\n author of _Aetna_, as seems not improbable, he may have\n written other poems on Sicilian topography.\n\n xx. 2 (133). Ovid, _Metamorp._ xv. 313. 4 (cf. _Ibid._ xi. 3 _sqq._).\n\n xx. 4 (134). Ovid, _Metamorp._ xv. 321.\n\n xx. 5 (134). Ovid, _Metamorp._ xv. 330. 1.\n\n xxvi. 3 (142). Ovid, _Metamorp._ xv. 273\u20136.\n\n xxvi. 5 (142). Virg. _Eclog._ x. 4. 5.\n\n xxvii. 12 (147). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 292.\n\n xxvii. 12 (147). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 304.\n\n xxvii. 13 (148). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 285. 290.\n\n xxviii. 2 (148). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 272.\n\nBook IV. Pref., 17 (165). Virg. _Aen._ iv. 373.\n\n Pref., 17 (165). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 241. 2.\n\n ii. 2 (168). Tib. _Eleg._ I. vii. 26.\n\n iii. 3 (178). Ovid, _Ars Amat._ i. 475. 6.\n\n iii. 3 (178). Lucret. _De Rerum Nat._ i. 313.\n\n iv. 2 (179). Virg. _Georg._ i. 313.\n\nBook V. i. 1 (193). Virg. _Eclog._ ii. 26.\n\n xiv. 1 (206). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 388.\n\n xvi. 1 (208). Ovid, _Metamorp._ i. 61\u20136.\n\n xvi. 2 (209). Virg. _Aen._ i. 85.\n\nBook VI. ii. 1 (225). Virg. _Aen._ ii. 354.\n\n ii. 8 (227). Both quotation and author are doubtful: another reading\n attributes the poem to A. Gellius.\n\n xiii. 5 (241). Virg. _Aen._ vi. 256.\n\n xvii. 1 (246). Virg. _Aen._ viii. 728.\n\n xviii. 1 (247). Virg. _Aen._ i. 55. 6.\n\n xviii. 3 (248). Virg. _Aen._ i. 53. 4.\n\n xxii. 3 (253). Virg. _Aen._ viii. 525.\n\n xxvi. 2 (258). Virg. _Aen._ iii. 77.\n\n xxix. 3 (262). Virg. _Aen._ iii. 414\u20139.\n\nBook VII. x. 1 (282). Ovid, _Metamorp._ ii. 71.\n\n xx. 1 (292). Virg. _Georg._ i. 367 (cf. I. xiv. 2).\n\n xx. 3 (293). Virg. _Aen._ ix. 20. 1.\n\n xxv. 1 (298). Virg. _Georg._ i. 137.\n\n xxviii. 1 (302). Virg. _Georg._ i. 392.\n\n xxviii. 1 (302). Virg. _Georg._ i. 362.\n\n\n\n\nSOME OF GERCKE\u2019S READINGS\n\n\n Rendering in the Text. Translation of Gercke\u2019s Text.\n\n I. p. 5, \u00a77, the Strymon. the Danube and the Balkans.\n\n 8, 1, the explanation ... my opinion.\n Philosophy.\n\n 9, 2, such as ... answer which each knows the other\n me. cannot answer.\n\n 20, 10, an oar ... water. an oar is covered with\n shallow water and presents\n a broken appearance.\n\n 37, 1, _Bothynae_ (cave- _putei_ (well-like...).\n like...).\n\n 40, 3, one has seen ... what is struck by them we\n (= star-struck). call smitten with a flash,\n that is, struck without\n lightning-bolt, what the\n Greeks call \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\n (= star-struck).\n\n 40, 4, of which more anon. of which we have spoken.\n\n 41, 7, For we judge ... But we judge that it is the\n foreign body. deceptive appearance of\n a mirror, which merely\n gives a counterfeit repre-\n sentation of a foreign\n body.\n\n II. 51, 2, After \u201crain, snow,\u201d add \u201cwinds, earthquakes,\n lightnings.\u201d\n\n 56, 2, hold together as one be subject to tension.\n body.\n\n 63, 4, on account of ... when it has accumulated,\n clouds. is thrust violently upward\n by the massing of the\n clouds.\n\n 75, 2, and it might ... and which might with\n bladder. greater accuracy be called\n harsh, because it emits a\n sound like that heard\n when a bladder.\n\n 95, 2, a third neither. a third mixed, a fourth\n neither.\n\n 98, 1, (c. lv.) dry air. air in rapid motion.\n\n III. 122, 3, when trees are cut when trees are full of sap\n down. and not cut down.\n\n 123, 1, air is produced. Gercke places c. xiv. immediately\n after this.\n\n 132, 3, concealed throughout, after \u201cthroughout\u201d insert\n until. \u201cin others they run above\n ground for some distance.\u201d\n\n 142, 5, you have yourself ... you, my dear Lucilius, believe\n Virgil. the story as (I said)\n in the first part [of my\n book], and so does Virgil.\n\n 149, 4, nor do the waters, nor do the waters find this\n etc. a hard task since the sea\n mounts from an elevation\n equal to that of the earth\n (or land). If the heights\n be calculated (or if the\n average be taken over\n the heights), it will appear\n that the surface of the\n sea is of uniform level.\n\n IV. 161, 8, the stature ... the text and meaning are\n arena. somewhat conjectural.\n Gercke reads \u201cthe stature\n of an ape matched against\n a Thracian in the arena.\u201d\n For \u201cApollonius Pycta\u201d\n he reads \u201cA. the boxer.\u201d\n\n 173, 19, nor yet the Ca\u00ffstrus nor the Ca\u00ffstrus which lies\n ... deep. beneath Mount Tmolus\n increases in summer, and\n yet deep snow lies there\n constantly as is natural\n in those northern regions.\n \u201c_Tmolo_\u201d is an ingenious\n and probable emendation.\n\n IV. 186, 1, no one ... virtuous. by which one may become\n only more lettered and\n not more virtuous.\n\n VI. 232, 2, and, generally if the boats are unduly\n speaking ... sunk, the water uses the\n whole force of the burthens\n it upbears, in order\n either to pour over them,\n or at any rate to rise to\n an unwonted height to\n right and left.\n\n 244, (c. xv.) to hurry to blow where it lists.\n straight forward.\n\n 258, 2, philosophers. scholars, [or philologists].\n\n 265, 2, (c. xxxi.) soft mate- walls undergo more frequent\n rials ... hard. but more gentle shocks\n than the nature of hard\n material allows.\n\n VII. 296, 4, every star cannot but no star can traverse its\n the zodiac, then I say a\n comet may have a different\n kind of orbit and yet\n some point in it may coincide\n with the zodiac.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX TO THE \u201cQUAESTIONES NATURALES\u201d\n\n\n^_a_ prefixed to a name indicates authorities used by Seneca.\n\n\n ^_a_ Academy, 307. School and followers of Plato.\n\n Achaia, 142, 224, 225, 235, 288 (adj.), 303. District in N.W. of\n southern part of Greece (Morea).\n\n Actors, regard for, 307.\n\n Adriatic, 153.\n\n Adversity, to be faced with joy, 111, 112.\n\n Aegean (Sea), 73, 252. Eastern part of the Mediterranean.\n\n Aegium, 257 (2). A leading town in Achaia on the Gulf of Corinth.\n\n ^_a_ Aeschylus, 172.\n\n Africa, 117, 212, 236, 263.\n\n Africus (Wind), 210.\n\n Air, tension of, 58;\n wide diffusion of, 60;\n transformed into water, 119, 121;\n transformed into fire, 120, 121, 205;\n kindled by friction, 205, 206, 277;\n kindled within the earth, 236, 251;\n the cause of earthquakes, 239\u201348, 251, 254, 255;\n enters interior of earth, 254, 255.\n\n Albula, 134. Small stream flowing into the Arno near Tibur (Tivoli)\n some 16 miles E. of Rome.\n\n Alexander (the Great), 110, 215, 254 (2).\n\n Alexandria, 273.\n\n Alphe\u00fcs, 142 (2), 235. River in Elis in Southern Greece.\n\n Alps, 110, 173, 184.\n\n Ambracian (Gulf), 153. On W. of Greece (Gulf of Arta).\n\n Ammon; _see_ Jupiter.\n\n Amphitheatre, jets of water in, 59.\n\n ^_a_ Anaxagoras, 63, 68, 172, 178, 236, 276. Celebrated Ionian\n philosopher, 500\u2013428 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Anaximander, 67. Ionian philosopher, 610\u2013547 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Anaximenes, 67, 237. Ionian philosopher about 500 B.C.\n\n Animals, blind in subterranean waters, 129.\n\n Animals, new forms of, discovered in Seneca\u2019s time, 305;\n many still to be found out, 305.\n\n Antiochus, 288. King of Syria, 137\u2013128 B.C.\n\n Antony (Mark), 172.\n\n Ants, mankind compared to, 6.\n\n Apennines, 184.\n\n Apollonia, 12, 68, 176. Town in Illyria.\n\n ^_a_ Apollonius (of Myndus), 274, 290, 300. Said to have flourished\n about the time of Alexander the Great (330 B.C.). There may\n be some confusion in the text between him and the celebrated\n Pythagorean philosopher, A. of Tyana, who was born shortly before\n the Christian era.\n\n Apollonius Pycta (or pyctes = the boxer), 161. Unknown otherwise;\n apparently a gladiator.\n\n Apulia, 211. District in S.E. of Italy.\n\n Aquarius (sign of the Zodiac), 301.\n\n Aquilo (Wind), 209.\n\n ^_a_ Aratus, 37. Of Cilicia, astronomical poet, flourished 270 B.C.\n\n Araxes, 246. River in Armenia (Aras).\n\n Arcadia, 122, 137. District in centre of Southern Greece.\n\n ^_a_ Archelaus, 239. Philosopher, flourished about 450 B.C. Pupil and\n partly disciple of Anaxagoras.\n\n Arethusa, 142 (2), 235. Celebrated fountain in Syracuse in Sicily.\n\n Argestes (Wind), 210.\n\n Argolic, 142. Argolis is a district in N.E. of Southern Greece.\n\n ^_a_ Aristotle, 8, 9, 10, 19 (2), 33, 63, 240, 242, 276, 277, 302 (2),\n 303 (2), 304. See Introduction.\n\n ^_a_ Artemidorus (of Parium), 22, 286 (2), 287. Not otherwise known.\n\n ^_a_ Asclepiodotus, 74, 77, 207, 246, 253. Not otherwise known.\n\n Asia, 224, 233. Province on the W. coast of Asia Minor, or generic\n name for area E. and N.E. of Europe.\n\n Astronomy (_Caelestia_), scope of, 51;\n of Egyptians, 274;\n of Chaldaeans, 275;\n of Greeks, 298.\n\n Atabulus (Wind), 211.\n\n Atalanta, 256. Small island between Euboea and mainland of Greece.\n The channel now bears the name Talanta, which is likewise that of\n a neighbouring town.\n\n Athens, 211.\n\n ^_a_ Attalus, 94, 95. Stoic philosopher, one of Seneca\u2019s teachers.\n\n Attalus, 288. King of Pergamus, 241\u2013197 B.C.\n\n Atlantic Ocean, 174, 175 (2).\n\n Atlantic Ocean, growth of trade to ports on shores of, 175.\n\n Atmosphere, friction of, produces fires, 9, 39;\n upper portion dry and hot, 39, 60, 65, 78;\n possesses unity or continuity, 52, 57;\n place of, in universe, 54;\n earthy elements of, 56, 60;\n tension of, 56;\n lowest portion dense and dark, 60, 184;\n and warmer than the rest, 183;\n distribution of temperature in, 60, 184;\n causes of movements of, 61;\n relation of, to the ether, 65, 66;\n adapted to transmit sound, 77;\n rarefied, kindles fire, 100, 205;\n by violent movement sets itself on fire, 102;\n proof that it is never absolutely motionless, 193;\n possesses a native capacity of movement, 197.\n\n Atoms, the world a fortuitous concourse of, 7.\n\n Augury, kinds of, 79, 80, 82.\n\n Augustus, 9, 12, 42, 211, 290.\n\n Auster (Wind), 210.\n\n ^_a_ Authorities (various, not specified by name, but spoken of as\n \u201ccertain,\u201d \u201csome,\u201d etc.), 18, 31, 35, 57, 63, 67, 73, 75, 93, 101,\n 110, 116, 118, 119, 122, 135, 148 (2), 150, 182, 184, 186, 230,\n 233, 236, 238, 239, 242, 243, 244, 283.\n\n Avarice, denounced, 207.\n\n\n Bactra, 215. In Central Asia (Balkh).\n\n ^_a_ Balbillus, 171. Governor of Egypt in Nero\u2019s reign, 53.\n\n Balkan Mountains; _see_ Haemus.\n\n Baths, heating of water of, 136;\n effect of Campanian earthquake on tiled floor of, 264.\n\n Bathyllus, 307. A native of Alexandria, freedman at Rome during reign\n of Augustus; perfected a pantomimic or ballet dance.\n\n Bear (Great), 208.\n\n Belus, 151. Babylonian deity.\n\n ^_a_ Berosus, 151. Priest of Belus, about 250 B.C.\n\n Black Sea; _see_ Pontus.\n\n Boeotia, 137. District in Central Greece.\n\n Boreas (Wind), 208.\n\n Bothynae (meteors), 37.\n\n Breezes, morning, 195, 198.\n\n Buris; _see_ Helice.\n\n\n ^_a_ Caecina, 86, 94, 95, 100. A friend and correspondent of Cicero,\n about 48 B.C.\n\n Caesar (Julius), 166, 213, 290.\n\n Caius (Emperor Caligula), 163, 164.\n\n Calabria, 211. District in extreme S.E. of Italy.\n\n ^_a_ Callimachus, 172. Grammarian and poet; chief librarian of\n Alexandrine library, 260\u2013240 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Callisthenes, 254 (6), 258, 276, 277. Relative and pupil of\n Aristotle, friend and victim of Alexander the Great.\n\n Cambyses, 78. King of Persia, 529\u2013522 B.C.\n\n Campania, 221 (2), 224 (2), 225, 239, 257, 259 (adj.), 264, 265.\n District in Italy containing Capua, Naples, etc.\n\n Cancer (sign of the Zodiac), 151.\n\n Cannae, 209. In Apulia.\n\n Cannon, ancient types of, 67.\n\n Capitol, 91.\n\n Cappadocia, 138. Centre of Asia Minor.\n\n Capricorn (sign of the Zodiac), 151.\n\n Caria, 132, 142 (adj.). S.W. of Asia Minor.\n\n Carthage, 110, 166.\n\n Caspian, 153.\n\n Cassander, 122. Son of Antipater, regent of Macedonia; eventually\n king of Macedonia; died 297 B.C.\n\n Castor and Pollux, 11. Constellation and sign of the Zodiac (Gemini).\n\n Cataegis (Wind), 211.\n\n Cataracts (Nile), 168.\n\n Caucasus, 173.\n\n Caves with noxious air, 134;\n felt to be warmer in winter than in summer, 176, 241.\n\n Ca\u00ffstrus (or Ca\u00ffster), 173. River in W. of Asia Minor flowing into\n the sea near Ephesus.\n\n Chalcis, 246, 257. Chief town of Euboea on Strait at narrowest point.\n\n ^_a_ Chaldaeans, 81, 275 (3), 302.\n\n ^_a_ Charimander (or Charmander), 276. Otherwise unknown.\n\n Charms, laws against, 182.\n\n Charybdis, 153. Whirlpool in Strait of Messina.\n\n Chasmata (meteors), 38.\n\n Chersonese (= peninsula), 142. Carian or Rhodian on S.W. of Asia Minor.\n\n Chios, 175. Island and town (Scio) off coast of Asia Minor.\n\n ^_a_ Cicero, 100.\n\n Ciconians, 133. Tribe in Thrace.\n\n Circius (Wind), 211.\n\n Claudius (Emperor), 290, 294, 304.\n\n Cleonae, 181, 182. Town in Argolis.\n\n Cleopatra, 172 (2). Antony\u2019s celebrated partner.\n\n ^_a_ Clidemus, 99. A philosopher anterior in date to Aristotle.\n\n Clouds, as sources of lightning and thunder, 10, 62, 63, 64, 75, 203;\n invisible when we are within them, 24;\n composition of, 24;\n compression of, causes thunder, 67;\n produce fire, 70, 74, 100;\n must be burst before they emit sound, 76, 98;\n not necessarily connected with wind, 195;\n as sources of wind, 203, 204.\n\n Cloud-winds, 203.\n\n Colours (in rainbow), origin of, 21, 25, 30, 31.\n\n Comets, infrequency of, 272, 288, 301;\n what are they? 272;\n points of resemblance of, to planets, 273;\n resemblance to meteors, 275, 276;\n classes of, 276, 290;\n not due to wind, 278, 279\u2013282;\n curved path of, 279;\n long visibility of, 282;\n distribution and shape of, 283;\n Greek classification of, 283;\n different from the planets, 284;\n examples of, 288, 290;\n vast orbits of, 290, 297, 302;\n vary in apparent size as they advance or retreat, 291;\n transparency of, 291, 300;\n Stoic opinions regarding, 291\u2013294;\n directions of, 294, 303, 304;\n Seneca\u2019s opinion, 295, 305;\n form of, 300;\n portents from, 302.\n\n ^_a_ Conon, 274. Astronomer; born at Samos; lived at Alexandria about\n 250 B.C. Said to have been a friend of Archimedes.\n\n Constellations, 301.\n\n Contentment, duty of, 112.\n\n Continuity or unity, defined, 53.\n\n Corus (Wind), 210.\n\n Corycian (Mt.), 122. The district round Corycus in Cilicia was famous\n for saffron.\n\n Crassus, 215. Celebrated Roman, slain in battle in Mesopotamia,\n 53 B.C.\n\n Crete, 123, 153 (adj.).\n\n Crispus Passienus, 160. Stepfather of Nero. Consul in 42.\n\n Crocodiles and dolphins, fight between, 171;\n chase of, 172.\n\n Cutiliae, 139 (2). In the Sabine country, N.E. of Rome.\n\n Cyclades, 147. Group of islands in Grecian Archipelago.\n\n Cyclopes, 91. Jove\u2019s fabled armourers with workshops beneath Etna,\n Stromboli, etc.\n\n Cyprus, 259.\n\n\n Dacian, 5.\n\n Danube, as a political boundary, 5, 233;\n alleged remarkable character of, 135;\n floods of, 146;\n contrasted with the Nile, 166;\n not swollen in winter, 173.\n\n Darius, 254. King of Persia, 521\u2013485 B.C.\n\n Death, to be faced without fear, 103, 223, 226, 265\u2013268;\n equalises mankind, 223;\n the introduction to a better place than earth, 267.\n\n Delos, 258, 259. Perhaps the most famous of \u201cthe isles of Greece.\u201d\n\n Deluge, that is to destroy the earth, 143.\n\n ^_a_ Demetrius, 161. Cynic philosopher, contemporary of Seneca.\n\n Demetrius (father and son), 288. Kings of Syria between 162 and\n 125 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Democritus, 183 (2), 194, 249, 250, 276. The optimist or\n \u201claughing philosopher\u201d of Abdera in Thrace; said to have lived\n 460\u2013361 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Diogenes (of Apollonia in Crete), 68, 176, 177. Pupil of\n Anaximenes, lived in fifth century B.C.\n\n Dnieper (Borysthenes), 174.\n\n Dog-star, 202.\n\n Dolphins and crocodiles, fight between, 171.\n\n Doris, translated \u201csea nymph\u201d in the quotation from Virgil, 142.\n\n Dowsers, 127.\n\n Drops, globular form of, 178.\n\n Drunkenness, 134, 188.\n\n\n Earth, material of, formed from water, 120, 121.\n\n Earth as a whole, place of the, in universe, 55;\n formed after the plan of our bodies, 126, 151, 242, 255;\n final destruction of, 143;\n itself the cause of earthquakes, 237;\n whether it or the universe revolves, 273.\n\n Earth\u2019s interior, water supply in, 119, 206, 233, 234;\n cold temperature of, 119, 121;\n like surface above ground, 128, 206;\n blind animals in waters of, 129;\n origin of wind within, 206, 239, 243, 244, 254;\n landslips in, 238, 249, 251;\n store of vital air in, 244, 245.\n\n Earthquakes, causes of, 51, 229, 230, 236, 249;\n effects of, 121, 221, 229, 257, 259, 262, 263;\n Campanian (of A.D. 63), 221, 257, 259, 262, 264;\n influence of, on the human mind, 222, 262;\n widespread destruction produced by, 223;\n not the work of angry gods, 228;\n Seneca\u2019s youthful work on, 230;\n water as the origin of, 231;\n fire as the origin of, 236, 238;\n air as the origin of, 239\u2013248, 251, 255, 256, 264;\n mixed sources of, 249;\n varieties of movement in (_inclinatio_, _succussio_, _tremor_), 252;\n most frequent near the sea, 255;\n cause of local extent of, 257;\n features of the Campanian, 259\u2013264;\n the first shock of, the most violent, 264.\n\n Eclipses, 35, 274, 284, 293.\n\n Egypt, 6, 167\u2013177 (_passim_);\n great heat in, 173;\n said not to be visited by earthquakes, 258.\n\n ^_a_ Egyptians, ideas of, as to the elements, 125;\n astronomy of, 274.\n\n Elements, interchangeability of, 120, 121, 245;\n four in number, 123;\n contrariety of, 301.\n\n Eleusis, 306. In Attica, N.W. of Athens about 12 miles; scene of the\n great Eleusinian mysteries.\n\n Elis, 114, 257. District in S.W. of Southern Greece.\n\n Emanations, terrestrial, feed the sun and stars, 55, 198, 244;\n cause thunder, lightning, and commotion of the air, 63, 275;\n dry and moist, 63, 78.\n\n ^_a_ Empedocles, 136 (2). Philosopher of Agrigentum in Sicily,\n flourished about 444 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Ephorus, 289 (3). Greek historian of some repute about 340 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Epicurus, 250. Born 342, died 270 B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Epigenes, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 (2), 283. A Greek\n astronomer of Byzantium of uncertain date.\n\n Erasinus, 142. River of Argolis.\n\n Etesian (Winds), 174 (4), 175, 201 (4), 202 (4), 212.\n\n Ether, characters of the, 65;\n descent of force from the, 68.\n\n Ethiopia, 6, 117, 167, 168, 172, 173, 212, 235. Term was applied very\n loosely to all the hinterland of Africa, only the Mediterranean\n coast and a portion of the Nile basin being known to the Greeks.\n\n Etna, 77.\n\n ^_a_ Etruscans (or Tuscans), 79, 88, 92, 95 (sing.). Etruria lay\n immediately N. of the Tiber.\n\n ^_a_ Eudoxus, 274. Astronomer of Cnidus in Caria, pupil of Plato,\n flourished about 366 B.C.\n\n Euphrates, 5, 215.\n\n ^_a_ Euripides, 173.\n\n Euronotus (Wind), 210.\n\n Europe, 173 (adj.), 233.\n\n Eurus (Wind), 208, 209.\n\n ^_a_ Euthymenes (of Marseilles), 174, 175 (2). Geographer, probably\n about 150 B.C.\n\n Evaporation from the earth, 198, 200, 240.\n\n Expiation, the reason for, 83, 84.\n\n Eyesight swifter than hearing, 64.\n\n\n ^_a_ Fabianus (Papirius), 144. Distinguished Stoic, one of Seneca\u2019s\n teachers.\n\n Falernian (wine), 35. District famous for wine in N. of Campania.\n\n Fate, unalterable, 83;\n nature of, 84, 91;\n uncertainty of visitations of, 225.\n\n Favonius (Wind), 210.\n\n Fear, how to be combated, 103, 225, 229, 265, 266, 267;\n arises from ignorance, 229;\n leads to loss of reason, 262.\n\n Fidus Annaeus, 161. Apparently a gladiator of gigantic stature.\n\n Fire, kindled in atmosphere, 39, 62, 64, 70, 100, 102;\n passes into air, 120;\n artificial modes of producing, by percussion or friction, 70;\n naturally rises, 71, 102;\n endowed with the power of producing some animals, 197;\n as the cause of earthquakes, 236, 238;\n produced in the earth\u2019s interior, 251;\n kindled by air, 251.\n\n Fires, celestial, 8, 39, 294, 295, 296.\n\n Fish in underground waters, 129, 132.\n\n Flattery, counsel against, 159.\n\n Floods, the earth to be finally destroyed by, 143, 144.\n\n Fortune, vicissitudes of, 111.\n\n Fountains, discharges from, 142.\n\n Fucinus, 116. Large lake in Sabine country E. of Rome.\n\n\n Gaetulicus, 163. Cn. Cornelius Lentulus G., put to death by\n Caligula 39.\n\n Galatia, 138.\n\n Gallic, 6.\n\n Gallio, 161, 202. See Introduction.\n\n Gaul, 117, 122 (pl.), 211.\n\n Geography (_Terrena_), scope of, 51, 52.\n\n Germanicus, 9. Nero Claudius Drusus, brother of the Emperor Tiberius,\n died 10 B.C.\n\n Germans, 233.\n\n Germany, 5, 117, 166.\n\n Gibraltar, 175.\n\n Glass, globe of, filled with water magnifies objects, 29;\n cause of iridescence in, 30.\n\n God, nature of, 3, 4, 7, 8, 91, 305;\n sends portents, 80;\n unchangeable, 84;\n to Him everything is present, 84;\n His design in creating the winds, 213, 216.\n\n Gods, dread of infernal, 208;\n do not disturb heaven or earth, 228;\n not to be feared, 266.\n\n Gold, lust for, denounced, 5, 208, 215.\n\n Greece, 215, 274 (2), 298.\n\n Greek, 58, 95, 210, 255.\n\n ^_a_ Greeks, 12, 13, 15, 34, 39, 40, 140, 169, 198, 203, 205, 209\n (2), 210, 211, 240, 255, 283.\n\n Gusts of wind, origin of, 203.\n\n Gylippus, 12. Spartan commander against Athenians at Syracuse,\n 414 B.C.\n\n\n Haemus (Balkan Mountains), 122.\n\n Hail, 177, 181;\n falls more in summer than winter, 179;\n prognostications of, 181.\n\n Halos (crowns), round sun and moon, 12, 14, 34, 41.\n\n Hannibal, 110, 209. Famous Carthaginian general in Second Punic War,\n 219\u2013201 B.C.\n\n Happiness, how to be gained, 5, 266.\n\n Heavenly bodies, influence of, on rivers, 141;\n on weather, 275;\n apparent retrogression of some, 299.\n\n Heavens, extent of the, 7;\n contemplation of the starry, 271;\n divisions of the, 210;\n supposed by Artemidorus to be a solid vault, 286.\n\n Helice and Buris (or Bura), 254, 257, 259, 267, 276, 277, 289. Towns\n in Achaia swallowed by earthquake 373 B.C.\n\n Heracleotic (mouth of the Nile), 171. Most westerly and largest, not\n far from Alexandria.\n\n ^_a_ Heraclitus, 100. Ancient representative of pessimism, \u201cthe\n weeping philosopher,\u201d of Ephesus, toward end of sixth century B.C.\n\n Herculaneum, 221 (2), 259.\n\n ^_a_ Homer, 258.\n\n Horizon, 211.\n\n Hostius Quadra, 42. Unknown save for Seneca\u2019s unfortunate mention of\n him.\n\n Hydissus, 132. Orthography of this Carian town is uncertain; Gercke\n reads Idumus.\n\n Hydraulic organs, 56.\n\n\n Iapygian (Wind), 211.\n\n Ice, 140.\n\n India, 7, 212, 215.\n\n Intermittent action, 128.\n\n Iron, discovery of, 45;\n money made of, 46.\n\n Islands, floating, 139.\n\n Ister (or Hister), a name of the Danube, _which see_.\n\n Italy, 110, 117, 133, 212, 261, 262 (adj.), 263.\n\n\n Junior, _see_ Lucilius, 168.\n\n Jupiter (Jove), temple of, in African desert (Ammon), 78;\n his thunderbolts, 88, 89, 91, 92;\n affords lessons to earthly rulers, 90;\n other names for, 91, 92.\n\n Jupiter, the planet, 284, 299.\n\n\n Lacedaemonians, 189. Lacedaemon, or Sparta, was in Laconia, the\n district in the S.E. of Southern Greece.\n\n Ladon, 257. River in Arcadia, tributary of Alpheus.\n\n Laelius, 268. Friend of the younger Scipio Africanus, consul 140 B.C.\n Chief interlocutor in Cicero\u2019s Dialogue on Friendship.\n\n Lakes, with dense water, 138, 139;\n underground, 154;\n wide extent of some, 233.\n\n Land and sea breezes, 198.\n\n Landslips, 238, 249, 251;\n effects of, 253.\n\n Latin, 210 (2).\n\n Leo (sign of the Zodiac), 301.\n\n Lepidus, 166 (3). Formed with Augustus and Antony the Second\n Triumvirate after Caesar\u2019s assassination in 44 B.C.\n\n Libonotus (Wind), 210.\n\n Libyan (Wind), 210.\n\n Life, the proper conduct in, 112, 159, 266;\n uncertainty of, 226;\n to be carried in our hand if we desire to live happy and without\n fear, 266.\n\n Lightning, 62, 66, 69, 86, 87, 100;\n effects of, 78, 87, 88, 96;\n portents indicated by, 79, 81, 82, 86, 92, 94, 95, 215;\n possible pestilential power in, 97;\n cause of zigzag course of, 102;\n moral lessons to be derived from a consideration of, 104;\n safe retreats from, 223;\n blinding effects of, 292;\n connected with the planets, 275.\n\n ^_a_ Livy (Titus Livius), 209, 213. Roman historian, 59 B.C.-17.\n\n Lower Sea; _see_ Propontis.\n\n Lucilius Junior, 1, 103, 109, 114, 142, 159 (2), 161, 162, 163, 217,\n 221, 265, 267, 268. See Introduction.\n\n Luxury, introduction of, 45, 46;\n growth of, 47, 188;\n illustrations of, 129, 187;\n denunciation of, 130, 187, 306.\n\n Lycia, 140. District S.W. of Asia Minor.\n\n Lycus, 142. River, probably of Phrygia in Asia Minor, flowing into\n the Maeander.\n\n Lydia, 139. District in W. of Asia Minor.\n\n Lyncestis, 134.\n\n\n Macedonia, 138, 207, 224, 303.\n\n Magnesia, 122. Town of Lydia.\n\n Mankind, compared to ants, 6;\n early ages of, 45, 46;\n final destruction of, 147, 152;\n re-creation of, after the deluge, 155;\n world not made only for, 305.\n\n Marmora or Marmara (Sea of); _see_ Propontis.\n\n Mars, the planet, 10, 275, 284.\n\n Marseilles, 174.\n\n Marshes, 233;\n of the Nile, 236.\n\n Magalenopolis (or Megalepolis or Megalopolis), 257. Town in Arcadia.\n\n Melas, 137. River of Boeotia in Central Greece.\n\n Memphis, 170. Great Egyptian city a little above Cairo.\n\n ^_a_ Menander, 165. Athenian comic poet, 342\u2013291 B.C.\n\n Mercury, the planet, 284.\n\n Messalina, 163. Third wife of Emperor Claudius;\n put to death by Narcissus, 48.\n\n Messana (Messina), 142.\n\n Metalliferous veins, 126.\n\n Metals, melted by lightning, 78, 96;\n denunciation of the search for the precious, 207, 215.\n\n Meteorology (_Sublimia_), scope of, 51.\n\n Meteors, 8\u201311, 37, 38, 40, 275, 276, 292, 293, 296.\n\n ^_a_ Metrodorus (of Chios), 248 (2). Philosopher who flourished about\n 330 B.C. \u201cSceptic.\u201d Disciple of Democritus, perhaps.\n\n Milky Way, 289.\n\n Mind, the human, its nature and seat unknown, 297.\n\n Mines, water in, 154;\n ancient, explored by Philip of Macedon, 207.\n\n Mirrors, 22, 23, 24, 27, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47.\n\n Mock-suns, 35.\n\n Moon, eclipse of, 298;\n varying colour of, 300.\n\n Moral reflections, Seneca\u2019s, 1\u20138, 42, 44\u201347, 102\u2013105, 109\u2013114,\n 130\u2013132, 143\u2013156, 159\u2013166, 186\u2013190, 207, 213\u2013217, 222\u2013229, 254,\n 265\u2013268.\n\n Mountains, insignificance of height of, compared with the whole mass\n of the earth, 184.\n\n Mushrooms, 189.\n\n Mylae, 142. Town on N. coast of Sicily, near Messina.\n\n Myndus, 274, 290. Town in Caria.\n\n\n Naples, partly damaged by earthquake of A.D. 63, 221.\n\n Narcissus, 164. Freedman of Claudius, put to death by Agrippina, 54.\n\n Natural Philosophy, 3, 8.\n\n Nature, influence of, 3;\n origin of, 7;\n as a synonym for God, 92;\n advantage of the study of, 113, 265;\n finds no task hard, 144, 154;\n inadequate conceptions of, 228;\n study\n of, the highest pursuit, 230;\n power of variation in, 301;\n inexhaustibility of, 306;\n still most imperfectly known, 306.\n\n Naval wars denounced, 213.\n\n Nebaioth, 208. An Arabian people, put for East in general. Latin form\n is Nabataei.\n\n Neptune (Earthshaker), 255.\n\n ^_a_ Nero Caesar, 25, 235, 290, 294; probably referred to, though\n not named, 90 (last two sentences).\n\n Nicopolis, 259. City in W. of Greece at entrance to Ambracian\n Gulf. The word means \u201ccity of victory,\u201d something like our\n oft-recurrent \u201cVictoria.\u201d\n\n Nile, unusual character of, 114, 135, 166;\n physiological effect of water of, 140;\n rise of, 141, 167, 169, 172;\n course of, 168, 170, 233;\n cataracts of, 168;\n mode of descent of, 169;\n delta of, 170, 171;\n canalisation of, 170;\n deposit of, 170, 258;\n inundation of, 171;\n supposed underground supply of, 235;\n Nero\u2019s expedition to the, 235;\n transport of sediment by, 258.\n\n Nonacris, 137. Town in Arcadia.\n\n Notus (Wind), 209.\n\n Nuceria, 221. Town in Campania.\n\n\n Ocean, 6 (2), 112, 119, 135, 143, 153, 155, 231, 254 (2), 266.\n\n ^_a_ Oenopides (of Chios), 175. Mathematician and astronomer,\n probably contemporary of Anaxagoras, fifth century B.C.\n\n Olympic, 142 (2). Olympia was in Elis.\n\n Olympus, 257. High mountain in Thessaly, Northern Greece.\n\n Omens, arranged by Providence, 80;\n from lightning, 82.\n\n Organs (hydraulic), 56.\n\n Ossa, 257. Mountain in Thessaly, Northern Greece.\n\n Ostia, 41. Town at mouth of Tiber; port of Rome.\n\n ^_a_ Ovid, 114, 133, 148, 165, 168. Latin poet, 43 B.C.-18.\n\n\n Parhelia, 35.\n\n Pamphylia, 211. District on S. of Asia Minor.\n\n ^_a_ Panaetius, 304. Stoic philosopher of Rhodes, friend of Laelius\n and the younger Scipio Africanus; died 111 B.C.\n\n Paphos, 259. Town on W. of Cyprus.\n\n Parium, 22. Town in Mysia on N.W. of Asia Minor.\n\n Parthians, 5, 215.\n\n Paterculus, 303. His consulship is said to have been in the year 60.\n\n Patras, 257. Town at entrance of Gulf of Corinth.\n\n Paulus, 9. L. Aemilius P., consul 181 and 168 B.C.\n\n Peacock, analogy from colours of, 25.\n\n Peloponnesian (War), 256, 258. Lasted 431\u2013404 B.C. between Athens and\n Sparta.\n\n Pene\u00fcs, 138, 257. Great river draining the plain of Thessaly and\n flowing through vale of Tempe between Olympus and Ossa; now\n called Salambria.\n\n Perseus, 9. Last king of Macedonia, 178\u2013168 B.C.\n\n Persia, 208, 215.\n\n Persians, 254.\n\n Pestilential vapours emitted from the ground, 260, 261.\n\n Pharos, 258. Island off Alexandria with famous lighthouse, united to\n mainland by Alexander the Great.\n\n Phasis, 174. River of Colchis at E. of Black Sea.\n\n Philae, 168 (3), 169. Island in the Nile, just below First Cataract.\n Seneca seems to confuse it with the so-called island of Mero\u00eb, at\n the junction of the Blue Nile and Atbara.\n\n Philip, 110, 207 (2). Father of Alexander the Great; king of\n Macedonia 359\u2013336 B.C.\n\n Philosophers, debt due to the early, 230;\n credulous folk, 258;\n severe criticisms of, 125, 175, 288, 289.\n\n Philosophy, divisions of, 3;\n pleasures of, 4, 5;\n benefits conferred by, 97;\n delivers its votaries from fear, 225;\n rewards of, 229;\n decadence of, 307, 308.\n\n ^_a_ Pindar, 258. Greek poet, 522\u2013442 B.C.\n\n Pithitae, or pithiae (meteors), 38, 40.\n\n Plancus, 160. L. Munatius P., a prominent actor in the civil wars,\n 48\u201331 B.C.\n\n Planets, colours of, 10;\n enumerated, 275;\n fixed number of, 284;\n orbits of, 285;\n motions of, 288;\n possibly greater number of, 297;\n conspicuous movements of, 298.\n\n ^_a_ Plato, 216.\n\n Pollux, 11; _see_ Castor.\n\n Pompeii, 221, 259 (2).\n\n Pompey, 166 (3). Defeated by Caesar 48 B.C., and assassinated shortly\n after.\n\n Pontus (district in N.E. of Asia Minor), 141.\n\n Pontus (Black Sea), 153, 176, 180 (?).\n\n Portents from meteors, 9, 228, 259;\n lightning, 79, 86, 93, 94, 95, 215;\n eclipses, 228;\n comets, 272, 290, 302.\n\n ^_a_ Posidonius, 26, 27, 73, 74, 98 (2), 177, 246, 252, 256, 292,\n 293. A very distinguished Stoic philosopher, president of that\n school. Instructor for a time and friend of Cicero. Prosecuted\n physical investigations with great success. Native of Syria.\n Lived 135\u201351 B.C.\n\n Posterity, great increase of knowledge to be attained by, 298.\n\n Predestination, 85.\n\n Prognostications; _see_ Portents.\n\n Propontis (Sea of Marmora), 153, 176 (Lower Sea).\n\n Providence, 92, 213.\n\n Puteoli, 133. On coast of Campania.\n\n Pylades, 307. A Cilician; a dancer like Bathyllus.\n\n Pyrenees, 5.\n\n ^_a_ Pyrrho, 307. Founder of the sect of the Sceptics, native of\n Elis; flourished about fourth century B.C.\n\n ^_a_ Pythagoras, 307. Flourished in second half of sixth century B.C.\n\n Pyx, trial of, 180.\n\n\n Rain, Seneca\u2019s observation on descent of, into soil, 117;\n share of, in final destruction of the world, 143, 144, 149;\n seasonal variations of, 179;\n supposed to be influenced by incantations, 182.\n\n Rainbow, 16\u201333.\n\n Rainless countries, 167, 173.\n\n Red Sea, 112, 153, 168.\n\n Regulus, 221. Consul 63.\n\n Reverence, duty of, 304.\n\n Rhaetian, 35. The reference is to wine grown in the N. of Italy\n (Cisalpine Gaul).\n\n Rhine, 146 (2), 173, 233.\n\n Rhodians, 142. Island of Rhodes was at S.W. of Asia Minor.\n\n Rhone, 146, 173.\n\n Rivers as political boundaries, 5, 233;\n sources of supply of, 116;\n underground, 132, 141, 206, 207, 233, 235;\n summer rise of, 141, 173.\n\n Roman, 5, 12, 46, 110, 113, 166.\n\n Rome, 110, 166, 182, 209, 307.\n\n Roots, disruptive force of, 57.\n\n Rulers, counsel to, 90.\n\n\n Sacrifice cannot alter fate, 84;\n to keep off hail, 181.\n\n St. Elmo\u2019s Fire, 11, 37.\n\n ^_a_ Sallust, 279. Roman historian, 86\u201334 B.C.\n\n Sarmatian, 5, 233 (pl.). Roughly speaking, the S. part of Russia.\n\n Saturn, the planet, 275 (2), 284, 303.\n\n Scipio, 46 (2). The elder Sc. Africanus, victor of Hannibal at Zama,\n 202 B.C.\n\n Scironian (Wind), 211.\n\n Scylla, 153; _see_ Charybdis.\n\n Scythia, 180, 208. Term used very loosely of region in Central and\n Northern Asia, but at times extending to Europe, as far west as\n the Danube. Sarmatia of one age was part of Scythia of another.\n\n Sea, unity of the, 125;\n coeval with the world, 135;\n throws ashore ill-smelling deposits, 142;\n share of, in final destruction of the earth, 143, 150;\n current of, from Black Sea, 176;\n subterranean, 234.\n\n Sea and land breezes, 198.\n\n Seafaring, condemned, 216.\n\n Sea-water, purged of its salt within the earth, 116.\n\n Sejanus, 9. Notorious instrument of Tiberius; put to death 31.\n\n Sela (gleams in the sky), 39.\n\n Self, bondage of slavery to, 113.\n\n Septemtrio (Wind), 210.\n\n ^_a_ Sextii, 307. Father and son in the time of Augustus and Nero\n respectively; taught a combination of Stoic and Pythagorean\n doctrines.\n\n Sheep, destruction of, during Campanian earthquake of A.D. 63, 259.\n\n Sicily and Sicilian, 114, 138, 142 (2), 153, 159, 166 (2), 235, 262,\n 263.\n\n Sidon, 256.\n\n Snow, melting in Ethiopia erroneously supposed to be the cause of the\n annual rise of the Nile, 173;\n supplies some European rivers, 173;\n on European mountains, 173;\n origin of, 178, 179, 182, 186;\n said to feel colder to the feet when dry and hard than when slushy\n and half melted, 180;\n artificial use of, 187.\n\n ^_a_ Sophocles, 172.\n\n Soul, divine origin of, 6;\n to be rescued from error and fear of death, 103.\n\n Sound less rapid than light, 64.\n\n Spain and Spanish, 6, 7, 110, 263.\n\n Springs, 118, 121, 127, 136, 142.\n\n Squalls, origin of, 204;\n short duration of, 281.\n\n Stabiae, 221. Small town on coast of Campania.\n\n Stars, fed by emanations from the earth, 55, 198, 244;\n influence of, in human affairs, 81;\n nature of, 273;\n transits of, 284;\n supposed small size of, 288;\n place of, in sky, 297;\n varying colours of, 300.\n\n Stars, falling, 10, 11, 37, 99, 296.\n\n Statonia, 139. Town in Etruria, about 15 miles from the coast.\n\n Stoics, 32, 40, 58, 66, 95, 119, 124, 135, 151, 180, 181 (2), 210,\n 251, 291, 292, 293, 295 (my school).\n\n ^_a_ Strato, 240. Succeeded Theophrastus as head of the Peripatetic\n school in 288 B.C. Native of Lampsacus in Mysia on the Hellespont.\n\n Streaks in the sky, 33.\n\n Strymon, 5. River of Thrace and Macedonia (Struma). The text of the\n passage is very doubtful.\n\n Styx, 137. River in Arcadia.\n\n Submergence of Helice and Buris, 254, 257, 259, 267, 276, 289;\n of Atalanta, 256;\n of Sidon, 256;\n of other cities and nations, 267.\n\n Subsolane (Wind), 209.\n\n Sudd, 236 n.\n\n Sulphur, baneful effects of, in water, 134;\n supposed to warm water, 136;\n exists in large quantity underground, 206.\n\n \u201cSulphur smell\u201d produced by lightning, 69, 97.\n\n Sun, size of, 20, 288;\n eclipse of, 35, 274, 284, 293;\n draws his sustenance from the earth, 55, 198, 244;\n movements of, 271;\n among the constellations, 301.\n\n Superstition, 271.\n\n Surrentum, 221. Town on promontory in Campania.\n\n Syracuse, 12, 142.\n\n Syria, 138, 288.\n\n\n Tempe, 137. Vale or gorge in Thessaly; _see_ Pene\u00fcs.\n\n Temperature of atmosphere, 60, 183, 184;\n of various waters, 136.\n\n Tension, effects of, 56, 58.\n\n Tentyra, 172. Island in the Nile (Denderah), not far from Thebes.\n\n ^_a_ Thales, 124, 125, 174, 233. Of Miletus; may be considered the\n father of Greek philosophy, 636\u2013546 B.C.\n\n Thebes, 257. Capital of Boeotia. There was a more ancient city of\n the same name in Upper Egypt on whose site are the modern Luxor,\n Karnak, etc.\n\n ^_a_ Theophrastus 122 (3), 129, 138, 139, 141, 172, 240, 303. Of\n Lesbos, favourite pupil and successor of Aristotle, head of\n Peripatetic school, 322\u2013287 B.C.\n\n Therasia and There (Thera), 252. Small volcanic islands in the group\n called Sporades, S. of Cyclades.\n\n Thessaly, 137, 257.\n\n Thrace and Thracians, 5, 161, 173, 254.\n\n ^_a_ Thucydides, 256, 258.\n\n Thunderings, 62, 67;\n different kinds of, 75;\n causes of, 98.\n\n Tiberius Caesar, 41.\n\n Tigris, 142, 235.\n\n Time, wasting influence of, 238, 253;\n fleetingness of, 268.\n\n Trade to Atlantic ports, 175.\n\n Transmutation of the elements, 120, 121.\n\n Troglodytes, 173. Cave-dwellers, specially applied to tribes on W. of\n Red Sea.\n\n Tuscans; _see_ Etruscans.\n\n Tyre and Tyrian, 27, 224, 225.\n\n\n Unity or continuity, defined, 53.\n\n Universe, defined, 54;\n impetuous whirl of, 273;\n ceaseless revolution of, 281, 294, 299;\n a harmony of discords, 301.\n\n\n Vacuum, non-existent in nature, 128.\n\n Vadimonian (Lake), 139. In Etruria, not far from the Tiber, the Lago\n di Bassano, now dried up.\n\n ^_a_ Vagellius, 227. Name unknown, probably corrupt.\n\n Valerius Asiaticus, 74. Consul, for the second time, in 46.\n\n ^_a_ Varro, 209 (2). Famous grammarian, antiquarian, etc., 116\u201328 B.C.\n\n Venus, the planet, 284.\n\n Vice, conquest of, leads to highest happiness, 5;\n continued progress of, 46, 187, 306, 307.\n\n ^_a_ Virgil, 28, 35, 114, 142, 165, 209, 241, 253, 258.\n\n Virginius, 221. Consul 63.\n\n Vitellius, 160. Name doubtful; may refer to father of Emperor\n Vitellius, who flourished under Caligula and Claudius, being\n consul in 34.\n\n Volcanic eruptions, 73, 74, 77, 252.\n\n Vopiscus, 303. Consul 60.\n\n Vultur, 209. Mountain on borders of Apulia.\n\n Vulturnus (Wind), 209.\n\n\n Wars, denunciation of, 213, 214.\n\n Water, forms of, 114, 115, 233;\n transformed into air, 120;\n formed from earth, 120;\n as one of the four elements, 124;\n Thales\u2019 opinions on, 124, 231;\n underground sources of, 126, 233, 234, 235;\n various tastes of, 133;\n petrifying powers of, 133;\n varying temperatures of, 136;\n artificial heating of, 136;\n baneful kinds of, 137;\n dyeing properties of some kinds of, 137;\n varying densities of, 138;\n supposed physiological effects of some, 140;\n in mines, 154;\n produces animal and plant life, 197;\n as the cause of earthquakes, 231, 233, 234.\n\n Watergalls and sun-dogs, 33.\n\n Weather indications, 11, 14, 15, 28, 37, 39, 75, 181, 275, 302, 303.\n\n Wells and their water-supply, 118, 123, 128;\n warm winter temperature of, 176, 241.\n\n Whirlwinds, 204, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282.\n\n Will, freedom of the, 85, 86.\n\n Wind, definition of, 193;\n Democritus\u2019 view of origin of, 194;\n origin of, 196, 200, 203, 204;\n within the earth, 205, 206, 239, 243, 244;\n number and names of the winds, 208\u2013212;\n teleological design of, 212, 216;\n misuse of, by man, 216;\n beneficial influences of, 216;\n disruptive energy of, 252.\n\n Winds, 208\u2013211. The following are specified: Africus, Aquilo,\n Argestes, Atabulus, Auster, \u1f08\u03c6\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (= Subsolane), Boreas,\n Cataegis, Circius, Corus, Etesian, Euronotus, Eurus, Favonius,\n Iapygian, \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Libonotus, Libyan, Notus, Scironian,\n Septemtrio, Subsolane, Thracias, Vulturnus, Zephyrus.\n\n Wine, frozen by lightning, 79, 97.\n\n World, revolution of, 20.\n\n\n ^_a_ Zeno, 291. Native of Cyprus, founder of the Stoic philosophy,\n lived between middle of fourth and third centuries B.C.\n\n Zephyrus (Wind), 208.\n\n Zodiac, 285, 291, 296.\n\n\n\n\nTHE END\n\n\n_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.","title":"Physical science in the time of Nero : $b being a translation of the Quaestiones naturales of Seneca","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":123128}