Book II. deals with the constitution of the universe, including

astronomical and meteorological phenomena, such as Meteors, Halos, Eclipses, Winds, Earthquakes, Rain, etc., etc. Many of these cover the same ground as the _Q.N._ Among the domestic authors cited for this Book are M. Varro, Livy, Cornelius Nepos, Caecina, “who wrote on the Etruscan cult”; among the foreign authors are Plato, Anaximander, Democritus, Archimedes, Aristotle, etc., etc. The omission of Seneca from the Latin list is balanced by that of Theophrastus from the Greek list. It is, of course, unsafe to build any theory on a merely negative basis. Obviously Pliny had read at any rate portions of these authors, to whom he elsewhere refers, and may, through mere oversight or negligence, have omitted specific mention of them here: he usually refers to authors and not to their individual works. If, at the time of the composition of Book II., which may have been considerably earlier than the date of publication of the whole work, he did not know of Seneca’s _Q.N._, then the inference seems inevitable that there were current a collection or collections of the opinions (δόξαι) of the older philosophers which were common property to any one interested in such matters. The _Placita_ attributed to Plutarch, though its present form may be much later than Pliny’s time, may have been derived from sources of this kind. We shall not be far wrong in supposing that, in addition to the works still extant, there was a mass of material available to Seneca and Pliny alike which represented the traditional views on physical and allied subjects handed down from the old Greek philosophy. Most of the Latin authors, seventeen in number in all, cited by Pliny on Book II. are now known to us only by name; of those whose works remain, Varro is the only one whom we should consider likely to furnish much material for the topic in hand.

Of Pliny’s lists in general it may be said that they indicate that a good many writers even among the Romans had been attracted by subjects of a scientific or quasi-scientific character, if we may not venture to say that their works can rank as science even in the modified sense in which the term is applicable to Seneca or Pliny. It is in keeping with the character of the people that practical sciences like agriculture (Varro, Columella) and architecture (Vitruvius), not to mention cookery, should have received special attention. These authors, with others like Manilius (_Astronomica_) and Pomponius Mela (geography), however interesting in themselves, have only an indirect and sometimes only a remote bearing on the Physical Science of their day.

VI. THE “QUAESTIONES NATURALES” IN THE MIDDLE AGES

The _Q.N._ is a landmark in the progress of Physical Science. From Aristotle and Theophrastus there is a great gap until we reach Seneca: the gap is still greater between Seneca and the Renascence, from which the era of true science is to be dated. The _Q.N._ is the last word spoken on the subject by the classical world, and practically the only work of its kind that survives to us in Latin. Various commentators on Aristotle and Seneca have, probably unconsciously, appeared as champions of either author’s claim to be considered as _the_ authority in Science during the Middle Ages. All the materials for forming an unbiassed judgment are to be found in Dr. Sandys’ _History of Classical Scholarship_ (vol. i.).

Seneca possessed one or two initial advantages. In the first place, Latin, in which he wrote, was understood and spoken throughout the world, whereas for many centuries Greek was over large tracts of it, particularly in the West, an unknown tongue. Again, Seneca was for long supposed to be a Christian, claimed by the early fathers as “one of us,” and ranked by Jerome among the _Ecclesiastical Writers_. There was not therefore the same prejudice against his works as is known to have existed in the early Christian centuries against pagan authors, especially against the poets.

As a matter of fact, the knowledge of Aristotle’s works, at any rate in the West, seems to have been derived in the first instance from Arabic translations made in the ninth century and brought to Spain about the twelfth century, while from 1204 onwards he was known in Latin translations made direct from the Greek MSS., which were now accessible. “In Roger Bacon’s day, not-withstanding his eagerness for promoting the study of Aristotle in the original Greek, it was the _Latin_ Aristotle alone that was studied in the schools” (Sandys, _op. cit._ 575). That was about the year 1267. Seneca seems to have been well known, chiefly as a moralist, through the Middle Ages. He “was famous as the author of the _Naturales Quaestiones_” (_ib._ 627[24]) also. Saint-Hilaire’s claim, therefore (Arist. _Meteor._ Pref. ii. iii.), “that Aristotle laid down the law on Meteorology, as in everything else, from the age of Alexander right up to the Renascence,” must be accepted with some qualification. There seems room for Ruhkopf’s explanation (_Q.N._ Pref.) that Seneca’s work was, and continued to be, the sole fountain whence Natural Philosophy derived its source and drew its supplies during many centuries, “until Aristotle’s books were transmitted for public use into Western Europe.”

[24] See, besides, pp. 387, 541, 547, 560, 569, etc.

By the thirteenth century Aristotle had come fully into vogue, and the references to his teaching in Dante (1265–1321), said to number upwards of 300, show what a hold he had obtained upon the greatest man of the age. The “moral Seneca” is also known to Dante, and placed by him in the same region of the unseen world (_H._ iv.), but the references to his teaching are insignificant by comparison (less than ten). Dr. Sandys states (_op. cit._ 591 _n._) that the references to Aristotle are mainly to the _Ethics_, _Physics_, _Metaphysics_, and _De Anima_.

But we are now on the eve of the Renascence, whose “morning-star ... arose in the person of Petrarch” (_op. cit._ 650), early in the fourteenth century (1304–1374). Greek scholarship was reviving in the West, and Petrarch studied the language in his later days. But his inspiration was derived in the first instance from Latin, “the philosophical works of Cicero and the moral letters of Seneca” (_op. cit._ ii. 4). The latter he cites as many as sixty times (_ib._ 7), and he was also familiar with the Senecan tragedies (_ib._ 6).

From this and from the general course of history we seem justified in believing that during the Middle Ages, in default of any general knowledge of Aristotle, Seneca was the chief authority on Physical Science. The views transmitted by him, for they were comparatively seldom altogether his own, having obtained currency, found their way into literature, and probably went far to colour the conceptions entertained on the subject in all the earlier literature of Modern Europe. Later, when Aristotle’s works became more widely known, his authority became supreme alike in philosophy and in science. Nor does the temporary ascendancy of Seneca, though historically very important, carry with it any presumption of rivalry, not to say superiority, to Aristotle. Seneca may best be regarded as pupil and interpreter of Aristotle, in so far as the two come into competition. His date, the language employed as his medium, his position, his reputation as a Christian, and his activity in other fields, all conspired to give him a position in the Middle Ages which is not necessarily the measure of his intrinsic merit as compared with Aristotle.

VII. THE PRESENT TRANSLATION

From what has preceded, it will appear that the path of the translator of the _Quaestiones Naturales_ is beset with snares. At best he has a choice of difficulties, It may perhaps, therefore, be well to say a word or two upon the method in which these have been dealt with on the present occasion.

A translator’s prime duty is to follow his author, for which purpose he must first understand him, a requirement not very easily here fulfilled. The texts of the _Q.N._ vary greatly, as already indicated, and it is no easy matter to select any one that might be consistently followed. The most recent and best text, the Teubner, edited by Gercke, has strong claims, and had it been my good fortune to have it by me when the translation was made, I should have been tempted to adopt it _simpliciter_, even though in many details it departs somewhat violently from the accepted arrangement. As it was, it did not come to hand until the translation was finished and paged for publication, so that full use could not be made of it. In a few cases its corrections had been anticipated; in some its readings have been adopted; some that could not be incorporated are referred to in a note on the subject.

The text being settled, the translator must, if possible, put himself in the author’s position and obtain his point of view.

In science, particularly, the _milieu_ of the author must be caught if his thoughts are to be accurately reproduced. The danger of attributing to Seneca ideas that were unknown to him and that are due to modern analysis and discovery has to be constantly present to one’s mind. For example, “homogeneity,” “elasticity,” “electricity,” “gas,” “explosion,” etc., are a few of the terms that his language suggests, but that would probably convey a wrong impression of his conception of the phenomena to which they relate. They have been thus ruled out. Nor is Seneca consistent in the use of the terms he employs; he has no scientific vocabulary. In a separate note attention is called to his words for “air” and “atmosphere”; but there are many other terms that belong to the same category. These are, for instance, three words for “thick” or “dense,” _crassus_, _densus_, _spissus_, which he seems to use almost indifferently, at any rate without any precise discrimination. So with terms like “_impetus_” (impulse, onset) “_impulsus_” (shove, impulse), “_ictus_” (stroke, blow), “_vis_” (force, quantity, amount), “_curro_” (to run (river), to revolve (heavenly body)), and its compounds, _eo_ (to go), and its compounds, etc., etc.

Apart from any peculiarity of Seneca, Latin allows the use of adjectives and pronouns, whose distinctive gender points their reference, where English requires substantives or their equivalent. Latin, too, often conveys by mere suggestion where English requires explicit expression. This is particularly so with connectives, where a separate clause may be required to develop the _nuance_ of a subtle collocation. In general, assuming--and it is no great stretch--that the author meant to express _something_, whether right or wrong, I have endeavoured to ascertain what that something was and to convey it to the English reader. In doing so I have had no scruple in using more words than Latin, or in making explicit what I conceived to be implicit, or in varying the rendering of the same term to suit the context and idiom. Ambiguity has, as far as possible, been avoided and even removed. At the same time the author has been followed as closely and faithfully as may be. Where he repeats a term purposely, as he frequently does, the repetition is retained, though a variant might have sounded more euphonious. Probably, in some cases--it may be in a good many--the meaning has been misconceived; certainly, there will be difference of opinion in regard to readings adopted for translation, where one had to be taken and two or more almost equally good had to be left out. Ruhkopf was the text chiefly used; in addition Koeler and the Variorum Edition of Bouillet were constantly at hand, and I have been much indebted to all three in questions of interpretation. Nisard’s French Translation has also been of some service, indirectly by suggestion perhaps rather than directly; in a few passages the translation is from a different text from that printed on the same page. The old Tauchnitz text has been habitually consulted, while Gercke’s text has been carefully collated throughout. The latter does not mention Ruhkopf at all in his Bibliography--surely an involuntary omission. There is a useful Bibliography also in Bouillet, but the date of his Edition is as far back as 1830. To my regret I have not been able to procure Lagrange’s famous French Translation, and the same remark applies to several German works of repute. Lodge’s Translation (1614) was not of any service for my purpose.

THE NATURAL QUESTIONS OF L. ANNAEUS SENECA ADDRESSED TO LUCILIUS