Physical science in the time of Nero : $b being a translation of the Quaestiones naturales of SenecaSeneca, Lucius Annaeus
Philosophy
Physical science in the time of Nero : $b being a translation of the Quaestiones naturales of Seneca
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus
Comets; Earthquakes; Meteorology -- Early works to 1800
This account of Epigenes is a tissue of falsehoods. To begin with the 1
nearest one, the last, it is not true that torch and beam meteors are
due to the violent action of a whirlwind. The whirlwind is formed in
the neighbourhood of the earth, and there it runs its course. This is
the reason why it tears up trees by the roots, and wherever it swoops
down it lays bare the soil, carrying off in the meanwhile woods and
roofs of houses; as a rule, it is lower than the clouds, and assuredly
never higher. But, on the contrary, it is the more exalted part of
heaven that displays beam meteors, and so they never intervene between
us and the clouds. Besides, a whirlwind is borne along more swiftly
than any cloud, and rotates as on a pivot. And in addition to this, it 2
ceases all of a sudden, bursting by its own force. “Beams,” on the
contrary, do not run or fly across, like torches, but remain shining
for some time in the same quarter of the sky. Charimander, too, in the
book he wrote on comets, asserts that a great and unusual light in
the sky of the size of a large beam was once seen by Anaxagoras, and
continued to shine for a long period. Callisthenes puts it on record
that a similar appearance of a trail of fire was observed before the
sea swallowed up Buris and Helice. Aristotle says it was not a “beam,” 3
but a comet; the characteristic dispersion of the fire was not seen
at first on account of its excessive brightness, but, in process of
time, when the glare began to die down, it recovered the distinctive
appearance of a comet. In this fiery phenomenon there were many points
worthy of remark, none more so than this, that, immediately it shone in
the sky, the sea came over Buris and Helice. Did Aristotle, then, one 4
may ask, believe that not merely that beam but all beams are comets?
Surely not, for there is this difference, that beams have their fire
continuous, while in the other bodies it is dispersed. Beams have a
regular flame, not interrupted or dull at any point, while in the end
parts it is condensed, just like what Callisthenes describes the one to
have been, to which I referred a moment ago.
VI
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account