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
Seneca’s account of the Nile derived from travellers and previous
writers gives a clear summary of what was then known about the river,
but of more interest is his discussion of the opinions that had been
propounded before his time as to the cause of the annual rise. He
first quotes the view of Anaxagoras, shared by the Greek tragedians
and widely accepted, that this rise was due to the melting of snow on
the uplands of Ethiopia. This idea he cogently combats by adducing
various kinds of evidence of the great warmth of the climate in those
southern regions. Some of these proofs, indeed, are exaggerations, as
where he affirms that silver is unsoldered or melted. But one of his
proofs, drawn from the habits of the animals of the country, is worthy
of notice. He remarks that no hibernating creature is found there, and
that even in midwinter the serpent is seen above ground. He argues that
in Africa, as in Europe, melting snow would swell the rivers in spring
and early summer, whereas the Nile flood continues to rise later during
four months.
In a subsequent part of this treatise (235) allusion is made to an
explanation which had been given of the rise of the Nile, that it is
due not to the fall of rain from above but to the outflow of water
from within the earth, and it is in connection with this opinion that
he cites the experience of Nero’s two centurions above referred to, as
if he were disposed to believe that what these explorers saw was really
a vast body of water issuing from underground.
The opinion of Thales is next criticised that the Etesian or northerly
winds drive the waters of the Mediterranean against the mouths of the
Nile and consequently pond back the waters of the river. This view was
of course entirely erroneous, but though Seneca rejects it, he does not
seem to have quite understood it, for he argues that, coming from the
same quarter as the winds, the Nile water should not have been turbid,
but clear and blue, like that of the sea. In commenting upon the futile
support given by Euthymenes of Marseilles to the idea of Thales, Seneca
throws light on the wide extent to which the coasts of the outer sea
had then been made known by trading vessels.
In rejecting another explanation proposed by Oenopides of Chios, the
author shows that he is aware of the fact that caves and wells are
warm in winter and cool in summer, and that he has partly divined the
reason, when he states that in winter they are warm since they do not
admit the frosty air from without and in summer they feel cold because
the warm air from outside has not penetrated into their recesses. He
returns to this subject in Book VI. (241).[115]
[115] The various ancient interpretations of the cause of the Nile’s
annual rise are succinctly given by Lucretius (_De Rer. Nat._ vi.
712–37), but he does not indicate a preference for any one in
particular, though he devotes most space to the influence of the
Etesian winds.
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