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
Posidonius and those who are of opinion that the phenomenon is produced
by reflection as from a mirror, answer their arguments thus: If there 10
were any real colour in a bow, it would persist, and be seen more
distinctly, the nearer it is. As it is, the image of the bow is clear
only in the distance; it is lost as it begins to approach. I do not
agree with this argument in refutation, though I approve the main
sentiment which it supports. And I will tell you why. The cloud _is_
coloured, but in such a way that the colour cannot be seen from every
point. And no more can the cloud itself: for no one who is in it can
see it. What wonder, then, if its colour cannot be seen by one 11
to whom itself is not visible? And yet, although the cloud is not
seen, it is there: and so is the colour. It is, therefore, no proof
of the deceptiveness of the colour that it ceases to be manifest
when one approaches it. For, I repeat, the same happens to the clouds
themselves: they are not all a sham merely because under certain
conditions they cease to be visible. Besides, when you are told that
the cloud is dyed by the sun, it does not mean that that colour of
his is mingled, as it were, with a hard, firm, durable body, but with
a liquid unstable body that is incapable of more than a very brief
impress. Let me add that there are certain artificial colours which 12
display their virtue at a distance. The better and richer the Tyrian
purple is, the higher up you must hold it to display its full blaze. It
does not cease to possess its colour simply because it does not reveal
its best shade in any and every position in which it is exhibited. I
am of the same opinion as Posidonius in holding that the bow is formed
in a cloud shaped like a hollow round mirror, whose form is that of a
section through a ball. This cannot be proved without the aid of 13
geometry: the mathematical proofs leave no doubt that the bow is an
image of the sun, but one that does not resemble it. Nor, indeed, are
all objects faithfully represented in mirrors. There are some mirrors
one is terrified to let one’s eyes rest upon, such is the misshapen and
distorted image they reproduce of those who gaze upon them. They deform
the likeness they preserve withal. Some, again, there are, a glance at
which causes great self-satisfaction in one’s strength: the arms are 14
enormously increased, and the appearance of the whole body is enlarged
to superhuman proportions. There are mirrors that turn faces to the
right, and mirrors that turn them to the left, others twist and even
invert them. What wonder, then, that a mirror of this kind should be
formed in a cloud by which a defective appearance of the sun should be
presented?
VI
Among the other arguments it must be mentioned that a rainbow never 1
is seen greater than a semicircle: the higher the sun is, too, the
smaller is the bow. As our countryman Virgil says:
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